Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Experiencing technical difficulties since 1999

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Forgotten prenup

take meds and forget prenups with them
  [vote for,

Prenuptial agreements have a very positive effect on divorce proceedings, setting asset allocations and other effects to something agreed upon in a less traumatic and negative environment. They speed and lower the cost of divorces.

The downside to a prenup is the feeling that it's less romantic and the possibility that people may see it as an "easy out".

Both persons to be married would take drugs that interfere with memory and then hash out a prenuptial agreement, which would be sealed until such a time as a divorce may be desired. The benefits of a prenup decided whilst sound in mind and amicably arrived at could be had and the harm of having that in the back of one's mind would not.

Voice, Jun 28 2014

I had to dig it up. Anti-unrequited-love_20drug
It's about altering the memory, not wiping it out. But the jest is the same. I think. [blissmiss, Jun 28 2014]

Here's one for a device, as opposed to a drug. Forget_20device
[blissmiss, Jun 28 2014]

For [Skewed] Announcing_20the_20latest_20Bakeling
I miss his daily contributions. [blissmiss, Jun 28 2014]

Forget-Me-Now http://arresteddeve...t-Me-Now_%28pill%29
[Canuck, Jul 04 2014]


       The whole process would have to be video recorded, otherwise people would claim they weren't in their right mind / must have been drugged / must have been coerced etc. (making for even more protracted, expensive & messy divorces than now, what with the difficulty of addressing the evidentiary requirements (etc.) when neither party can remember anything).
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       What drug would this be, and why would this not be a WIBNI? I don't see the idea here, other than taking a drug to alter one's memory, which has been done in many different varieties here, and in many, many different discussions. From "Unrequited Love" on...   

       I agree with the prenuptial feelings though. It would cheapen my feelings in some way. I think. I don't know and will never know that feeling, I think.
blissmiss, Jun 28 2014

       //What drug would this be, and why would this not be a WIBNI?//   

       Ketamine would be a possible candidate for a start (of course it would have to be administered post decision making so you'd get a limited time frame to make the decisions).   

       And I'm pretty sure we have other drugs that can simply block the uptake of memory while in effect without otherwise overly effecting the cognitive process, if we haven't it shouldn't be hard to develop one, presumably it's just a case of finding a protein to block certain receptors?   

       I think you might be able to jazz the memory portion of the brain with a little wavelength or something as well, seem to remember something vaguely about an article there.   

       However, barring the Ketamine, I'd have to do a few hours surfing to come up with anything definitive, so ignore the others, but Ketamine could work.
Skewed, Jun 28 2014


       From your link [bliss] I get 'ECT', which jogs the old neurons & the words Electro Cognitive Therapy, a quick search leads me to, electroconvulsive therapy....   

       Nope that wasn't it, you can hardly make decisions while having your brain fried, it was a far gentler & less invasive process I remember, the participants where conscious, without pain, & talking readily.   

       I think it might have been a TV science program, notoriously light on the 'science' most of them granted, & I don't think they were talking about using it for memory, it was something to do with effecting the decision making process, to be more or less sociopathic, or something, but I was thinking (maybe) with a little tinkering the process might have other applications, the decision they were being asked to make was along the lines of would you let this person die to save another.   

       Nope, sorry, we'll have to stick with the Ketamine for now.
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       All that aside, don't like it, want to remember more not less (regardless of a little emotional discomfort).   

       Don't think it's a WIBNI, do think it's half baked (at least)?
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       I sit corrected.
blissmiss, Jun 28 2014

       Don't stand (or sit) corrected, I just said I thought.   

       I may be wrong & none of the other methods exist / work, while I'm not entirely sure how much memory prior to taking (if any) gets wiped with Ketamine.   

       The Ketamine assertion is partly predicated on some guess work from a couple of club experiences where I was sharing drinks with female friends (the kind of night they got them free / discounted), so necessarily (by the nature of the experiences) reliant on a lot of guess work & piecing together from 2nd hand reports & may of course have been purely alcohol related, though the 2nd hand reports assert only 2-4 drinks were consumed.
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       Yeah, wait. I remember now. Just drink a shit load of tequila, and you won't remember a thing. For several years. I stand corrected, of my sitting corrected, earlier posture.
blissmiss, Jun 28 2014

       Throw in a lot of lysergic acid, some peyote & a few psilocybin mushrooms with a bit of wormwood (purely for flavour / no known active compound in absinthe besides ethanol), add a generous dose of amphetamine sulphate to buffer the effects of the alcohol (so you can drink more) & it's often guaranteed, if only because you really, really, don't want to remember.   

       I should point out most of these I've never tried (including (disappointingly) the absinthe), & the others am only rumoured (to have) & will deny if called to in a court of law ;p   

       Accept alcohol of course.
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       Interestingly enough (to me) I can actually remember the instant of memory loss in one (unrelated to the presumed Ketamine incidents) alcohol 'black out' (the memories from those do occasionally resurface).   

