homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Married til the lease is up

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.    
Source: (consider it) Thread: Married til the lease is up
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451

 - Posted      Profile for Pearl B4 Swine   Email Pearl B4 Swine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A Florida lawyer has proposed a fresh idea about getting and maybe staying married: Signup for a "Wedlease"

Choose a term of so many years, and either renew, or cancel. He says it would relieve people from the expense and hassle of divorce. What do you think are the pros and cons of this arrangement?

--------------------
Oinkster

"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)

Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The expense and hassle of divorce isn't the filing of the paperwork-- at least here in the US, that's pretty cheap. It's having to negotiate the division of assets, or worse, children, that's the hassle/expense, to say nothing of the heartbreak. If the couple chooses to live together and co-mingle their assets and especially if they reproduce, I fail to see how this plan solves any of those problems one iota. I think the lawyer just wants to make a living negotiating all those end of term renewals.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When I clicked on the link I expected to find that the lawyer behind the article is Lionel Hutz.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

 - Posted      Profile for Porridge   Email Porridge   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To say nothing of the fact that often one partner will wish to "renew" the lease, and the other won't.

When I decided to end things with my partner several months ago (we were never married), I was upset (and frankly, scared about my own future)and my partner was -- well. Not fair; he's not represented here. Let's just say there were unpleasant and dramatic scenes. And though we have no children, it was plenty arduous, once he finally accepted there was no way forward together, divvying up household items acquired together over a decade.

While marriage is the primary cause of divorce [Biased] , it's the attachments and entanglements that cause all the grief when things unravel, not the mere existence of a license = legal ligature.

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267

 - Posted      Profile for Spiffy   Author's homepage   Email Spiffy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I seem to remember Robert A Heinlein posited this as the relationship of the future in some of his works from the 60s.

--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account

Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah yes, serial monogamy, but in a way to try to provide fewer lawyers with less of the martial assets; no divorce being complete until the house is sold and the proceeds paid to the lawyers. Probably better to live common law and have a lawyer draw up some sort of understanding on your own. Like gay couples sometimes did here before marriage equality.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
The Phantom Flan Flinger
Shipmate
# 8891

 - Posted      Profile for The Phantom Flan Flinger   Author's homepage   Email The Phantom Flan Flinger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
When I clicked on the link I expected to find that the lawyer behind the article is Lionel Hutz.

I expected it to be Messrs. Sue, Grabbit & Runne.

--------------------
http://www.faith-hope-and-confusion.com/

Posts: 1020 | From: Leicester, England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Or Saul Goodman...

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sounds a bit like taking monastic vows - several stages before making lifelong commitment

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Am I being cynical, old fashioned and prejudiced in suspecting that all those who advocate 'open' marriage, 'polyamorous relationships' and 'leasehold' or 'fixed term' marriages have one thing in common. They assume they will be the one that can leave or play away. Their partner will be faithful and put up with it for the sake of the honour of being linked to their so desirable selves?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884

 - Posted      Profile for angelfish   Email angelfish   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Very cynical, Enoch.

Funnily enough I recently attended a lecture on Christianity and marriage by a top law academic and he said that one of the features of marriage that differentiated it from a contract was the fact that you could not have a fixed term marriage.

To me, the idea that two people could "rent" each other for a set time is utterly repugnant. Where is the love in all of this?

--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"

Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707

 - Posted      Profile for seekingsister   Email seekingsister   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I being cynical, old fashioned and prejudiced in suspecting that all those who advocate 'open' marriage, 'polyamorous relationships' and 'leasehold' or 'fixed term' marriages have one thing in common. They assume they will be the one that can leave or play away. Their partner will be faithful and put up with it for the sake of the honour of being linked to their so desirable selves?

That, or they don't expect to have the level of emotional attachment to their partner that the partner playing away or ending the lease would matter very much to them.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013  |  IP: Logged
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967

 - Posted      Profile for SvitlanaV2   Email SvitlanaV2   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm moderately conservative on marriage myself, but it does seem foolhardy for an individualistic and sexually liberated culture to make such a song and dance about 'true love forever' when it comes to marriage. The clash of ideals is bound to lead to lots of disappointment.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having moved in strange circles in the past I have seen this kind of thing in action (albeit not state sanctioned/legally binding) before amongst neo-pagan groups.

I'm not sure what strand accepts it, but it forms a basis of understanding relationships in certain neo-pagan groups where couples agree to be together for a set number of years and then at that time to make the decision to either renew their vows to each other or acknowledge that it would not work life-long.

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It also happened in Christian circles before marriage was declared to be 'a sacrament'.

We would do well to provide rites for the various stages of a relationship - like they do with baptism in the RCIA.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Am I being cynical, old fashioned and prejudiced in suspecting that all those who advocate 'open' marriage, 'polyamorous relationships' and 'leasehold' or 'fixed term' marriages have one thing in common. They assume they will be the one that can leave or play away. Their partner will be faithful and put up with it for the sake of the honour of being linked to their so desirable selves?

Based on the polyamorous folks I know, the answer is... sometimes. I know a long term polyamorous couple, both female, one transgendered, and they've been sharing a house for close to 10 years, both of them having other long term lovers but never breaking up themselves. It's way outside what I would consider right from a personal, moral standpoint, but no obvious harm seems to arise from their relationships. Others I've known have used polyamory effectively as an excuse to sleep with someone else while emotionally bullying their long term partner into accepting it. That particular gentleman is what one might call a bounder and a cad. The eventual break-up was not pretty. Polyamory has the potential to be a mess worse than anything monogamy or celibacy can manage, and is a lot harder to get right, but for a small number of people it does seem to work. Unless I can see demonstrable harm or people ask for my opinion I'm not going to pass judgement on other people's relationships.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It also happened in Christian circles before marriage was declared to be 'a sacrament'. ....

Is there evidence for this? It doesn't seem consistent with the Early Church's admiration for virginity and general suspicion of concupiscence in any shape or form.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Wasn't that mostly Paul and because he thought the end was nigh?

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolemr   Author's homepage   Email Nicolemr   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The pain of one partner wanting to renew the lease and one partner not isn't really different from one partner wanting a divorce and one not. There are things to be said in favor of the renewable vows idea. But really, in the US at least with no-fault divorce being available in all 50 states now, there's not to much different between renewable vows and a regular marriage, if you have a prenuptual agreement at least.

--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!

Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It also happened in Christian circles before marriage was declared to be 'a sacrament'. ....

Is there evidence for this? It doesn't seem consistent with the Early Church's admiration for virginity and general suspicion of concupiscence in any shape or form.
quote:
The importance of the distinction between betrothal and marriage, and the transition from one to the other, cannot be overestimated. The distinction continued until well after the Reformation (A. Macfarlane, Marriage and Love in England). Up to the 16th century, the spousal or spousals "probably constituted the main part of the contract." Children born to couples conceived during betrothal would be regarded as legitimate, provided they married. According to Macfarlane, "it was really only in the middle of the 16th century that the betrothal, which constituted the 'real' marriage, was joined to the nuptials or celebration of that marriage. Consequently, during the Middle Ages and up to the 18th century it was widely held that sexual cohabitation was permitted after the betrothal." In France sexual relations regularly began with betrothal, at least until the 16th century when the post-Tridentine church moved against it (see J. Rémy, The Family in Crisis or in Transition: A Sociological and Theological Perspective). In Britain, "Until far down into the 18th century the engaged lovers before the nuptials were held to be legally husband and wife. It was common for them to begin living together immediately after the betrothal ceremony" (Macfarlane). According to the social historian John Gillis, "Although the church officially frowned on couples taking themselves as 'man and wife' before it had ratified their vows, it had to acknowledge that vows 'done rite' were the equivalent of a church wedding" (For Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present).

The term "processual marriage" is sometimes used to describe these arrangements, that is, "where the formation of marriage was regarded as a process rather than a clearly defined rite of passage" (S. Parker Informal Marriage, Cohabitation and the Law, 1750-1989).
It is no longer generally recognized that the Anglican marriage service was an attempt to combine elements of two separate occasions into a single liturgical event. Alan Macfarlane develops the point in detail: "In Anglo-Saxon England the 'wedding' was the occasion when the betrothal or pledging of the couple to each other in words of the present tense took place. This was in effect the legally binding act: It was, combined with consummation, the marriage. Later, a public celebration and announcement of the wedding might take place -- the 'gift', the 'bridal', or 'nuptials', as it became known. This was the occasion when friends and relatives assembled to feast and to hear the financial details. These two stages remained separate in essence until they were united into one occasion after the Reformation. Thus the modern Anglican wedding service includes both spousals and nuptials (Macfarlane).
This pre-modern distinction between spousals and nuptials has been largely forgotten; indeed, its very recollection is likely to be resisted because it shows a cherished assumption about the entry into marriage -- that it necessarily begins with a wedding -- to be historically dubious. Betrothal, says Gillis, "constituted the recognized rite of transition from friends to lovers, conferring on the couple the right to sexual as well as social intimacy." Betrothal "granted them freedom to explore any personal faults or incompatibilities that had remained hidden during the earlier, more inhibited phases of courtship and could be disastrous if carried into the indissoluble status of marriage."
It has also been forgotten that about half of all brides in Britain and North America were pregnant at their weddings in the 18th century (L. Stone, "Passionate Attachments in the West in Historical Perspective," in K. Scott and Mr. Warren [eds.], Perspectives on Marriage: A Reader). According to Stone, "this tells us more about sexual customs than about passionate attachments: Sex began at the moment of engagement, and marriage in church came later, often triggered by the pregnancy." He concludes that "among the English and American plebs in the last half of the 18th century, almost all brides below the social élite had experienced sexual intercourse with their future husbands before marriage."

