Thinking of divorce but holding back?

This article by Libby Purves who writes regularly for The Times newspaper vaguely relates to the thread topic:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/people-will-hurt-your-feelings-deal-with-it-6hkxtj67r

"Reflecting on this painfully acquired adult skill of emotion management and "getting over yourself" reminded me of something else: last week's pharmaceutical neuro-scientific news from Oxford University's Dr Anna Machin. She roams "the frontiers of love research" and the chemistry of attraction.

Apparently a dose of MDMA (Ecstasy) has been used in marriage guidance to make couples fonder.

And within a decade, she tells us, people looking for love and connection will "squirt oxytocin up their nose before they go out on a Saturday night, at the same time as having a glass of prosecco",

Hideous. Given the existing Gadarene rush towards drunken binges, party drugs and instant hook-ups with a swipe-right stranger, followed by betrayal, ghosting, emotional dismay and even violence, it doesn't feel quite the moment to layer on more psychoactive drugs and dependencies. Not that the meds won't work: they probably will, on their own terms. Few modems reach my time of life without experiencing at least a spell on antidepressants (a useful crutch, but no way to live) or some weird paranoid reaction to a prescription-opioid: yes, emotions are influenceable, all right.

So there will be a clamour for artificial dopamine and endorphins, because the peacetime West suffers several delusions: that everyone deserves unbroken happy mental "wellness" in a grievous world, that sexual passion is irresistible ("bigger than both of us"), and that a domestic partnership must be calmly harmonious for decades, and promptly binned if it isn't. These superhuman demands will make over-the-counter happy pills demanded as a "human right" in no time.

That may suit governments. Ninety years ago, in Brave New World, Aldous Huxley predicted a population drugged on "soma", happily promiscuous and emotionally null, unlikely to carve out - either in sex or friendship - the gritty reality of fidelity, intellectual connection and the commitment that sparks independent thought, hence dissent.

Squirt oxytocin up your nose. Couple and giggle, never scale the difficult emotional steps of humiliation, self-doubt, grief, yearning and frustration. It's probably coming. And who knows? This brave-new-world delegation of human feelings to pharmaceuticals might even enable theatres to pump a dense oxytocin mist into the auditorium, making critics feel love and eloquent adoration, bypassing the higher brain functions. The plays might get worse, mind you, but troublesome critics will have gone the way Of the smallpox virus.""
 

Last edited:
grahamg said:
How would you really know when you say "I've yet to meet a child,...., etc., etc., etc.," whether you knew everything there was to know, or might need to know, in order to form a fair opinion?
Click to expand...
I apologize for not being clear. I was referring to children of bad marriages who were adults by the time I met them or it came up for discussion. As an adult, I would never discuss parents' marriage with an underage child.

Adults often describe their childhoods to each other. Those who were the product of a bad marriage or a marriage that frayed badly over the years speak of what that tension was like and how they'd prayed their parents would divorce. More than one admitted wishing one parent would die so that the rest of the family could have some peace.
 
Grahamg wrote:
"How would you really know when you say "I've yet to meet a child,...., etc., etc., etc.," whether you knew everything there was to know, or might need to know, in order to form a fair opinion?"
StarSong said:
I apologize for not being clear. I was referring to children of bad marriages who were adults by the time I met them or it came up for discussion. As an adult, I would never discuss parents' marriage with an underage child.
Adults often describe their childhoods to each other. Those who were the product of a bad marriage or a marriage that frayed badly over the years speak of what that tension was like and how they'd prayed their parents would divorce. More than one admitted wishing one parent would die so that the rest of the family could have some peace.
Click to expand...
Although we could discuss anecdotes till the cows come home I'd still believe there would be another way of looking at whatever any child, (or child of a divorced family, or a family they believe it would have been better for them had their parents divorced who is now an adult) had to say.

However, "using one case I am familiar with to a fairly large extent", it is true those court appointed officials called to comment upon the behaviour of the estranged spouses, (and other aspects), chose to ignore one of the former partners deliberately lying to them, and made no mention of it in their report, (though they seemed very annoyed at the time).

The lesson a child in these circumstances might reasonably have learned from this is that it is okay to lie in family proceedings, (or for one party to lie). Presumably they learn too it is okay for them to lie, (is this an important/desirable lesson in life, or can it be negative for society as a whole?).

The child learns too that being unfaithful to a partner, or multiple partners, can mean you gain more control over your family/children, and it can help ensure no former partner can "threaten" or even "moderate" the behaviour of the "winning spouse", (the one the court appointed officials chose to support).

Then there is all this business I keep raising about "who loves those children", those whose experiences due to divorce seem to be highly prejudicial to them, and their well being?

The law and the legal system can destroy loving relationships, but cannot make them develop or recreate them when its done so much damage, so it is highly likely I'd say a majority of children lose out in terms of who loves them after divorce. In the case I'm familiar with it is true the child tried to discourage their non resident parent from even telling them they were loved, because they knew the parent they lived with did not like this to happen, (or felt threatened by it).

Finally referring to this same case I believe the child's view was that her upbringing was "okay", but not as good (or at least certainly not better), than if their parents had been able to live together.
 

Another great thinker from the past (Sir Thomas More), described marriage in the following way in the book Utopia:
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literat...-the-discourse-on-utopia-marriage-and-divorce

An extract from Utopia, (to scare all you strongly pro divorce folks with - think yourselves lucky you were not born 500 years ago):

"Their women are not allowed to marry before eighteen, and their men not before twenty-two. If any of them be guilty of unlawful intercourse before marriage, they are severely punished, and they are not allowed to marry unless they can obtain an especial warrant from the prince. Such disorderly conduct also bringeth a severe reproach on the master and mistress of the family in which it happened; for it is concluded that they have been negligent in their duty. Their reason for punishing this so severely is, because they think, were they not strictly restrained from all vagrant appetites, very few would engage in a state, in which they hazard the peace of their whole lives by being tied to one person, and are obliged to endure all the inconveniencies with which that state is accompanied.

In matching, they adopt a plan which appears to us very extravagant, yet is constantly observed among them and accounted very wise. Before marriage, a grave matron presenteth the bride (be she virgin or widow) naked, to the bridegroom; and after that, some grave man presenteth the bridegroom naked to the bride. We laughed at this, and condemned it as very indecent. They, on the other hand, wondered at the folly of mankind in all other countries; who, if they buy but an inferior horse, examine him all over and take off his trappings; yet a wife, on whom dependeth the happiness of the remainder of life, they take upon trust, regarding only her face, and leaving the rest of her body covered, where contagious and loathsome disorders may lie concealed. All men are not so wise as to choose a woman only for her good qualities; and even the wise consider the body as adding not a little to the mind. It is certain the clothes may conceal some deformity which may alienate a man from his wife when it is too late to part with her. If such a thing be discovered after marriage, he hath no remedy but patience. They therefore think it reasonable, that good care should be taken to guard against such mischievous deception.

There was the more reason for this regulation among them, because they are the only people of those parts who allow not polygamy or divorce, except in case of adultery or insufferable perverseness. In these cases the senate dissolveth the marriage, and granteth the injured leave to marry again; but the guilty are made infamous and never allowed the privilege of a second marriage. No one is suffered to put away his wife against her inclination, on account of any misfortune which may have befallen her person. They esteem it the height of cruelty and treachery to abandon either of the married pair, when they most need the tenderness of their partner; especially in the case of old age, which bringeth many diseases with it, and is itself a disease. But it often happens, that, when a married pair do not agree, they separate by mutual consent, and find others with whom they hope to live more happily. Yet this is not done without leave from the senate, which never alloweth a divorce without a strict inquiry, by the senators and their wives, into the grounds on which it is desired. Even when they are satisfied as to the reasons of it, the matter proceedeth but slowly, for they are persuaded that a too ready permission of new marriages, would greatly impair the kind intercourse of the married.

They severely punish those who defile the marriage-bed. If both the offenders be married, they are divorced, and the injured may intermarry, or with whom else they please; but the adulterer and adultress are condemned to slavery. Yet if the injured cannot conquer the love of the offender, they may still live together, the partner following to the labour to which the slave is condemned; and sometimes the repentance of the condemned, and the unaltered kindness of the injured, have prevailed with the prince to take off the sentence. But who relapse after they are once pardoned, are punished with death."
 
grahamg said:
If you become aware of "transactional analysis", (a way of looking at human relations developed by a US psychologist I believe), you'll learn this is one of the tenets of this very well recognised system, and used by professionals of all kinds and widely taught across the world, then you will know why "negative" is better than "nothing"!
Click to expand...
 
JustDave said:
Grahamg wrote: "If you become aware of "transactional analysis", (a way of looking at human relations developed by a US psychologist I believe), you'll learn this is one of the tenets of this very well recognised system, and used by professionals of all kinds and widely taught across the world, then you will know why "negative" is better than "nothing"!"
Click to expand...
You'll find this website on another section of the forum, but for your convenience I'm posting it here as well.
https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/transactional-analysis

Quote:
"Transactional analysis believes that adult to adult communication/ transactions leads to the most effective and healthy communication thus relationships with others. The different types of transactions below explain how interactions from the different ego states interact with each other."

"When this theory is applied to adults, theorizing that men and women experience recognition-hunger and a need for strokes. However, while infants may desire strokes that are primarily physical, an adult may be contented with other forms of recognition, such as nods, winks, or smiles."

"While strokes may be positive or negative, it is theorized that it is better to receive a negative stroke than no stroke at all. When one person asks another out on a date, for example, and receives a flat refusal, that person may find the refusal to be less damaging than a complete lack of acknowledgment."
 
Give me a break, women work a full time job, Keep up with the house, cleaning, laundry, ironing, cooking, grocery shopping. I did not ask or expect to be pampered.

You do not know how it is to pregnant, the fatique, the morning sickness, the backaches. Let alone push something 8 or 10 pounds out of your pe***.
When you can do all those things, feel free to speak up.

Sorry, don't speak of things you have not done or can't ever do.
 
Blessed said:
Give me a break, women work a full time job, Keep up with the house, cleaning, laundry, ironing, cooking, grocery shopping. I did not ask or expect to be pampered.
You do not know how it is to pregnant, the fatique, the morning sickness, the backaches. Let alone push something 8 or 10 pounds out of your pe***.
When you can do all those things, feel free to speak up.
Sorry, don't speak of things you have not done or can't ever do.
Click to expand...
Mmmmmmm, yes, of course, of course, 100%, yes!
(he was joking though you know?! :) )
 
Blessed said:
No, I did not know he was joking. Not something I would think one would joke about. If so, forgive my over reaction.
Either way, just so all the guys know, it is a lot of hard work to bring a child into the world.
Click to expand...
My own father used to say if he had to give birth (or men like him had to give birth), "there would be a lot less children in the world"!

This is maybe because he kind of witnessed what my mother went through on her first pregnancy, a home birth where the child sadly didn't survive, (due to complications that may have been possible to rectify in hospital, but our health services post WWII were probably inadequate, though they did all they could for my mother during her six subsequent pregnancies, all successful including a set of twins).
 
grahamg said:
You'll find this website on another section of the forum, but for your convenience I'm posting it here as well.
https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/transactional-analysis

Quote:
"Transactional analysis believes that adult to adult communication/ transactions leads to the most effective and healthy communication thus relationships with others. The different types of transactions below explain how interactions from the different ego states interact with each other."

"When this theory is applied to adults, theorizing that men and women experience recognition-hunger and a need for strokes. However, while infants may desire strokes that are primarily physical, an adult may be contented with other forms of recognition, such as nods, winks, or smiles."

"While strokes may be positive or negative, it is theorized that it is better to receive a negative stroke than no stroke at all. When one person asks another out on a date, for example, and receives a flat refusal, that person may find the refusal to be less damaging than a complete lack of acknowledgment."
Click to expand...
Thanks, I've read the book and have been aware of Transactional Analysis since the early 70s.
 
C50 said:
That's not true, they do it so they can demand pampering for nine months! I always say if guys could do it we would get in done in a couple of weeks, tops!
(don't be hating on me now😈)
Click to expand...
Have you any more observations about child birth to impart, I'm sure we'd all love to hear them, (..., did someone suggest its like passing a coconut sized poo!)?
 
Blessed said:
No, I did not know he was joking. Not something I would think one would joke about. If so, forgive my over reaction.
Either way, just so all the guys know, it is a lot of hard work to bring a child into the world.
Click to expand...
Blessed and Grahamg, good gosh I didn't mean to upset anyone, I certainly apologize if you found my post offensive, I was 100% joking. I have a great deal of respect for women, more than I could articulate with my limited writing skills.

Mea culpa
 
C50 said:
Blessed and Grahamg, good gosh I didn't mean to upset anyone, I certainly apologize if you found my post offensive, I was 100% joking. I have a great deal of respect for women, more than I could articulate with my limited writing skills.

Mea culpa
Click to expand...
Forgive my rather harsh reply, I did not know you were joking. I don't think you upset Graham, I think his reply is just to keep the thread interesting.
 