       It was literally like having the tape rewound.   

       One moment I'm fumbling with my keys at the font door & the next (just after dropping the keys) everything back to the point where I'd just sat down with my 1st pint, was gone.   

       [fumbling in your pocket for the keys (not remembering you just dropped them) with no porch light so you can't see them just by your foot, no idea how many hours / days (or longer) it's been since your last memory, start to panic, clamp down on that & stop to think logically, your first memory was with your hand on the door..... maybe you only just dropped them, feel around blindly on floor, find keys, overwhelming relief!]   

       The moment a few weeks later when the memory of that precise moment of memory loss came flooding back together with a full memory of the night (or as full a memory as for any normal / non-drinking night) was one of the strangest experiences I've ever had.   

       Which is why I'm sure there must be a chemical method (at least) to achieve this.   

       Not (as previously said) that I'd want to.
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       One of the very small number of things that are wrong with mind bending chemicals is that they are a bit of a blunt instrument, rarely working uniformly across the dosees. Would it not be better for the lawyer to offer a solution which requires only a robust waiver and a degree of hand-eye coordination, rather than so much expensive and bewildering medical treatment? Yes, thrown into the fixed fee arrangement for the prenup is a pair of hammer blows to the temple, one per signatory, immediately following execution of the agreement.
calum, Jun 28 2014

       I like that one :)
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       The entire problem could be solved by a standard, uniform and compulsory prenuptial contract, describing the basis on which assets are to be divided and how the contribution of each partner to the marriage is to be evaluated.   

       That way, nobody has to haggle over the agreement; nobody has to feel mercenary.   

       Sometimes it puzzles me that I'm not head of government somewhere, and don't own a country.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 28 2014

       Speaking of alcohol reminds me.   

       I seem to recall the way it's supposed to work is that the ethanol jiggers with brain chemistry somehow.   

       So the way the brain codes memories (if that's the way to describe it) is slightly altered during a period of inebriation, meaning that when you're sober again the memories are still there just stored under a different key system than a sober brain uses.   

       If that's so then if the process can be identified & replicated (without the inebriation side effects) it would be perfect, come the divorce both parties just pop the same pill again & presto!, instant recall of the original agreement.
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       //could be solved by a standard, uniform and compulsory prenuptial contract//   

       What [Max] said, though.   

       It occurs that we already effectively have that in the standard form of division handed out by the courts in the absence of an existing pre-nup & too much legal argument by both parties.   

       It's just that it's outdated, tends to assume the husband is always the primary breadwinner & that the spouse (wife) can't possibly survive without at least half of the others (husbands) earnings, the house, & any major / significant costs paid out of the husbands remaining share.   

       Obviously that's slightly outdated representation & the situation has improved (plus the 'husband' can now be the wife).   

       But the illustration holds true to the extent that the kind of uncontested judgement handed down by the courts is far too often considered unequitable (by one or other), hence the need for pre-nups.
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       What [skewed] said. Especially the bit where he said //What [Max] said//
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 28 2014

       //Sometimes it puzzles me that I'm not head of government somewhere, and don't own a country//   

       Give me the southern hemisphere & you can have the north, dictators in chief, we can have a summit every 4 years to compare notes & discuss policy.   

       [8th] Can have the moon, that way he's safely out the way ;)
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       You guys are only getting away with all this face time since the real King of Kings, [21Quest], is away being a new father. When that baby starts sleeping, and he regroups, you'll both be blown off the page. HA!
blissmiss, Jun 28 2014

       Is it a competition [bliss]? I see it more as a collaboration, the more collaborators the merrier, amusement / interesting things to feed my brain is my objective here, for me this is just the vehicle for that :)   

       How old is his little one now & should I offer congrats when I 'see' him next, or is it considered rude to follow others personal details too closely?   

       <edit> Alternative response if that wasn't a serious gripe = ;p
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       The more the merrier for sure. I was just pulling your chain, so to speak, about you guys picking your territories. 21Quest used to have a rather large chunk of the domain. (The baby is not so new, but still seems like it.)
blissmiss, Jun 28 2014

       Almost sounds like you have personal contact with the family (the way you word that).   

       //used to have a rather large chunk of the domain//   

       And no doubt will again when he has the time.   

       //just pulling your chain, so to speak, about you guys picking your territories//   

       North & South hemisphere? my idea not [Max]'s (so don't blame him), I think I got the better deal there, you'll note I've stuck him with the UK ;)   


       Actually, now I look at it, I've given him what looks to be over 75% of the habitable landmass?   

Skewed, Jun 28 2014

blissmiss, Jun 28 2014

       lol, I was just gonna go through 21's list looking for that one, after reading the preceding annos; shoulda started with yours.
FlyingToaster, Jun 28 2014

       linky read.   

       'Not so new'! she's not even 3 months yet! she's barely out of her wrapper, if she was a car she'd still have that new car smell.   

       If he goes ahead with the scareboy she's going to be seriously pissed @ daddy when she's older.
Skewed, Jun 28 2014

       Sometimes it puzzles me that I'm not head of government somewhere, and don't own a country. — MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 28 2014   

       Actually you are, and you do. You just can't remember it.
normzone, Jun 30 2014

       Canada and Wales don't really count.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jun 30 2014

       Doesn't modern day anesthesia affect memory for most people?   

       I know that for my last endoscopic procedure I was lucid for the majority of it, they kept having to administer more and more anesthesia, and I remember I mumbled something to that effect to the doctor on the way out of the room afterwards... to this day my gag reflex is hair-trigger from that.   

       I've read that prior to the 1980's it was thought by science that infants were susceptible to anesthesia and so were operated on using only paralysis inducing drugs,
Hands up if you had pre 1980's surgery, <raises hand>
<shudders a little bit more>

       Did you know that for a 25 year period after the publishing of the study confirming that x-rays of babies in the womb caused cancer... babies were still x-rayed in the womb?   

       ...but I digress   

       Yes there is probably some chemical way to make a forget drug which would work on a majority of people.
No, you couldn't make one that would work on everybody.

       Life finds a way.   

       //I've read that prior to the 1980's//   

       Really, up to what age was an infant for this purpose?
Skewed, Jul 01 2014

       Apparently it was all babies.
From Wiki:

       "There's no mention of the fact that up until the 1980's babies were only paralysed, without anaesthetic, during major surgery. This became public knowledge in 1985: Jill Lawson reported that her premature Baby, Jeffrey, had holes cut in both sides of his neck, another in his right chest, an incision from his breastbone around to his backbone, his ribs pried apart, and an extra artery near his heart tied off. Another hole was cut in his left side for a chest tube, all of this while he was awake but paralyzed! The anesthesiologist who presided said, "It has never been shown that premature babies have pain."   

       It has not be shown: translation, we haven't bothered to check / we don't know.   

       So what, up to 6 months of age then?   


       From Wikipedia / Pain in babies: [Prior to the late nineteenth century it was generally considered that babies hurt more easily than adults[citation needed]. It was only in the last quarter of the 20th century that scientific techniques finally established babies definitely do experience pain – probably more than adults].   

       On the defence side it seems (from the title of some Google hits / not read them all) that there is (or was) some concern anaesthesia may carry a risk of brain damage for infants?
Skewed, Jul 01 2014


       "But there was more to it. Doctors took the official view that young babies don’t really feel pain. The belief was probably based on several things – wishful thinking, a dubious study conducted in the 1940s, and evidence that many infant brain cells are unmyelinated – meaning that the neurons lack a protective sheathing that makes the transmission of nerve impulses more efficient. Presumably, surgeons reassured themselves with the idea that the pain signal would get lost on its way to the brain."   

       //surgeons reassured themselves with the idea that the pain signal would get lost on its way to the brain//   

       I refer you back to my definition of 'not been shown'.   

       My presumption is they didn't want to know (for sure / plausible deniability (to self as much as anything) & all that).
Skewed, Jul 01 2014

       //Sometimes it puzzles me that I'm not head of government somewhere, and don't own a country.//   

       Not sure why you're puzzled. Shirley you must have figured that Great Uncle Rutherford would have built up an immunity to arsenic, especially having you as his next of kin.
ytk, Jul 01 2014

       Naw. I call bullshit.   

       Hypothesis: Babies feel pain.
Experiment: Pinch baby.
Response: Baby cries.
Conclusion: Baby got feelers! Duh...

       How much ptsd has been caused as a result of this? How many suicides? How much mental illness? How many lives ruined before the do-no-harm bit of the oath crept its way back in?   

       Even then, was it a doctor or scientist who sounded the alarm? No. It was a mom.
This has that almighty-buck kind of feel to it.

Hippocrates be spinnin in his grave.

       //Naw. I call bullshit// //Hypothesis: Babies feel pain// //Experiment: Pinch baby//   

       Precisely my point, such a simple experiment (though it may not be entirely as simple as that / & I imagine there were also certain spurious arguments along the lines of, but that's just an autonomous response, they don't actually feel pain (etc.)).
Skewed, Jul 01 2014

       Being poor is the most efficient pre-nup.
not_morrison_rm, Jul 01 2014

       Not getting married is more so.
Skewed, Jul 01 2014

       The same illogical justifications are still being used to torture animals.
Voice, Jul 04 2014

       I agree - fishing is barbaric.
MaxwellBuchanan, Jul 04 2014

       eh, I was talking about high school but fishing is barbaric too.
Voice, Jul 04 2014


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle