Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In addition to abuse, I think the most common cause is despair, really. No matter who files or makes the first move, they're tired of having the same fights about the same things over and over, they're tired of the other person saying things will change and then falling right back into the same pattern. They're tired of the lack of communication and the counseling that doesn't work. They're not seeing a light at the end of the tunnel, which is not the same thing as boredom at all.
fleetiebelle: I could not agree with you more. I think some people hang on in a marriage longer than they should do. They hold out hope against hope that things will improve, but once it is obvious that they will not improve, then the person finally bites the bullet and files. Unfortunately, by that point s/he has usually wasted a decade or more of his/her life.
Nope, my wife left me becasue she was bored and because she did not get a brand new vehical soon enough (even though it was planned only a few months after the time she left). She found some guy on the military base to start sleeping with and that was that. There is often times no abuse the women are just trading up, or what they precieve to be up.
That's funny. I thought your marriage ended because there were issues with her prior sexual abuse.
I’m going to recuse myself from the portion of the debate where children are involved, since I have no experience in the matter and can’t partake of the necessary emotions. Instead I’m writing about childless (or child-free) marriages, where the dynamic is limited to the two spouses. I will also set aside those cases where clearly there was infidelity or gross abuse, as I think that few of us would suggest that such marriages are worthy of continuation.
My question is regarding the feelings of “despair” and other deep frustrations mentioned by other posters. Clearly, some human relations are frustrating, and even concerted attempts by one partner are rebuffed or merely lead to more rancor. Sometimes the two partners maintain satisfaction for years, but then the marriage disintegrates into mutual remonstrations and indeed becomes an unbearable burden. I concede that there are reasons for terminating a marriage even if there are no obvious overbearing factors such as abuse.
However, why do we insist that individual happiness, or perceived individual happiness, is the ultimate arbiter or what arrangements we should have, what commitments we do or do not honor? Please consider, that if one spouse leaves to secure his/her happiness, often he/she does so precisely at the expense of the other spouse’s happiness. If we grant to the first spouse the right to pursue happiness, why are we so quick to dismiss the other spouse’s right to the same? And why has nobody thus far in this thread mentioned that every divorce has a societal cost, that in short, society would be happier if the couple does not divorce?
Let me reiterate this, because this is crucial. A and B are married. A thinks that A will be happier outside of marriage, while B thinks that B would be happier if the marriage continues. Why should A’s right to pursue happiness trump B’s right to pursue happiness? If A can leave “no fault”, why can’t B prevent A from leaving “no fault”?
Further, there’s C – the rest of society. I assert that C would be happier if A and B stayed together. Why don’t A and B take that into greater consideration?
Has anyone read the somewhat recent book by Stephanie Coontz, “Marriage, a History”? Her basic point is that modern marriage has become more equal, more fulfilling when it is fulfilling, but fraught with risk, unstable and quizzically frustrating. And she’s not talking about the material cost of divorce or possible biases of divorce courts. The unfettered freedom to pursue our personal ends can itself devolve into a kind of slavery. If given the complete freedom – persona, social, political, economic, familial – to vacate ourselves from the source of “despair”, do we genuinely solve our problem, or merely assuage it for a time, causing yet further problems down the road?
My question is regarding the feelings of “despair†and other deep frustrations mentioned by other posters. Clearly, some human relations are frustrating, and even concerted attempts by one partner are rebuffed or merely lead to more rancor. Sometimes the two partners maintain satisfaction for years, but then the marriage disintegrates into mutual remonstrations and indeed becomes an unbearable burden. I concede that there are reasons for terminating a marriage even if there are no obvious overbearing factors such as abuse.
However, why do we insist that individual happiness, or perceived individual happiness, is the ultimate arbiter or what arrangements we should have, what commitments we do or do not honor? Please consider, that if one spouse leaves to secure his/her happiness, often he/she does so precisely at the expense of the other spouse’s happiness. If we grant to the first spouse the right to pursue happiness, why are we so quick to dismiss the other spouse’s right to the same? And why has nobody thus far in this thread mentioned that every divorce has a societal cost, that in short, society would be happier if the couple does not divorce?
Let me reiterate this, because this is crucial. A and B are married. A thinks that A will be happier outside of marriage, while B thinks that B would be happier if the marriage continues. Why should A’s right to pursue happiness trump B’s right to pursue happiness? If A can leave “no faultâ€, why can’t B prevent A from leaving “no faultâ€?
What right does B have to make A miserable? If B wants to stay marriage, B needed to listen to A's requests to go to marriage counseling.
What right does B have to make A miserable? If B wants to stay marriage, B needed to listen to A's requests to go to marriage counseling.
Your point is well taken. In the case that you suggested, B isn't trying to sustain the marriage. B expects the marriage to just coast along, as if it were an entitlement. So if A leaves, B as it were deserves it.
But what if B says, "A, something is clearly irking you. Let's go to counseling, to explore what's amiss?" Then A replies, "No, let's not. All that the counselor will do, will be to espouse your side and to demolish my arguments as inchoate and vain. If you want to visit the counselor to discuss your own frustrations, you go right ahead."
In this case, A is set on terminating the marriage, but B is set on sustaining it. I'm not making a moral judgment that A is wrong but B is right. Instead, I'm asking the question: why doesn't B's right to pursue happiness (by sustaining the marriage) carry equal weight with A's right to pursue happiness (by terminating the marriage)?
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 06-06-2013 at 07:39 AM..
I'm always surprised by these posts that say people (usually it's 'women') initiate divorce because they are 'bored'. Have you seen that happen?
Among folks I know, divorce is generally due to severe issues like abuse and/or addiction, which the person has tried for many years to cope with.
What's your experience?
These are all recent and everyone was in their 30s.
Couple one: She initiated the divorce because he was bipolar (didn't get diagnosed until after marriage), refused to take his meds, bankrupted them by spending every penny in their accounts, and still refused to get help. This is after a number of years and 2 children.
Couple two: He in initiated the divorce because he states she was unwilling to spend free time with him or participate in any of his interests and blew him off when he tried to discuss his feelings/concerns. This was after one year of marriage.
Couple three: She initiated the divorce after he was caught in a sting soliciting a BJ from an undercover cop. This was after over a decade of marriage and one child.
Couple four: He initiated the divorce because she suddenly decided she didn't want children after all. This is after several years of marriage.
Couple five: He initiated the divorce because he didn't feel like she could have the intellectual conversations he wanted to have. This is after 1.5 years of marriage and after having been together five years prior to that.
Couple six: She initiated the divorce when she came home early and found him banging a coworker. This is after several years of marriage and a kid.
Your point is well taken. In the case that you suggested, B isn't trying to sustain the marriage. B expects the marriage to just coast along, as if it were an entitlement. So if A leaves, B as it were deserves it.
But what if B says, "A, something is clearly irking you. Let's go to counseling, to explore what's amiss?" Then A replies, "No, let's not. All that the counselor do will be to espouse your side and to demolish my arguments as inchoate and vain. If you want to visit the counselor to discuss your own frustrations, you go right ahead."
In this case, A is set on terminating the marriage, but B is set on sustaining it. I'm not making a moral judgment that A is wrong but B is right. Instead, I'm asking the question: why doesn't B's right to pursue happiness (by sustaining the marriage) carry equal weight with A's right to pursue happiness (by terminating the marriage)?
It seems to me, more often than not, A suggested counseling, B ignored them. A gets fed up and serves divorce papers. B suggests counseling but that ship has sailed.
If A never suggested counseling in the first place and B is suggesting it for the first time, then A should give counseling a try. But don't wait to agree to counseling until divorce papers have been filed. That's too little too late.
Your point is well taken. In the case that you suggested, B isn't trying to sustain the marriage. B expects the marriage to just coast along, as if it were an entitlement. So if A leaves, B as it were deserves it.
But what if B says, "A, something is clearly irking you. Let's go to counseling, to explore what's amiss?" Then A replies, "No, let's not. All that the counselor do will be to espouse your side and to demolish my arguments as inchoate and vain. If you want to visit the counselor to discuss your own frustrations, you go right ahead."
In this case, A is set on terminating the marriage, but B is set on sustaining it. I'm not making a moral judgment that A is wrong but B is right. Instead, I'm asking the question: why doesn't B's right to pursue happiness (by sustaining the marriage) carry equal weight with A's right to pursue happiness (by terminating the marriage)?
Selfish and self centered, that is why. Marriage was not meant for the society of As, who couldnt give two ****s about B or society as a whole. Its all about me attitude is what is destroying this world we live in.
Selfish and self centered, that is why. Marriage was not meant for the society of As, who couldnt give two ****s about B or society as a whole. Its all about me attitude is what is destroying this world we live in.
I agree.
If you get married, I think you make a pact to try as hard as you can to make it work.
It's not always going to be easy. Shunning outside avenues of help because you're afraid you might be wrong is stupid.
What right does B have to make A miserable? If B wants to stay marriage, B needed to listen to A's requests to go to marriage counseling.
I'll go one further and say that if B truly loved A, B would not want A to be miserable and would therefore let A go if that is what would make A happy. If anyone is selfish here, it's B.
My ex and I loved and respected each other enough not to want each other to continue to be unhappy or to sacrifice major goals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