Adrian Thatcher

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826

 - Posted      Profile for LutheranChik   Author's homepage   Email LutheranChik   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Trust a lawyer to come up with this.;-)

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thatcher's a theologian. So am I, albeit of a breed inferior to his.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My suspicion is that his practice is not doing too well, so he's thought of this as both a way of getting some publicity and then some work drafting his "leases". But as others have said, while this will mean no divorce costs and hassles, there will be the costs and hassles in splitting up the property of these non-married people and dealing with custody/access questions.

In NSW, there is specific legislation to deal with property issues. In very general terms, this is based on financial contributions only and ignores any value added by a woman who gives up her career and stays at home. The rationale for this is that a contribution as a homemaker is recognised in the Family Law Act, dealing with married couples, and those who choose a less formal structure have thereby also chosen this different method of property distribution

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?

I remember reading about this somewhere bu Thatcher is nearest to what I was looking for. It was quoted in response to a query of something I posted about marriage being treated in stages - like the RCIA does with initiation and religious orders do with vows.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
Choose a term of so many years, and either renew, or cancel. He says it would relieve people from the expense and hassle of divorce. What do you think are the pros and cons of this arrangement?

I can see one advantage to this. In the past (alas) I've done a number of long distance walks and have sometimes felt like giving up. I'd say "Well, just finish the day and then stop". After a rest, a meal and a good night's sleep I'd think "Maybe one more day" and so eventually, a day at a time, I'd get there. Maybe this would be the same.

Personally I wouldn't do it though ...

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?

I remember reading about this somewhere bu Thatcher is nearest to what I was looking for. It was quoted in response to a query of something I posted about marriage being treated in stages - like the RCIA does with initiation and religious orders do with vows.
There was also a report 'Something to Celebrate' from the C of E's board of social responsibility arguing for cohabitation to be blessed as a step along the path.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?

If the church was open to the betrothal system as described, and one of the purposes of said system was "to explore any personal faults or incompatibilities that had remained hidden during the earlier, more inhibited phases of courtship and could be disastrous if carried into the indissoluble status of marriage", then it's not hard to reach the conclusion that someone having more than one sexually-active betrothal prior to entering the indissoluble state of full marriage was OK with them.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?

He won't be able to answer that because the early church wasn't open to such things so there is no evidence.

The historical truth behind that big quote, for England anyway, is that engagement often preceded marriage by quite a long time, and was considered binding. Also it was not uncommon for people to have sex outside of marriage, or before marriage. And sometimes a wedding followed quickly on a pregnancy. (*)
None of that is exactly news. But its got sod-all to do with the views of the Church on anything,


(*) that shows in church records - in some times and places the baptism of the firstborn child of a newly married couple was less than 8 months after the wedding for maybe a fifth of all couples - and as of course some pregnancies were hushed up, many babies died before baptism, and quite a lot of people manage to have sex without getting pregnant for years, that would imply that the proportion of people do were having their way with each other was rather more than that.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Chesterbelloc

Tremendous trifler
# 3128

 - Posted      Profile for Chesterbelloc   Email Chesterbelloc   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Leo, how does any of the Thatcher stuff you cite give a shred of weight to your claim that the early Church was open to temporary, fixed term unions?

If the church was open to the betrothal system as described, and one of the purposes of said system was "to explore any personal faults or incompatibilities that had remained hidden during the earlier, more inhibited phases of courtship and could be disastrous if carried into the indissoluble status of marriage" [...]
And that's the very bit of the paper I think has no evidence behind it at all. What do you think happened to women who were betrothed and fell pregenant if their betrothed man buggered off? No recriminations on either side? No pressure to "seal the deal"? Both were free to pursue other sexual betrothals without stigma and see how things went second time round? Is there any evidence for this whatsoever?

What ken said, too.

[ 16. August 2013, 20:49: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."

Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged


 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools