# Marriage, what psychologists have to say



## grahamg (Feb 13, 2020)

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/living-s...18-long-term-studies

Break

"The authors of the 18 studies asked about well-being in at least one of three different ways:

- Happiness. I’m calling this happiness, but the authors of the meta-analysis use the term “affective well-being.” The participants in the studies were sometimes asked about happiness and sometimes asked about unpleasant feelings such as a depressed mood (which is different from clinical depression).

- Life satisfaction. Participants are asked how satisfied they are with their lives. The authors called this “cognitive well-being.”

- Relationship satisfaction. Participants are asked how satisfied they are with their relationship with their partner.

The first question the authors of the meta-analysis answered was: How did the participants’ happiness or satisfaction change from just before they got married to just after? (Remember, “just before” was, on the average, 4 months before the wedding. Just after was the first time they were asked after the wedding.) The second question was: How did happiness or satisfaction change over time after the wedding?

Here’s what they found:

- For happiness, there was no difference in happiness from just before the wedding until just after. Over time, on the average, happiness did not change. Participants did not get either happier or less happy as the years of their marriage marched on.
- Satisfaction with life did increase from just before the wedding to just after. But then it decreased continually over time.
- Compared to life satisfaction, relationship satisfaction decreased from just before the wedding to just after. As time went on, relationship satisfaction continued to decrease at about the same rate as overall life satisfaction.

Here’s what did not happen: Except for that initial short-lived honeymoon effect for life satisfaction, getting married did not result in getting happier or more satisfied. In fact, for life satisfaction and relationship satisfaction, the trajectories over time headed in the less satisfied direction.

What is really remarkable about the combined findings of the 18 studies is that the designs were biased in favor of making marriage look good. At least 11 of the studies included only those people who got married and stayed married.

There was one sentence in the results section of the meta-analysis about how the results were different for those studies which included people who had separated, rather than tossing them out of the marriage group: “These samples did not differ in the initial reaction; however, the rate of adaptation was significantly less negative in samples without any separations.”

Translation: Negative adaptation means that people were getting less satisfied over time. If you take out the people who got separated and just look at the people who got married and stayed married, then the decrease in happiness is not as striking. That’s another way of saying what I’ve been saying all along: If you just look at the people who got married and stayed married, you are skimming off the top. You cannot generalize from just those people to offer blanket advice such as, Get married and you will be get happier...."


----------



## grahamg (Feb 13, 2020)

A different view, more in line with my thinking:

humanparts.medium.com/marriage-is-not-me...nscious-f32c17941917


Marriage Is Not Meant to Make You Happy, It’s Meant To Make You Conscious 


A healthy marriage begins with healthy expectations

There are few things in society we’ve imbued with quite as much expectation and meaning as marriage.
We grow up thinking the hardest part will be finding the “right” person, who we assume will be the key to a happy life. The more right a person is for us, we think, the less suffering we will experience.
And, generally, people do pair up with other people they believe they’ll be happiest with (even if, in some cases, that happiness is more about security, status, or tradition than love). But sometimes, people choose who they think they’ll be happiest with only to find out they are incorrect.

This isn’t because they’ve committed to the “wrong” person. It’s because their expectations were an ideal, not a reality. These unrealistic expectations can wreck you if you let them.

The work of marriage is not about whether you find and keep your most ideal counterpart. Marriage is about what you do when you discover you can be with the most perfect person for you—and still find yourself frustrated, exhausted, dragged down, and at your wit’s end.


We choose romantic partners through unconscious “love maps.” These are cues, ideas, and suggestions we pick up over time to piece together a concept of the right partner. We gather these through experiences: familiarity, family ties, failed relationships, trauma, other people’s beliefs, our own ideas about who we are and what we should do in life. Then, of course, there’s ****** attraction, which people often confuse with compatibility.

We attach ourselves to people who most significantly mirror our strengths and wounds. We do this because there’s comfort in the familiar, and because the essential purpose of long-term partnership is to assist us in growth. If our lives are about becoming ourselves, then our closest partners can be our greatest teachers.

Marriage won’t do the work for you.

The magic of marriage is that it’s not meant to make you feel happy in that dopamine-laced, movie-ending kind of way. It’s meant to make you aware of yourself, and the more deeply you can grow, the more joy you will experience.
It’s counter intuitive, but the less you expect marriage to make you happy, the more it will.

We often say our failed relationships teach us more than anything else. But it’s our ongoing relationships that can really teach us the most. Our interactions with others show us who we are, how we behave, and what we are doing. They can be the most enlightening medium for self-awareness. There is absolutely no relationship that does this more than a person with whom you commit to build your life, home, and share a ****** and intimate relationship with for the rest of your existence.

Your life partner is an asset to you in the evolution of your becoming, but that partnership is not the whole of your becoming. You can choose to see marriage as a gift, as an incredible privilege. Marriage gives us our walking partners, not our paths. When you view your partner less as your savior and more as the person you get to hang out with until you die, you’re more likely to forgive their shortcomings and accept that they’re not, and never will be, perfect.

Our partners don’t exist to satiate our every emotional need. They exist to be companions — separate, but equal — at once our responsibility, and yet very much out of our control. Learning to love them better is essential. It gives so much more than it takes. When we can strip away the assumption they should be different from who they are, we find something beautiful underneath: harmony. Which is what we’ve been hungry for all along.

Marriage will not always make you happy, but it will do something even better. It will give you an opportunity to find happiness in peace, in letting go, in learning what’s worth fighting for, in figuring out how to love an imperfect person, in seeing what commitment is and what compromise feels like.
Marriage won’t do the work for you. That work is yours—always and forevermore. The real work is not about finding the right person. It’s about becoming the right person."


----------



## Nautilus (Feb 13, 2020)

We've made it 50 years without the "help" of psychologists.  I guess we psyched it out ourselves.  (I wonder how many of those psychologists are divorced?)


----------



## Sassycakes (Feb 13, 2020)

Nautilus said:


> We've made it 50 years without the "help" of psychologists.  I guess we psyched it out ourselves.  (I wonder how many of those psychologists are divorced?)




*53 yrs for me and my Hubby and we never saw a psychologist either.*


----------



## Don M. (Feb 13, 2020)

Same here...my wife and I have found ways to "tolerate" each other for almost 55 years...without going to some "Shrink".


----------



## Keesha (Feb 13, 2020)

Over 30 years here. 
No shrinks were ever used or needed.


----------



## Gary O' (Feb 13, 2020)

Reminds me of a poster I created a couple/three decades ago


----------



## grahamg (Feb 15, 2020)

Here is another take on what it takes to create a happy marriage (although it all sounds a bit formulaic to me):

"I am a 51 year old friendly girl who loves life. I have an incredible man in my life and we live the D/s lifestyle 24/7. I am his submissive by choice, not because I have to be. We have mutual respect for each other, we are very much in love and he takes care of me in every way. Not bragging, just sharing!

I do not have permission by my Sir to talk to or be friends with men."


----------



## CarolfromTX (Feb 15, 2020)

Who gives a rat's rear end about what Psychology Today says? Not me.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Feb 15, 2020)

Absolutely nothing wrong with seeing a relationship or marriage counselor or psychologist, if needed. Wife and I have never needed one, but if we did, we'd see one.


----------



## old medic (Feb 15, 2020)

We just had our 36th Valentines Day.... and its been a great ride... rough spots,  but we didnt expect perfection from each other, but acceptance.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 15, 2020)

CarolfromTX said:


> Who gives a rat's rear end about what Psychology Today says? Not me.



I totally agree, but there is a rub to be considered however, and it is this........my guess would be that those formulating government policy towards marriage and rules on divorce, are more likely to listen to the research by psychologists to inform them than you or I (?).


----------



## Ruth n Jersey (Feb 15, 2020)

It will be 48 years for us this April. We are just like a comfortable pair of old shoes. We both need a lot of personal space,which we give each other. I know what ticks him off and he knows what ticks me off. We use this knowledge occasionally, It keeps the blood flowing.  On a whole we have figured out a happy existence, no counselor needed. 

I've read that a marriage requires work. In my opinion if you need to work at it you shouldn't be in it .


----------



## DaveA (Feb 15, 2020)

To be fair to younger folks, I don't much recall even hearing about marriage councilors and such, back in the 50's - 60's and maybe into the 70's.  Folks just worked things out or each went their own way.  Since the advent of these councilors it seems as if the divorce rate has sky-rocketed. Not blaming them but I think that if if one's marriage is "in the toilet" , they (the councilors) are not going to be able to retrieve it. They might make you feel a little less guilty about your part in the tragedy but not much more.

Why are there so many more divorces today?  Do we jump too quick, in that period of time that the other party can still be faking the "nice and caring guy or gal".  It's tough to keep up that "nice" persona for much more than 6 months, IMHO, before the cracks start to show.  In the meantime, if you've married them it's tough luck and you're looking for a way out.

Just to cover myself - Only one marriage and it'll be our 64th anniversary this month.


----------



## RadishRose (Feb 15, 2020)

grahamg said:


> those formulating government policy towards marriage


I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.


----------



## Wren (Feb 15, 2020)

Well I have the attention span of a rats rear end, more than 6 lines and I’m done .....


----------



## gennie (Feb 15, 2020)

I think these days with the younger set, more effort is put into the proposal, the venue, the dress and the photos than the marriage itself.  Recipe for disappointment.  "So the party is over.   What now"


----------



## StarSong (Feb 15, 2020)

I briefly skimmed the article because I couldn't make sense of the quoted passages.

The thrust of the article is disagreeing with the methodology, interpretations and conclusions of 18 recent marriage-happiness studies. Since the author's field of interest and writings are specifically focused on being single (her regular column is titled, "Living Single"), I'd say she's got plenty of biases of her own.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 15, 2020)

RadishRose said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.



That's okay, I appreciate responses to the articles I've quoted from both those who feel they understand them, and those who don't.

In truth I'm making my own mind about them too, but was prompted by people asserting "marriage", or " divorce" should be all about happiness, or at least mostly about happiness, (for example what should a friend of mine do whose wife suffers depression, should he abandon her and think only of his own happiness, or stick with the marriage in the hope she gets well, and returns to her normal, loving self?).


----------



## ClassicRockr (Feb 15, 2020)

Wife and I have 99% of the same interests. My wife is my best friend and the only buddy I need. She can shoot both her rifle and handgun, reel in a trout to the boat and saddle/ride a horse. Just what I wanted a got! We darn near do everything together. We go to the gun/rifle range together. Our boat doesn't go on the water without both of us in it. When she goes to the doctor, I go with her...…..I tell the Nurse and PCP that I'm her driver and bodyguard. Both, grocery and regular shopping together. She has no girlfriends and I have no buddies. We are 100% fine with it that way. 

One thing that really brought us together, besides our same interests, we are both "clingy". Some couples, old and young, require "space" in their relationship or marriage, we do not and don't want it.


----------



## Keesha (Feb 15, 2020)

grahamg said:


> (for example what should a friend of mine do whose wife suffers depression, should he abandon her and think only of his own happiness, or stick with the marriage in the hope she gets well, and returns to her normal, loving self?).


Not my business BUT if marriage is for better or worst , considering leaving someone because they have a mental disorder is not only lame but incredibly shallow. If he became diabetic or had a stroke and was partially paralyzed, should she ditch him?


----------



## RadishRose (Feb 15, 2020)

grahamg said:


> That's okay, I appreciate responses to the articles I've quoted from both those who feel they understand them, and those who don't.
> 
> In truth I'm making my own mind about them too, but was prompted by people asserting "marriage", or " divorce" should be all about happiness, or at least mostly about happiness, (for example what should a friend of mine do whose wife suffers depression, should he abandon her and think only of his own happiness, or stick with the marriage in the hope she gets well, and returns to her normal, loving self?).


I guess it depends on what vows you made.


----------



## Capt Lightning (Feb 15, 2020)

"Why are there so many more divorces today? Do we jump too quick, "

There's an old saying, "Marry in haste, repent at leisure".


----------



## grahamg (Feb 16, 2020)

More from the psychologist quoted above (Bella DePaulo Phd):

*Divorce Rates Around the World: A Love Story*

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...902/divorce-rates-around-the-world-love-story

Break

*Why Divorce Stories Can Be Love Stories*
"Divorce can be a devastating experience for the adults who are splitting as well as their children. But it can be an empowering, and sometimes even life-saving, choice when the alternative of staying in the marriage is even worse.

Some marriages are abusive, posing risks to the emotional and physical well-being, and even the survival, of adults and children. It can be an act of love for yourself and your children (if you have any) to leave such marriages, especially in the face of an uncertain life outside of marriage and threats from the abusive spouse.

Divorce can be a love story when people love themselves enough to walk away from a bad situation.

Divorce can be a love story when people believe that they can find romantic love once again.

Divorce can be a love story when people realize that they already have love, in the biggest, broadest sense of the word. Maybe they have friends they love and family they love. Maybe they realize that the romantic version of love is just one version, and a rather narrow one at that. Maybe those friends and family who are so important to them have been in their lives a whole lot longer than their former spouse."


Divorce can be a love story when people realize that they love their life outside of marriage. Maybe they love their single life more than any other life. Maybe they especially love living alone.


----------



## DaveA (Feb 16, 2020)

grahamg said:


> More from the psychologist quoted above (Bella DePaulo Phd):
> 
> *Divorce Rates Around the World: A Love Story*
> 
> ...


Wow !!  What a great life I've missed.  Wish you'd imparted this info years ago.  My wife and I have wasted all these years with each other when there's a wealth of hidden pleasure out there within our reach.  And we've misled our children into thinking that they should select a mate carefully and plan to live out their lives with them.

All the carnal pleasures that were available to both of us but we passed them up just plugging along together.  Too late now.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 16, 2020)

DaveA said:


> Wow !!  What a great life I've missed.  Wish you'd imparted this info years ago.  My wife and I have wasted all these years with each other when there's a wealth of hidden pleasure out there within our reach.  And we've misled our children into thinking that they should select a mate carefully and plan to live out their lives with them.
> 
> All the carnal pleasures that were available to both of us but we passed them up just plugging along together.  Too late now.




Quite, and I'm sure everyone of us would like to simply ignore these psychologists, or social scientists, but as we can all see, our governments, and judicial systems are all slowly changing policies surrounding marriage and divorce, all informed by some kind of "science" one would have thought(?).


----------



## RadishRose (Feb 16, 2020)

I disagree with the author. 

Divorce is agony, in one way or another, to one or the other, or to both. More than just the couple suffer as well.

Until there is healing, which can be either rapid or never, I don't see how one can really feel happy.



grahamg said:


> but as we can all see, our governments, and judicial systems are all slowly changing policies surrounding marriage and divorce


I don't believe this, except in the cases of same sex unions.  I could be wrong, but that's my 2 cents.


----------



## C'est Moi (Feb 16, 2020)

CarolfromTX said:


> Who gives a rat's rear end about what Psychology Today says? Not me.


No kidding.  Hogwash makes my eyes glaze over.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 16, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> CarolfromTX said:
> Who gives a rat's rear end about what Psychology Today says? Not me.
> 
> 
> No kidding.  Hogwash makes my eyes glaze over.



I've no argument with anyone disliking any of the social scientists views, or psychologists views, with this exception or caveat, and it is you have to appreciate a whole lot of work has been going into their "research papers" on marriage or divorce.

The first article I quoted in the opening post, mentioned eighteen different studies carried out looking into the happiness of individuals in marriages, or those choosing to leave a marriage. That's a whole lot of work being done, no one can deny, so someone is funding that research, and I can't think of anyone other than our governments who might be funding it all(?).

Maybe they're concerned about the mental health of the population, or the effects of divorce upon the mental health of the public could be one reason, or our governments could claim the justification for providing the funding to be a desire what may promote the overall happiness of the public.

In the UK the law surrounding divorce is likely to be changed again soon, to become more in line with the divorce law in Australia, or other jurisdictions I believe, so it is hard to argue there is no pressure upon our governments or within governments to change or develop divorce laws.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 18, 2020)

Here is a summary of proposed changes to UK divorce law:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/divorce-reform-swiftly-returns-to-parliament/5102641.article

"The government has swiftly put long-awaited divorce reform back on the agenda after reintroducing legislation to end what the justice secretary called 'needless antagonism'.

The Divorce, Separation and Dissolution Bill, which was *introduced in June*, came to a standstill twice - as a result of September's unlawful prorogation of parliament and December's general election. The bill, which introduces provisions for no-fault divorce, had passed through two readings in the Commons and the committee stage. Yesterday, it was introduced to the House of Lords.

Current law requires spouses to evidence at least one of five 'facts': adultery, behaviour, desertion, two years' separation (if the other spouse consents to the divorce), or five years' separation (if the other spouse disagrees). 

The bill will replace the requirement to evidence conduct or separation 'fact' with the provision of a statement of irretrievable breakdown. The possibility of contesting the decision to divorce will be removed. The court will be able to make a conditional order after 20 weeks has passed from the start of proceedings.

Justice secretary Robert Buckland said: 'The institution of marriage will always be vitally important, but we must never allow a situation where our laws exacerbate conflict and harm a child’s upbringing. By sparing individuals the need to play the blame game, we are stripping out the needless antagonism this creates so families can better move on with their lives.'

Family lawyers, who have long campaigned for no-fault divorce, welcomed the latest development.

Nigel Shepherd, former chair of family law group Resolution, said: 'After a series of false starts last year, we are delighted that government has chosen no-fault divorce as the focus for one of its first bills tabled in the new parliament. For far too long, far too many couples have been effectively forced to assign fault during the divorce process in order to satisfy outdated requirements.'

Joanna Farrands, a partner at London and Surrey firm Barlow Robbins, acknowledged concerns that the divorce process could become too easy. 'However, the bill provides a good compromise, delivering reform without undermining the institution of marriage,' she said.

Parallel changes will be made to the law governing the dissolution of a civil partnership. The proposed legislation will not cover other areas of matrimonial law such as financial provision."


----------



## JaniceM (Feb 19, 2020)

So many of the replies here are absolutely refreshing!!!  and great to hear!!!  

@grahamg:  it seems less about "science" than "trend."  and while trends are getting stupider by the day, some of it originated decades ago.  Example:  "no-fault divorce."  I agree nobody should be stuck in a really bad marriage, but it began treating human beings as "disposable."  In my opinion, if a genuine commitment was there in the beginning, it should be permanent-  unless there's a really good reason to end it.  

As I see it, part of the problem is genuine commitment _isn't _always there in the beginning-  couples who take the approach "let's see if this works out" is almost a guarantee that it won't.  
Second, as was mentioned, people are led to believe the marriage or the other person is somehow "defective" if they're not "happy" 24/7.  In other words, unreasonable expectations.  

A third thing I've encountered a lot in recent years:  the approach that individuals should be "friends" before establishing a commitment.  It might sound sensible, but nobody I knew in the older generations took this approach-  men/women being "friends" just did not happen.  Yet for most, they had solid marriages that lasted.


----------



## StarSong (Feb 19, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> So many of the replies here are absolutely refreshing!!!  and great to hear!!!
> 
> @grahamg:  it seems less about "science" than "trend."  and while trends are getting stupider by the day, some of it originated decades ago.  Example:  "no-fault divorce."  I agree nobody should be stuck in a really bad marriage, but it began treating human beings as "disposable."  In my opinion, if a genuine commitment was there in the beginning, it should be permanent-  unless there's a really good reason to end it.
> 
> ...


Maybe yes, maybe no. Plenty of folks in my parents' and grandparents' generation who suffered through miserable marriages because the women were stuck with a houseful of kids, a crappy marriage, no job or marketable skills, no financial resources, and no power.  The rest of their lives sucked because of a poor choice made at age 20.  

In the 1960s, people started refusing to remain in terrible marriages and demanded no-fault divorces that were easier to obtain, included alimony and (in CA, at least) community property laws. 

I don't know anyone who entered a marriage with the idea of "let's see if this works out" in mind. However, I do think many modern marriages have remained healthy because the possibility of divorce exists. There's a limit to how much BS a spouse will put up with before calling it quits. 

I've never been divorced (thank heavens) but am the product of a terrible marriage. It should have ended decades before it was finally put to rest when my parents were in their 80s. A long, ugly story.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 19, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Maybe yes, maybe no. Plenty of folks in my parents' and grandparents' generation who suffered through miserable marriages because the women were stuck with a houseful of kids, a crappy marriage, no job or marketable skills, no financial resources, and no power.  The rest of their lives sucked because of a poor choice made at age 20.
> 
> In the 1960s, people started refusing to remain in terrible marriages and demanded no-fault divorces that were easier to obtain, included alimony and (in CA, at least) community property laws.
> 
> ...



In the UK there is a radio show called "The Moral Maze" hosted by a BBC presenter called Michael Buerk, who used to present the news etc.

Every week they call upon a range of experts or public figures to try to examine any question in the public domain. I haven't just heard them discuss divorce, but have no doubt it will have been covered on the quite long running show at some point, or aspects of divorce and marriage will have been discussed, I'm confident is the case.

However, my point in mentioning this radio show is that those taking part in discussions point out sometimes, the fact there are competing rights at play, in so many the issues under debate.

You say you were the product of an unhappy marriage, and I'm not going to argue with you obviously, but would you feel or wish that marriage had never taken place, hence you'd never been born? Could it not be that there was once love between your parents, and therefore good enough reason for them to marry in the first place?

If the whole drift of our government's policies on marriage/divorce is always toward making divorce easier, at what point does abandoning the idea of marriage altogether become a better proposal? Marriage used to be looked upon as a pillar of the state in the UK, and only communist countries were supposed to see the family unit as a threat, and wish to discourage it, or lead to its demise.


----------



## Keesha (Feb 19, 2020)

I’ve never been married traditionally; only common law ( 30plus ) so didn’t make any vows to God or sign any document but I believe our commitment to one another is just as strong as the average marriage.

Just because we don’t share last names doesn’t mean we don’t share true commitment.

Maybe marriages lasted longer before because they had to. That doesn’t mean they were happy marriages. Past marriages were more dependent than they are today and there weren’t as many opportunities so more people stayed married possibly because they had to. They had no other choice.

Maybe those that marry now stay together because they ‘want’ which trumps staying because they ‘have’ to, in my opinion.


----------



## C'est Moi (Feb 19, 2020)

Keesha said:


> Maybe marriages lasted longer before because they had to. That doesn’t mean they were happy marriages.


Exactly.   A generation ago, divorce carried a huge stigma, combined with the second-class status of women making it impossible to live on one's own.


----------



## StarSong (Feb 20, 2020)

grahamg said:


> In the UK there is a radio show called "The Moral Maze" hosted by a BBC presenter called Michael Buerk, who used to present the news etc.
> 
> Every week they call upon a range of experts or public figures to try to examine any question in the public domain. I haven't just heard them discuss divorce, but have no doubt it will have been covered on the quite long running show at some point, or aspects of divorce and marriage will have been discussed, I'm confident is the case.
> 
> ...



Obviously I don't wish that I'd never been born. And yes, my parents were very much in love during their early years. 

My father's endless, open philandering had eroded that love by the time I was about ten years old (probably earlier), so twenty years into their marriage. My mother was good and stuck. She was a former waitress married to a highly paid executive. 

When I was ten, she had five kids (four in elementary school or younger), a dependent widowed mother who lived with us, and a husband who told her if she left him he'd put her in poverty and take the kids. Not that he'd have wanted us, he was just that vindictive. 

I don't think the answer is to eliminate marriage, but neither do I think it wise to eliminate divorce, or make it more difficult to obtain.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 20, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Obviously I don't wish that I'd never been born. And yes, my parents were very much in love during their early years.
> 
> My father's endless, open philandering had eroded that love by the time I was about ten years old (probably earlier), so twenty years into their marriage. My mother was good and stuck. She was a former waitress married to a highly paid executive.
> 
> ...



But would you make divorce easier to obtain?

That's the question you have to pose I feel, and where is it appropriate to stop making it easier, because there can be little doubt that has been the direction of travel for fifty odd years. 

I used to tell my own daughter (at ten years of age) that if she thought she should get a divorce if she were unhappy in a marriage then she should not get married in the first place, (she's happily married BTW, to a great guy she should know very well as she knew him from her first school).

I hope her marriage continues to be happy, but if there are hiccups, or even spells of unhappiness that could be overcome, then I'd hope she has as much "stickability" as my dear old mum had, and used to talk about).

Your mother had plenty of grounds for divorce in almost any era, so no argument there either.


----------



## StarSong (Feb 20, 2020)

I think divorce is sufficiently easy to obtain right now, at least in the US.  Can't comment on other countries.  

If your daughter became deeply unhappy in her marriage I would think that divorce would indeed be in order. Not talking standard marital bumps and shallows, but serious problems that aren't being solved.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 20, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I think divorce is sufficiently easy to obtain right now, at least in the US.  Can't comment on other countries.
> 
> If your daughter became deeply unhappy in her marriage I would think that divorce would indeed be in order. Not talking standard marital bumps and shallows, but serious problems that aren't being solved.



Well, may you say that regarding my daughter, and feel you might know what is best for her, but I doubt very much my own mother would have shared your view, and she thought a great deal of her granddaughter when she was alive.

By any measure you might recognise, my mother's marriage should have failed, (probably in the first six months). I wont go into too much detail, but my father was a heavy drinker for most of his life, having deceived my mother about his drinking habits before they married (they'd courted for seven and a half years before they married so she should have known, but didn't). They fell out "all the time", and yet out of these maybe unpromising beginnings, and ongoing troubles they forged a great marriage for themselves, that was the making of both of them.

My mother had numerous breakdowns, that my father was in no way responsible for, and yet he proved time and time again to be her saviour, and never ever thought of abandoning her, as I believe a friend I mentioned earlier in this thread may end up doing concerning his wife who suffers depression.

So, as you can see we come at this topic from very different perspectives, but I'm not arguing against divorce, simply against making it even easier to obtain a divorce, removing some of the protections people like myself relied upon when we were going through that trauma.


----------



## Ronni (Feb 21, 2020)

Ruth n Jersey said:


> It will be 48 years for us this April. We are just like a comfortable pair of old shoes. We both need a lot of personal space,which we give each other. I know what ticks him off and he knows what ticks me off. We use this knowledge occasionally, It keeps the blood flowing.  On a whole we have figured out a happy existence, no counselor needed.
> 
> *I've read that a marriage requires work. In my opinion if you need to work at it you shouldn't be in it *.



@Ruth n Jersey I would respectfully disagree.  

I'm not married yet, but I know how much work it's taken for Ron and me so far to iron out the bumps as we've navigated living together, finding the compromises necessary to accommodate each other, the countless conversations we've had as we've encountered things that needed to be worked out between us.  It wasn't particularly grueling most of the time, but it was definitely time consuming and sometimes tedious. 

It was and continues to be an investment, one we're both very willing to work at and on because our relationship is worth the time and the effort.  Just because we love each other and are committed to each other doesn't guarantee a good relationship.  Taking care of the things that interfere with the relationship is what guarantees it.  

My daughter and her husband have been to counseling several times over the course of their marriage.  They've had some ups and downs, but have NEVER wavered in their commitment to each other, and have done whatever was necessary to overcome both the acute, and the chronic issues that have risen in the course of their marriage.  They HAVE worked at it, HARD at times.  They've invested time and money, have stayed up late after the kids were in bed to work at the exercise the counselor gave them, solved a variety of logistics in order to have date nites, time without kids, when it would have been easier and a lot less hassle to just stay home, both tired from very full days with work and kids and family.  It has been work. They're both strong personalities and working through stuff sometimes takes effort.  But they both maintain that the health of the relationship is more important than individual egos and preferences.

I'm not challenging you!  Even though it sounds like it I guess.      Perhaps we are just using different definitions of "work."


----------



## StarSong (Feb 21, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Well, may you say that regarding my daughter, and feel you might know what is best for her, but I doubt very much my own mother would have shared your view, and she thought a great deal of her granddaughter when she was alive.
> 
> By any measure you might recognise, my mother's marriage should have failed, (probably in the first six months). I wont go into too much detail, but my father was a heavy drinker for most of his life, having deceived my mother about his drinking habits before they married (they'd courted for seven and a half years before they married so she should have known, but didn't). They fell out "all the time", and yet out of these maybe unpromising beginnings, and ongoing troubles they forged a great marriage for themselves, that was the making of both of them.
> 
> ...


Graham, I was merely commenting on your earlier remark about divorce not being an option for an unhappy marriage.  Obviously I don't know your daughter or her marriage, so my reply was a generic one.  

Your parents apparently worked eventually worked things out. I'm glad for them. Most people don't want to remain in very bumpy marriages to heavy drinkers, nor should they have to go through extraordinary lengths to dissolve such a marriage. 

What protections against easy divorce are you referring to? Perhaps there's something going on in the UK that I'm unaware of.


----------



## Ruth n Jersey (Feb 21, 2020)

Ronni said:


> @Ruth n Jersey I would respectfully disagree.
> 
> I'm not married yet, but I know how much work it's taken for Ron and me so far to iron out the bumps as we've navigated living together, finding the compromises necessary to accommodate each other, the countless conversations we've had as we've encountered things that needed to be worked out between us.  It wasn't particularly grueling most of the time, but it was definitely time consuming and sometimes tedious.
> 
> ...


I understand Ronni, I guess because I never experienced this I assumed there didn't have to be any work involved. The hubby and I have had our differences but not to the point of really having a problem over it where we had to discuss it for hours on end or needing a counselor. My apologies and admiration for those who have gone the extra mile to save their marriage.


----------



## Ronni (Feb 21, 2020)

Ruth n Jersey said:


> I understand Ronni, I guess because I never experienced this I assumed there didn't have to be any work involved. The hubby and I have had our differences but not to the point of really having a problem over it where we had to discuss it for hours on end or needing a counselor. My apologies and admiration for those who have gone the extra mile to save their marriage.


Well to be completely fair, I should add that Ron and I both came into the relationship with a degree of baggage, I from 30+ years of abuse from my ex, and he from years of living with an alcoholic and somewhat mentally unstable woman.

My daughter and Son in Law too have had to overcome challenges related to their upbringing. Paige also suffered greatly at the hands of her misogynistic, abusive and controlling father, and William was raised by drug addicted and criminal parents, with almost daily beatings as his Normal.

Perhaps these relationships would have been as unproblematic as yours had it not been for the challenges that had to be overcome to even begin to approach marital health.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 21, 2020)

I picked up on this section of a post on another thread, and thought it relevant here, mainly because of the admiration shown for those men who show steadfastness:

_"A real man is one who shows respect to his Mother and Father, treats his family and friend,
and strangers on the street with the same respect as well. he loves his children and wife and
stays through the thick and thin. a man who will never lift his hand to a woman`s
face in anger. who will also treat her like a lady with dignity and respect always..
Who shows her how much he truly cares and loves her by telling her and surprising
her with flowers ohh my !I have yet to have that LOL... and so on.honest,
caring, gentle, kind, be a good provider, and many other things.and be at peace with himself "_


----------



## Ronni (Feb 22, 2020)

grahamg said:


> I picked up on this section of a post on another thread, and thought it relevant here, mainly because of the admiration shown for those men who show steadfastness:
> 
> _"A real man is one who shows respect to his Mother and Father, treats his family and friend,
> and strangers on the street with the same respect as well. he loves his children and wife and
> ...


Not to get off track here, but these kinds of things...the "real man" and "real woman" type generalities, they kinda piss me off.  I think it harks back to my gender stereotyping thread.  Men and women both would be wise to follow the advice above, it's good advice for every human, no matter the gender.


----------



## StarSong (Feb 22, 2020)

Ronni said:


> Not to get off track here, but these kinds of things...the "real man" and "real woman" type generalities, they kinda piss me off.  I think it harks back to my gender stereotyping thread.  Men and women both would be wise to follow the advice above, it's good advice for every human, no matter the gender.


Ronni, I was thinking along those same lines as I read those words.  All of us should aspire to those qualities in every relationship, including with children.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 22, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Ronnie wrote:Not to get off track here, but these kinds of things...the "real man" and "real woman" type generalities, they kinda piss me off. I think it harks back to my gender stereotyping thread. Men and women both would be wise to follow the advice above, it's good advice for every human, no matter the gender.
> Starsong wrote:Ronni, I was thinking along those same lines as I read those words.  All of us should aspire to those qualities in every relationship, including with children.


As my ex. used to say "In a perfect world" this or that might be the way to behave, (cue knowing look  ).


----------



## grahamg (Feb 24, 2020)

In England and Wales, changes to the divorce process in the UK could be just around the corner. One of the most prominent campaigners for no fault divorce is Baroness Hale, the most senior judge in the UK.

I am watching with interest to see how the discussion evolves, while considering what the introduction of a no fault divorce system could mean for divorcing couples in England and Wales. I’d like to take this opportunity to take a look at the divorce process as it currently stands, the implications of a reform and the key arguments from both sides of the no fault divorce debate.

*What is the Current Process for Divorce?*

Under existing divorce law in England and Wales, in order to be granted a divorce it’s necessary to prove that the marriage has broken down to a point where it cannot be saved. This needs to be proven by citing one of the 5 legally recognised reasons for marital breakdown: adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, 2 years of separation or 5 years of separation.

This means that someone in the marriage has to be at fault or the couple will need to have lived separately for a considerable length of time, in order for a divorce to be granted. One person will need to begin the divorce proceedings, stating the reason for the marriage breakdown, and the other person then needs to respond, either agreeing or disagreeing with this statement. If they disagree, then the person who began the proceedings will need to provide more evidence to support their statement (such as evidence of how their spouse has behaved unreasonably, proof that they have been deserted, or evidence of adultery).

Getting a divorce England and Wales can take a considerable length of time. There are numerous factors which need to be considered and sometimes there will be joint assets or children that also need to be taken into consideration.

*What Would No Fault Divorce Look Like?*

Under a no fault divorce system, couples would be able to formally end their marriage without either person being held at fault. No fault divorce would be a more administrative process, rather than a Court procedure.

If a couple have naturally grown apart, or are separating amicably then there will not be a requirement to lay blame on either person. Nor would the couple need to wait until they have been separated for 2 years in order to divorce without anyone being held accountable.

*What are the Arguments for No Fault Divorce?*

Baroness Hale feels that there is a strong case for no fault divorce to be introduced into UK law. She believes that being able to say the relationship has simply failed, without holding either person accountable, could ease some of the stress and pain that couples often endure during separation.

She also believes that this process would make it easier for couples to settle the terms of their divorce, without getting caught up in long-winded, acrimonious legal battles in Court.

Other campaigners have suggested that the current process for divorce can cause the relationship between the divorcing couple to deteriorate even further, as one person dredges up and documents evidence of the other’s behaviour.

*What Are the Arguments Against no fault Divorce?*

On the other side of the coin, some people oppose the proposition to introduce no fault divorce to UK law. Some believe that making the divorce process easier could be damaging to the sanctity of marriage. There is an argument that couples may not think carefully enough before entering into a marriage if they feel that they can easily divorce if it doesn’t work out.

Some have cited other potential risks associated with making divorce more straight-forward and more accessible, feeling that this could lead to more couples opting for divorce as soon as difficulties arise instead of taking the time to try to save their relationship.

If someone has been subjected to unreasonable behaviour in a marriage or their spouse has committed adultery, then there is also an argument that the offending spouse should not have the option of getting a divorce without being held to account.

In place of a no fault divorce option, it has been suggested that there could be an opportunity instead to educate people on the implications of marriage and the financial risks that they could face if the marriage breaks down. This could encourage people to consider the true gravity of the marriage contract and think more carefully before tying the knot, possibly negating the need for an easier divorce option.

*What the Future Holds*

The truth is that there can never be a “one size fits all” approach to divorce, which makes the matter of amending divorce law all the more delicate. The infinitely complex nature of relationships means that every marriage breakdown brings with it its own unique challenges.

Divorce can be a difficult and heart wrenching time for families, there are often highly charged emotions on all sides and lives can be turned upside down. The sensitive and complicated reality of divorce means that any changes that are made to the law are likely to take a considerable amount of time to implement.

We may see a no fault divorce process implemented in the future, or it may be decided that this is not the right approach. In the meantime, I will observe the “no fault divorce” debate with interest.


----------



## JaniceM (Feb 25, 2020)

I still believe the old approach needed improvement, but the changes in recent decades have not been improvements.  
One example came to mind when I read the *What Are the Arguments Against no fault Divorce?*  section.  When I was kinda new to this city, there was a short article in the local newspaper where some local politician said he didn't want Covenant Marriage to ever be allowed in this state "because fewer people would get married if they believed it would be difficult to get a divorce."  Do that many people take marriage vows while thinking about ending the marriage?!?  

Like I said previously, the old approach was not o.k.  Nobody should have to suffer in a bad marriage because divorce is too difficult, has stigma attached to it, etc.  But I do believe people should need to have a reason-  and even realizing the marriage was a mistake is a legitimate reason.  But I don't think people should "bail out" with "We grew apart" or "We wanted different things," etc.  And when there are children involved, nobody seems to think about the effects on _them, _they're treated like nothing more than other types of "community property."


----------



## StarSong (Feb 25, 2020)

Wow.  Had no idea that your divorce laws were so different from ours.  Contested divorces are a thing of the past here.  In 1909, Nevada was the first state to allow uncontested divorces.  The filer had to establish 6 months residency though.  By 1931 that period was dropped to 6 weeks. The most commonly cited grounds were "extreme cruelty" and the courts didn't require corroborating evidence.  

Since all states were required by US law to recognize every other state's marriages & divorces, Nevada became a haven for quickie divorces that would have been contested in other states. 

Today, 47 out of 50 US states permit uncontested, no-fault divorces. Property division and spousal support laws vary. California has community property laws (most assets get split down the middle) and most spousal support is figured by a mathematical formula. 

By my observation, _most parents agonize over how divorce would affect their children_. A sure recipe for making the process uglier, more expensive, and more damaging to all involved: requiring proof of fault or blame, and/or denying one party the right to split when he/she desires to do so. 

I've seen quite amicable divorces where parties have co-parented well, and were cordial and supportive of one another. Also very ugly ones where the parties waited until they detested one another before splitting. 

My grandmother used to say, "There's nothing deader than dead love." I agree.


----------



## JaniceM (Feb 25, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Wow.  Had no idea that your divorce laws were so different from ours.  Contested divorces are a thing of the past here.  In 1909, Nevada was the first state to allow uncontested divorces.  The filer had to establish 6 months residency though.  By 1931 that period was dropped to 6 weeks. The most commonly cited grounds were "extreme cruelty" and the courts didn't require corroborating evidence.
> 
> Since all states were required by US law to recognize every other state's marriages & divorces, Nevada became a haven for quickie divorces that would have been contested in other states.
> 
> ...


Are you sure there are still some states that don't have it?


----------



## StarSong (Feb 25, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> Are you sure there are still some states that don't have it?


Tennessee, North Dakota and Mississippi.


----------



## JaniceM (Feb 25, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Tennessee, North Dakota and Mississippi.



o.k., thanks, was just curious.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 25, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> I still believe the old approach needed improvement, but the changes in recent decades have not been improvements.
> One example came to mind when I read the *What Are the Arguments Against no fault Divorce?*  section.  When I was kinda new to this city, there was a short article in the local newspaper where some local politician said he didn't want Covenant Marriage to ever be allowed in this state "because fewer people would get married if they believed it would be difficult to get a divorce."  Do that many people take marriage vows while thinking about ending the marriage?!?
> 
> Like I said previously, the old approach was not o.k.  Nobody should have to suffer in a bad marriage because divorce is too difficult, has stigma attached to it, etc.  But I do believe people should need to have a reason-  and even realizing the marriage was a mistake is a legitimate reason.  But I don't think people should "bail out" with "We grew apart" or "We wanted different things," etc.  And when there are children involved, nobody seems to think about the effects on _them, _they're treated like nothing more than other types of "community property."



I apologise if I've said this already on the thread, but I used to discuss divorce etc. with my young daughter, (a subject she was fairly well versed on, and her views at ten were that what she had in regard to her relationships with her now divorced parents was "okay", but parents staying together might have been "better"!). When she used to put forward the view that if she were "unhappy in her marriage she would just get divorced", my comment in response was "Dont get married then"!

As far as I can remember the marriage vows I took included the words, "I take thee N. *to* my wedded wife, *to* have and *to* hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for *richer for poorer, in sickness and in health*, and _forsaking all others_ keep thee only unto her/him , *to* love and *to* cherish, *till death us do part*,......."

I'd say that was a fair comment to make to my daughter, if marriage now means, "I take thee N. to my wedded wife, until you or I are no longer happy, and then I will not assign any fault to you, (and I will not accept any criticism or fault on my part), and divorce do us part, whether you or I are worse for it, or poorer, or ill, or no one better takes my fancy, and only until all those things are avoided will the marriage be expected to last until death"  .


----------



## StarSong (Feb 25, 2020)

grahamg said:


> I apologise if I've said this already on the thread, but I used to discuss divorce etc. with my young daughter, (a subject she was fairly well versed on, and her views at ten were that what she had in regard to her relationships with her now divorced parents was "okay", but parents staying together might have been "better"!). When she used to put forward the view that if she were "unhappy in her marriage she would just get divorced", my comment in response was "Dont get married then"!
> 
> As far as I can remember the marriage vows I took included the words, "I take thee N. *to* my wedded wife, *to* have and *to* hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for *richer for poorer, in sickness and in health*, and _forsaking all others_ keep thee only unto her/him , *to* love and *to* cherish, *till death us do part*,......."
> 
> I'd say that was a fair comment to make to my daughter, if marriage now means, "I take thee N. to my wedded wife, until you or I are no longer happy, and then I will not assign any fault to you, (and I will not accept any criticism or fault on my part), and divorce do us part, whether you or I are worse for it, or poorer, or ill, or no one better takes my fancy, and only until all those things are avoided will the marriage be expected to last until death"  .



I respectfully disagree with your position on this. As would many on this forum, I think, given the number of people on here who've been divorced, or have loved ones that were divorced.

I'm lucky to have married the right person the first time. Not all are so fortunate. I certainly don't begrudge them a second go at it.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 25, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I respectfully disagree with your position on this. As would many on this forum, I think, given the number of people on here who've been divorced, or have loved ones that were divorced.
> 
> I'm lucky to have married the right person the first time. Not all are so fortunate. I certainly don't begrudge them a second go at it.



I know you think we're on opposite sides on this argument, and I do feel I'm on the opposite side to you too, at least so far as making divorce even easier, but it is wrong to characterise my position as trying to argue against divorce, not least because as I keep saying I'm a beneficiary of the ending of my unhappy marriage, as is my ex. (however, as I keep saying the protections I had under the law then were very helpful to me too).

Have you noticed the other thread on this section of the forum containing all the witty cartoons etc. about "better or worse"?

Couldn't be a more appropriate and fortunate coincidence could it.   .


----------



## grahamg (Feb 25, 2020)

A modern tale from the USA I came across (I'm sure similar tales are occurring here in the UK too):

_"My ex wife and I married back in 2016. At this time our daughter was 2 years old. About 2 months later we divorced. We both have 50/50 custody of our daughter and I pay $*** a month for child support, along with her day care, pre-school and sports she wants to participate in. I don’t pay child support through FSR or anything. I just pay her directly. My ex wife, who has had 2 more kids with her live in boyfriend, has decided that she wants to be a stay at home mom and is now demanding more money and saying that she can’t afford to support our daughter on $*** a month. Half the time she sends her to my house in clothes 2 sizes too small. My ex wife does not attend any school functions or sporting events. Our daughter is now in kindergarten and struggling in school and my ex wife refuses to do her homework with her. Our daughter is now in kindergarten and struggling in school and my ex wife refuses to do her homework with her. I’m now engaged and have a 6 month old daughter, along with a mortgage. My fiancé works part time but tries to stay home as much as possible with our new little one."  _


----------



## Pepper (Feb 25, 2020)

Maybe if those characters in the above story waited to be married & committed before procreating, things would work out differently.  I'm not a conservative person by nature, but this growing custom of having kids before marriage, or no marriage at all, then having more kids with a new relationship causing step and half siblings boggles my mind.  Confusing and complicated, I think.


----------



## Pepper (Feb 25, 2020)

It's also been my experience that the jerk you marry is a carbon copy of the jerk you just divorced.  May as well stick with the same jerk.  Cheaper.


----------



## MarciKS (Feb 25, 2020)

I hated being married. It was the most miserable experience of my life.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 25, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> I hated being married. It was the most miserable experience of my life.



Couldn't wait to get out of it then, (perhaps, not to put words in your mouth?), so a system where you can dissolve a marriage without any hindrance a good thing(?).   .


----------



## grahamg (Feb 25, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Maybe if those characters in the above story waited to be married & committed before procreating, things would work out differently.  I'm not a conservative person by nature, but this growing custom of having kids before marriage, or no marriage at all, then having more kids with a new relationship causing step and half siblings boggles my mind.  Confusing and complicated, I think.



Its a moot point as to whether the people featured above would have been better married or not married, and all the complicated "blended families" resulting, but it is hard to argue making divorce easier to obtain will reduce the numbers isnt it(?).   .


----------



## MarciKS (Feb 25, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Couldn't wait to get out of it then, (perhaps, not to put words in your mouth?), so a system where you can dissolve a marriage without any hindrance a good thing(?).   .


If he would've been open to counseling and at least trying to work things out, then I might have stayed. But, after crying real tears in front of me and telling me he loved me and begging me to stay while he was seeing another woman and then telling me he never loved me he just married me so I wouldn't leave. And then there's all the women who get abused in any and all ways. Yes, without hinderance is good. If there's a chance they could work it out then yeah, try. But, otherwise, they should be free to go. Same with the man.


----------



## MarciKS (Feb 25, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Its a moot point as to whether the people featured above would have been better married or not married, and all the complicated "blended families" resulting, but it is hard to argue making divorce easier to obtain will reduce the numbers isnt it(?).   .


Making it hard to obtain isn't gonna stop it. If they can't get their divorce they'll just leave either way. And by making it difficult they are putting the lives of abused spouses and children in danger.


----------



## Pepper (Feb 26, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Its a moot point as to whether the people featured above would have been better married or not married, and all the complicated "blended families" resulting, but it is *hard to argue* making divorce easier to obtain will reduce the numbers isnt it(?).   .


No, it is very easy to argue.  Government has no place messing in the personal happiness of it's citizens, even for their "own good."  Condescending and abusively instrusive. Maybe you feel the need to be instructed on how to live by this higher power, most don't.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 26, 2020)

Pepper said:


> No, it is very easy to argue.  Government has no place messing in the personal happiness of it's citizens, even for their "own good."  Condescending and abusively instrusive. Maybe you feel the need to be instructed on how to live by this higher power, most don't.




You can do away with marriage altogether for my money, then you'll have nothing at all to worry yourself over, concerning our goernments interfering in your life(?)

However, just to be absolutely clear as to what you think you're arguing, are you saying making divorce easier wont increase the numbers of blended families?  .


----------



## grahamg (Feb 26, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> Making it hard to obtain isn't gonna stop it. If they can't get their divorce they'll just leave either way. And by making it difficult they are putting the lives of abused spouses and children in danger.



I'm not trying to stop divorce, only protect the "injured party" (in the meaning of the term in our courts up until the present day, though soon to be banished from the courts power to have a consideration for the husband or wife who didn't wish their marriage to end, or break their marriage vows).

Cant see why making marriages more difficult to get out of than the example I gave above, where the man claimed he'd got out of his marriage in two months, might make anyone any more or less in danger than they were in the first place, (do you think making someone wait two years, as is the case right now in the UK, is likely to lead to more violence than allowing people to divorce in two months, if that is what happened in the above instance?). Do you think love can be just turned off or on at will?   .


----------



## Pepper (Feb 26, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Its a moot point as to whether the people featured above would have been better married or not married, and all the complicated "blended families" resulting, but it is hard to argue making divorce easier to obtain will reduce the numbers isnt it(?).   .





grahamg said:


> You can do away with marriage altogether for my money, then you'll have nothing at all to worry yourself over, concerning our goernments interfering in your life(?)
> 
> However, just to be absolutely clear as to what you think you're arguing, are you saying making divorce easier wont increase the numbers of blended families?  .


In commenting on blended families I was not attempting to control the lives of those who choose this path.  It's not up to me, and I would not use government or my opinions to control the lives of others. I'm an observer, not a control freak.  I don't know about the U.K., but here in the U.S. I have found social and economic issues playing a role.  Anyway, where you wrote:  "just to be absolutely clear as to *what you think you're arguing,*" do you have any awareness as to how condescending that sounds?
As well as "you'll have nothing at all to worry yourself over."  Did I indicate worry when I meant speculation?  If so, I'm here to clarify I'm not worried, just noticing.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 26, 2020)

Pepper said:


> In commenting on blended families I was not attempting to control the lives of those who choose this path.  It's not up to me, and I would not use government or my opinions to control the lives of others. I'm an observer, not a control freak.  I don't know about the U.K., but here in the U.S. I have found social and economic issues playing a role.
> Break



I've suggested a way of avoiding all government control via the courts into whatever your citizens might do when choosing a partner to live with, or not live with, (albeit in a condescending manner I accept), and find no desire to express an opinion as to its merits.

I agree however, just as you say you've found, quote: "social and economic issues playing a role"  - perhaps aspects worth of wider discussion by those wishing to engage with those issues.   .


----------



## Pepper (Feb 26, 2020)

grahamg said:


> I agree however, just as you say you've found, quote: "social and economic issues playing a role"  - perhaps aspects worth of wider discussion by those wishing to engage with those issues.   .


I have no desire to further engage with you on anything.  You, sir, are boorish.  Your emoticon screams it.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 26, 2020)

Pepper said:


> I have no desire to further engage with you on anything.  You, sir, are boorish.  Your emoticon screams it.



Criticism accepted with the greatest of pleasure, thanks, especially concerning "appalling" emoticons, (what do they say about "putting out the mote in your own eye?   ).


----------



## MarciKS (Feb 26, 2020)

grahamg said:


> I'm not trying to stop divorce, only protect the "injured party" (in the meaning of the term in our courts up until the present day, though soon to be banished from the courts power to have a consideration for the husband or wife who didn't wish their marriage to end, or break their marriage vows).
> 
> Cant see why making marriages more difficult to get out of than the example I gave above, where the man claimed he'd got out of his marriage in two months, might make anyone any more or less in danger than they were in the first place, (do you think making someone wait two years, as is the case right now in the UK, is likely to lead to more violence than allowing people to divorce in two months, if that is what happened in the above instance?). Do you think love can be just turned off or on at will?   .


Making a couple who hate each other stay together? Uh yes. It would just grow more violent each day and might result in more deaths.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 26, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> Making a couple who hate each other stay together? Uh yes. It would just grow more violent each day and might result in more deaths.



It is not necessary to try to portray my position as advocating people who hate one another should stay together at all, so why do you try to do it?

Maybe take a look at the "Better or worse" thread in this section of the forum, and you'll get a better idea of what I believe, and it would appear, many others think about the need for couples to at least try to make the best of marriage, where this is possible. My dear mother was told by her parents, to "refuse nothing only blows" when she married, and as I've said before she used to talk abut "stickability", an aspect of her character she found she needed quite often to make it through successfully the sixty odd years of their marriage until she died (ditto my dad).


----------



## StarSong (Feb 27, 2020)

grahamg said:


> It is not necessary to try to portray my position as advocating people who hate one another should stay together at all, so why do you try to do it?
> 
> Maybe take a look at the "Better or worse" thread in this section of the forum, and you'll get a better idea of what I believe, and it would appear, many others think about the need for couples to at least try to make the best of marriage, where this is possible. My dear mother was told by her parents, to "refuse nothing only blows" when she married, and as I've said before she used to talk abut "stickability", an aspect of her character she found she needed quite often to make it through successfully the sixty odd years of their marriage until she died (ditto my dad).


There's a difference between a successful marriage and people enduring life sentences.  What's laudable about squandering a life's opportunity at happiness simply because of vows made at age 20-ish?  Sorry, martyrdom doesn't impress me, nor does "stickability."  

I would never advise my children to "refuse nothing, only (beatings)." Nor to mete out everything but beatings. Life is too short to be miserable or to remain tethered to a tyrant.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 27, 2020)

StarSong said:


> There's a difference between a successful marriage and people enduring life sentences.  What's laudable about squandering a life's opportunity at happiness simply because of vows made at age 20-ish?  Sorry, martyrdom doesn't impress me, nor does "stickability."
> 
> I would never advise my children to "refuse nothing, only (beatings)." Nor to mete out everything but beatings. Life is too short to be miserable or to remain tethered to a tyrant.



I don't know how many tyrants there are out there, or whether the majority of them are men, but I'm not doubting our forum friend above's warnings concerning fears or dangers arising in some marriages, (its nuanced, though because as I said earlier you'd probably have condemned my own father, but his seven children, and my mother, would all have had a much harder life without his protection, business sense, strength of character, etc.).

The other aspect of children being in danger in some marriages, whilst quite true, and I've no reason to doubt it or question it, but as I'd know probably much better than "our forum friend" who highlighted dangers above, many father's I used to meet twenty years ago in my father's rights campaigning days in the UK would express real fear for their own kids, exposed to the "new daddy", or new man in their ex.'s lives. More divorce, or easier divorce, doesn't therefore necessarily create less risks to children, and some authoritative government organisations have pointed out the very opposite could well be true.

Its upsets some people to say these things, because we all have our own framework or set of beliefs we try to stick to, (the "stickability" business my dear mum used to be so strong on, she couldn't help it though, she was made that way!).

BTW my mother brought me up, and my brother up from a very early age to never hit a woman (/one of my five sisters), and neither of us ever have done. If more mothers felt able to impart that kind of behaviour into their children, you'd have to say the world would be a better place in terms of domestic abuse at  least. My dad never hit either of us boys either, so that obviously helps too, but I'd give ,my mother most of the credit.   .


----------



## StarSong (Feb 27, 2020)

I presume "our forum friend" is meant to refer to me.  How very condescending you are. 

Enjoy your pontificating. I'm outta here...


----------



## grahamg (Feb 27, 2020)

StarSong said:


> I presume "our forum friend" is meant to refer to me.  How very condescending you are.
> 
> Enjoy your pontificating. I'm outta here...



No, the "our forum friend" comment so objected to wasn't meant to refer to you, and I'm a bit at a loss to understand why you thought it was, (I expect I'd have said "you" might think this or that, if I meant "you").

Never mind hey, we've come a fairly long way on this discussion and I'm happy enough with it, and for anyone wondering the reason why I refer to anyone as "our forum friend", it is because some forums dont like you to refer to others directly by their forum name.   .


----------



## MarciKS (Feb 27, 2020)

grahamg said:


> I don't know how many tyrants there are out there, or whether the majority of them are men, but I'm not doubting our forum friend above's warnings concerning fears or dangers arising in some marriages, (its nuanced, though because as I said earlier you'd probably have condemned my own father, but his seven children, and my mother, would all have had a much harder life without his protection, business sense, strength of character, etc.).
> 
> The other aspect of children being in danger in some marriages, whilst quite true, and I've no reason to doubt it or question it, but as I'd know probably much better than "our forum friend" who highlighted dangers above, many father's I used to meet twenty years ago in my father's rights campaigning days in the UK would express real fear for their own kids, exposed to the "new daddy", or new man in their ex.'s lives. More divorce, or easier divorce, doesn't therefore necessarily create less risks to children, and some authoritative government organisations have pointed out the very opposite could well be true.
> 
> ...


As a general rule, if a couple has come to the decision to divorce it is usually at the end of the road with no hope of reconciliation or of "sticking it out." If I had stuck it out, he probably would've killed me. He hadn't begun the physical abuse yet, but it was coming. And he verbally and emotionally abused me to the point I was nearly suicidal. Now you tell me...do you think I should've "stuck it out" because that's what women were supposed to do? Be good little marital soldiers? I disagree sir. I am now taking care of myself and I am free to control the thermostat, go to bed when I want to without being accused of not loving someone, and I am happier than I've ever been for the first time in years. If he had shown any interest at all in trying to work with me to fix our problems...things could've been different. He never loved me. He only married me so I wouldn't leave him. If I had stuck it out, he'd have been having an affair behind my back and I would've been miserable til one of us died. I don't think any court has a right to tell someone they have to stay where they are not loved and honored.


----------



## grahamg (Feb 29, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> As a general rule, if a couple has come to the decision to divorce it is usually at the end of the road with no hope of reconciliation or of "sticking it out." If I had stuck it out, he probably would've killed me. He hadn't begun the physical abuse yet, but it was coming. And he verbally and emotionally abused me to the point I was nearly suicidal. Now you tell me...do you think I should've "stuck it out" because that's what women were supposed to do? Be good little marital soldiers? I disagree sir. I am now taking care of myself and I am free to control the thermostat, go to bed when I want to without being accused of not loving someone, and I am happier than I've ever been for the first time in years. If he had shown any interest at all in trying to work with me to fix our problems...things could've been different. He never loved me. He only married me so I wouldn't leave him. If I had stuck it out, he'd have been having an affair behind my back and I would've been miserable til one of us died. I don't think any court has a right to tell someone they have to stay where they are not loved and honored.



Dear "forum friend", I have absolutely no reason to question your decision, and hope I didn't come across as meaning to, my own father was not at all like the man you describe as having married, he wasn't vindictive, and certainly loved my mother (though never said so in words in my hearing, as people of his generation probably didn't). he did physically abuse my mother in the first six months of their marriage, but it was a very isolated incident in their marriage, and there was little or no violence at all towards the seven children, and only one of us was ever slapped, (and this same one by both my mother and father following separate incidents of defying them about going out under age drinking or whatever).

very different stories, and as far as mother goes stickability was a great asset, and she benefitted from a character quality she had, and probably couldn't avoid showing.


----------



## grahamg (Mar 4, 2020)

I came across this lady in our UK House of Lords, speaking on the subject of the "Divorce bill" going through our parliament at the moment, here is what she had to say, (sorry its so long):

I shall concentrate on two issues: first, the place of children within the divorce process anticipated by the Bill and the need to uphold their best interests throughout; and, secondly, the way in which the Bill proposes to change the rights of the respondent—that is, the spouse who has not initiated the divorce.

The social science evidence is clear that child development benefits enormously from the stability brought about by marriage. In this context, the state has two important responsibilities. First, it should create a public policy context that positively supports marriage through the provision of proper marriage support services and a fiscal environment that makes marriage an accessible option to all, including those on low to average income. Secondly, it should uphold marriage and divorce legislation in such a way that it facilitates divorce without needlessly aggravating conflict, on the one hand, and which does not thereby undermine the marriage commitment on the other.

I am aware that the justification for the Bill before us today is that it will help to reduce conflict. That may benefit the adults concerned but we should not overemphasise the benefits for children. In the first instance, there are some impressive studies suggesting that the long-term consequence of divorce is far more damaging for child development than the divorce process. That really needs to be understood if one is not to get the benefits of minimising conflict in the divorce process out of perspective. Beneath that, however, there is some important research suggesting that conflict is better than no conflict because divorce without conflict makes no sense to children who, in the absence of better explanations, are apt to blame themselves when things go wrong for no apparent reason. Social scientist Elizabeth Marquardt found that

“The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart.”

Similarly, research by Alan Booth and Paul Amato found that the break-up of a low-conflict family is more harmful to a child than the break-up of a high-conflict family. If the Bill is to proceed, a lot more thought needs to be given to the role of children in this process and how they will be affected by the proposed change in the law.

I now turn to the way the Bill treats the respondent. It effectively introduces a shift in power towards the person wanting to initiate divorce proceedings, the petitioner, and away from the other party to the marriage, the respondent. In the past, the seriousness of the marriage commitment meant that marriage could not be exited at will but only if circumstances demonstrated that the commitment had been broken. There were consequently some external constraints. Under this Bill, however, marriages are released from these constraints, such that if either party wishes to exit the relationship, they can do so simply by starting divorce proceedings, stating that the relationship has irretrievably broken down. No evidence is required to back up this assertion, so while the statement may, on some occasions, mean that the relationship has indeed irretrievably broken down, on other occasions, it may be nothing more than a euphemism for “I do not like being married to you any more.”

Moreover, the Bill removes from the respondent the right to contest the divorce. This means that once the petitioner initiates proceedings he can be confident that, unless he changes his mind, he should be divorced in just 26 weeks. In creating an unconstrained right to divorce, alongside the removal of the respondent’s right to contest it, it seems to me that, as currently drafted, the Bill is vulnerable to being characterised as constituting a “petitioner’s charter” when in truth it should be a charter for all concerned, the petitioner, the respondent and their children.

I am, however, concerned that this shift in power to the petitioner is greatly exaggerated by the failure of the Bill to require the petitioner or the court to tell the respondent when the divorce process begins. Under the Bill, once the petitioner has initiated the divorce, the 20-week reflection and consideration period will begin. The Government have previously stated in their response to the 2018 consultation that this 20-week period is intended.

“to ensure that the decision to divorce remains a considered one, providing opportunities for couples to change course.”

I am sure we all agree that that is a laudable aim. It is vital that both parties in a divorce have equal time to consider the decision, reflect upon their marriage and, if possible, see if there are ways that it can be saved.

Under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, however, the 20 weeks start running from when the divorce petition is first lodged, not when both parties are aware of it. This means that the spouse responding to the petition may not receive notice of the petition until a number of weeks later, for reasons such as issues in delivering notice, delays at the court or being overseas. In fact, if the petitioner does not want to tell the respondent, there is nothing—as Professor Hodson has pointed out—to require this until the end of the 20-week reflection period.

When the 20-week period is complete, the court must confirm that the petitioner has informed the respondent before issuing the first decree of divorce. If the petitioner says no, the court will tell him that it cannot issue the decree until he notifies the respondent. In this context, therefore, it is possible that the respondent will find out that they are being divorced only six or seven weeks before they are.

Professor Hodson has anticipated the damage this will bring about:

“Everyone can anticipate the trauma, distress and anger this will cause. The previous four months will be regarded by a respondent as a deceitful lie … It will badly affect opportunities to negotiate terms of any separation. It will set back the chance of resolving financial implications. It encourages the worst sort of marital behaviour.”

I anticipate that in response to this concern, the Minister may reply that moving to a system where the 20 weeks starts when the respondent receives notice could incentivise them to avoid being served notice, and thereby delay the divorce. This, however, is no defence for accepting the current arrangements in the Bill, especially as it already seeks disproportionately to empower the petitioner.

One solution to this problem would be to remove the ability of the petitioner to effect service and place it, instead, in the hands of the court. This would give the court control of the process and appropriate levers to incentivise response to service, including the warning of possible default judgments, if a response is not provided, and written warnings on court paper that the respondent may be liable to additional costs if they do not respond to service. There are also options of deeming service has been provided through proof of delivery at a registered address or a sworn affidavit of service by hand, filed by the server, either lay or professional.

In its analysis of other jurisdictions’ divorce laws, the Nuffield Foundation noted that there was a high level of consistency about when the notification period should commence. It said:

“Starting the clock only once the second party is aware of the application ensures that all parties have the same minimum period of notice. This is an important safeguard where the divorce is an unexpected and unwelcome event.”

The details of reforming the delivery of service in such cases must be sorted out by the Government. If this matter is not addressed, I am advised that the law would be vulnerable to an Article 8 human rights challenge because of the difference in treatment meted out on the respondent vis-à-vis the petitioner, and the difference in treatment experienced by those respondents who are notified by their petitioners at the start of the 20-week period and those who are not until the end.


I am concerned that the Bill is shifting power to the petitioner, leaving the respondent and, importantly, children in a very vulnerable position. As things stand, the Bill leaves a lot to be desired and it needs a lot of revision. I look forward to what I hope the Minister will say when he comes to reply: that this is indeed what is needed.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2020-02-05/debates/81678CD1-63E7-4F5A-A70F-44E3B4A4EBEC/DivorceDissolutionAndSeparationBill(HL)


----------



## David_in_KW_ON_Canada (Mar 5, 2020)

Been in the counselling field for a few decades and my saying is: Marriages aren’t in difficulty, people are.  The biggest problems people have today, imo, are: spiritual and emotional immaturity, greed, pride, lust, laziness and lack of hope.  Better character grows better marriages.


----------



## Pepper (Mar 5, 2020)

@David_in_KW_ON_Canada 
How did you help your clients achieve better character?


----------



## David_in_KW_ON_Canada (Mar 5, 2020)

Pepper said:


> @David_in_KW_ON_Canada
> How did you help your clients achieve better character?



I have an assessment process I take clients through and then a whole series of assignments and skills people need to develop to improve areas where they are lacking.  Also needed is repair from past trauma and correcting the cognitive distortions that come with living.  Emotional maturity often takes a lot of hard work facing past hurts and bitterness.  I assert that we must learn to embrace and overcome the sufferings of life; many people try to avoid this at great personal & relational peril...  I teach people how to develop joy and the strength that is the fruit of true joy.


----------



## fmdog44 (Mar 6, 2020)

Think twice before seeking the advice from another


----------



## grahamg (Mar 8, 2020)

David_in_KW_ON_Canada said:


> Been in the counselling field for a few decades and my saying is: Marriages aren’t in difficulty, people are.  The biggest problems people have today, imo, are: spiritual and emotional immaturity, greed, pride, lust, laziness and lack of hope.  Better character grows better marriages.



I appreciate all contributors to this thread, especially from anyone with professional experience to share, and perhaps allow others, like myself, to pick their brains as it were.

I believe it is true to say fundamental aspects of humanity, such as "love" are part of, or tied up with, our unconscious brains, and this means to some extent such feelings are beyond conscious control, as to whom we might feel we love.

Would you agree with that notion?

I think I remember some attempts to argue there is no such thing as a "subconscious brain", and this could be the view of some experts, but what does such a view say about our human dreams, where any of us may imagine or believe all kinds of improbable things until we wake up(?).

My ex. used to say " you can't love anyone else unless you love yourself"(I.e. have high self esteem), and whilst I agree it is good to have high self esteem, troubles come along in most folks lives don't they, and I don't believe it means they stop loving others at the same time.


----------



## David_in_KW_ON_Canada (Mar 8, 2020)

grahamg said:


> I appreciate all contributors to this thread, especially from anyone with professional experience to share, and perhaps allow others, like myself, to pick their brains as it were.
> 
> I believe it is true to say fundamental aspects of humanity, such as "love" are part of, or tied up with, our unconscious brains, and this means to some extent such feelings are beyond conscious control, as to whom we might feel we love.
> 
> ...



*Comments on your "love" statement:*

I believe that "feelings" are largely based on our beliefs or the conclusions we have reached based on our experiences in life.  Some of these beliefs are so ingrained that we don't realize they are there, yet they can be seen by what we feel and do.  As we address the "lies" and wrong conclusions we have reached, and replace them with more accurate and rational beliefs, we can often eliminate or largely diminish the negative feelings & behaviours with which we struggle.  This process in therapy is called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and is highly effective & evidence-based.  

So, to directly answer your question about "love" based on my above premise, I'd say that it depends on how you have come to define love and what you believe about love.  To say you are not in conscious control of what you experience about love may be initially true, however, I believe that you can become closely aware of what and how you think about and respond to "love" IF you are willing to do the hard work of developing more self-awareness.

*Comments on your "esteem" statement:*

I think that the idea of not being able to love others unless we love ourselves has to be defined more deeply to be accurately understood and achieved.  The idea of loving ourselves has to be rooted in being loved well by others in such a way that we learn who we are and value who we are.  If this is accomplished then we can truly love ourselves.  So, I say this to emphasize the importance of each of us being well-loved by others.  Unless we have been well-loved by others and have come to accept ourselves (as we are) we cannot develop the emotional maturity to love others well.  This KEY premise is what good relationship development hangs on!  Without being loved well and valuing one's self one cannot love others well.  Understanding this and developing this kind of emotional maturity is key to developing a healthy, long-term marriage!

The fact that so little of this level of emotional maturity exists keeps me in business!  Thankfully, this kind of maturity can be developed no matter what age you are, BUT it takes a LOT of hard work and persistence.  Have hope and work hard at it!

I hope that's helpful...


----------



## grahamg (Mar 9, 2020)

David_in_KW_ON_Canada said:


> *Comments on your "love" statement:*
> 
> I believe that "feelings" are largely based on our beliefs or the conclusions we have reached based on our experiences in life.  Some of these beliefs are so ingrained that we don't realize they are there, yet they can be seen by what we feel and do.  As we address the "lies" and wrong conclusions we have reached, and replace them with more accurate and rational beliefs, we can often eliminate or largely diminish the negative feelings & behaviours with which we struggle.  This process in therapy is called Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and is highly effective & evidence-based.
> 
> ...



Thank you for indulging my questions about love and its relationship to self esteem.

I'm a tiny bit disconcerted that you believe my ex.'s thoughts on the need to "love yourself before you can love others", has some merit, (or to love someone " well" anyway).

It is the case isn't it, that men or women entering a nightclub or wherever, and give off signals or "tells" as to whether they find one another attractive immediately, by a glance or other movement. Taking that forward, I'd guess there is some conscious thought as to whether you think the woman you're attracted to might be someone you'd think you could love, (and I suspect we all indulge in a bit of self delusion to start with, which may explain why we ignore, or choose to ignore basic flaws in the other person, and our relationship - for example whether she's truly committed to it?).

I suppose it might help if we tried to define what we think "love" might be, and whether any attempts at defining love are bound to be ultimately inadequate, (in the UK I don't think our legal system uses the word "love" in statutes, maybe for this reason, but in some US states love is used in relation to parents and their children I believe). I didn't automatically love my child when she arrived on this earth thirty odd years ago, but I did come to love her as much as I believe I could have loved any child thereafter, even though I'm estranged from her now.

I may have mentioned a rude ditty my late father used to repeat starting "love makes a man a fool, it takes away his appetite, and.......", but my definition of love would be inadequate I'm certain, if I attempted to define it, except that I'd always assert it contains elements beyond conscious control,  and if you thought it didn't, you don't really love that person.


----------



## DaveA (Mar 9, 2020)

David_in_KW_ON_Canada said:


> Been in the counselling field for a few decades and my saying is: Marriages aren’t in difficulty, people are.  The biggest problems people have today, imo, are: spiritual and emotional immaturity, greed, pride, lust, laziness and lack of hope.  Better character grows better marriages.


LUST???  Don't we all have that, or most of us to some degree.  After all, some folks CAN keep it in their minds and not act on it.  

For those who have "none", they might check with a medical professional to make sure that they're still alive.


----------



## Pepper (Mar 9, 2020)

DaveA said:


> LUST???  Don't we all have that, or most of us to some degree.  After all, some folks CAN keep it in their minds and not act on it.
> 
> For those who have "none", they might check with a medical professional to make sure that they're still alive.


He doesn't seem to like or respect his clients very much and condescends to them.  I would wonder where his degrees were obtained and what schools of thought he adheres to.  I have a hunch it's something along the lines of "pray away the gay."  Hope I'm wrong.


----------



## grahamg (Mar 9, 2020)

DaveA said:


> LUST???  Don't we all have that, or most of us to some degree.  After all, some folks CAN keep it in their minds and not act on it.
> 
> For those who have "none", they might check with a medical professional to make sure that they're still alive.



I did notice the reference to "Lust" too, though didn't immediately jump to the conclusion it must be picked out as a religious aspect of the discussion, (I accept we can all behave rashly, but if you're looking for a long term relationship with someone you might be compatible with, it might be a good idea to get to know them before jumping into bed for example).

Here is a list taken from a religious website about the "seven deadly sins" and they dont coincide with our forum friends list of factors connected with relationship breakdown all that well in my view, (not that I'm sure anyone needs my support in this discussion, but just to be fair, quote: _"spiritual and emotional immaturity, greed, pride, lust, laziness and lack of hope"_):

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

http://www.deadlysins.com/

Maybe the final word on this could be:
Benjamin Franklin said "In reality there is, perhaps no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as _pride_. Disguise it, struggle with it, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive and will every now and then peep out and show itself; you will see it, perhaps, often in this history. For even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome it, I should probably be proud of my humility. "


----------



## grahamg (Mar 12, 2020)

I found this short comment written by a friend of mine, and believe it has some relevance to this thread:

_" There are very few, if any, totally equal relationships when it comes to men and women, we all expect them to give us more than we had before they began. I'll ask a silly question to finish and to make a point. How many of the women here would have committed to their partners totally, without their partner, wooing them, giving them gifts and being able to provide the material things in life you didn't have before the relationship began, starting with the symbolic engagement ring, the wedding ring, the wedding, the honeymoon, etc etc. All those things brought the provider an expectation of payment in kind and in most instances it was given, with substantial willingness,......... "_


----------