C50 said:
Blessed and Grahamg, good gosh I didn't mean to upset anyone, I certainly apologize if you found my post offensive, I was 100% joking. I have a great deal of respect for women, more than I could articulate with my limited writing skills.
Mea culpa
Click to expand...
Definitely no offence whatsoever here either, (and apologies for my brusque style quoting your post, not intended to do anything other than encourage you to come up with more jokes "I'm sure we'll all appreciate", ..., and if you dont I'll se if I can find some! :giggle: ).
 
grahamg said:
Another great thinker from the past (Sir Thomas More), described marriage in the following way in the book Utopia:
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literat...-the-discourse-on-utopia-marriage-and-divorce

An extract from Utopia, (to scare all you strongly pro divorce folks with - think yourselves lucky you were not born 500 years ago):

"Their women are not allowed to marry before eighteen, and their men not before twenty-two. If any of them be guilty of unlawful intercourse before marriage, they are severely punished, and they are not allowed to marry unless they can obtain an especial warrant from the prince. Such disorderly conduct also bringeth a severe reproach on the master and mistress of the family in which it happened; for it is concluded that they have been negligent in their duty. Their reason for punishing this so severely is, because they think, were they not strictly restrained from all vagrant appetites, very few would engage in a state, in which they hazard the peace of their whole lives by being tied to one person, and are obliged to endure all the inconveniencies with which that state is accompanied.

In matching, they adopt a plan which appears to us very extravagant, yet is constantly observed among them and accounted very wise. Before marriage, a grave matron presenteth the bride (be she virgin or widow) naked, to the bridegroom; and after that, some grave man presenteth the bridegroom naked to the bride. We laughed at this, and condemned it as very indecent. They, on the other hand, wondered at the folly of mankind in all other countries; who, if they buy but an inferior horse, examine him all over and take off his trappings; yet a wife, on whom dependeth the happiness of the remainder of life, they take upon trust, regarding only her face, and leaving the rest of her body covered, where contagious and loathsome disorders may lie concealed. All men are not so wise as to choose a woman only for her good qualities; and even the wise consider the body as adding not a little to the mind. It is certain the clothes may conceal some deformity which may alienate a man from his wife when it is too late to part with her. If such a thing be discovered after marriage, he hath no remedy but patience. They therefore think it reasonable, that good care should be taken to guard against such mischievous deception.

There was the more reason for this regulation among them, because they are the only people of those parts who allow not polygamy or divorce, except in case of adultery or insufferable perverseness. In these cases the senate dissolveth the marriage, and granteth the injured leave to marry again; but the guilty are made infamous and never allowed the privilege of a second marriage. No one is suffered to put away his wife against her inclination, on account of any misfortune which may have befallen her person. They esteem it the height of cruelty and treachery to abandon either of the married pair, when they most need the tenderness of their partner; especially in the case of old age, which bringeth many diseases with it, and is itself a disease. But it often happens, that, when a married pair do not agree, they separate by mutual consent, and find others with whom they hope to live more happily. Yet this is not done without leave from the senate, which never alloweth a divorce without a strict inquiry, by the senators and their wives, into the grounds on which it is desired. Even when they are satisfied as to the reasons of it, the matter proceedeth but slowly, for they are persuaded that a too ready permission of new marriages, would greatly impair the kind intercourse of the married.

They severely punish those who defile the marriage-bed. If both the offenders be married, they are divorced, and the injured may intermarry, or with whom else they please; but the adulterer and adultress are condemned to slavery. Yet if the injured cannot conquer the love of the offender, they may still live together, the partner following to the labour to which the slave is condemned; and sometimes the repentance of the condemned, and the unaltered kindness of the injured, have prevailed with the prince to take off the sentence. But who relapse after they are once pardoned, are punished with death."
Click to expand...
I thought this "dry old book", (as my then wife called it!), would generate more interest here,...., those were the days hey, "during the patriarchy"! :)
 
Teacher Terry said:
I totally agree Jeni as I have seen very few couples that are happy in their senior years. Many will even say that they can’t afford to split. On another retirement forum it was eye opening to read the responses of people to a similar thread that were in long term marriages.
Click to expand...
And @Jeni I knew two people who divorced but still lived in the same house as their exes. One was a constituent with whom I had to call possible case to or receive them from him. We were in different parts of the state and developed a friendly working relationship over the phone. I used to tease him asking what his dates thought of his arrangement...did they think he was lying to them? He never seemed to have a problem in that area.

Another was a co-worker. She openly dated someone else and her ex and children were (or seemed to be) fine with it. She said she still cared for her ex, he was a good man but the had irreconcilable differences. She said they got along better after the divorce. Eventually he moved out. I'm pretty sure in each case financial issues had something to do with it.
 
grahamg said:
Use it much btw?
Click to expand...
Never. There are so many more effective theories of self growth available. The popularity of the book was derived from a bit of an over simplification of communication, but a very clever theory. Like everyone else, I enjoyed the buzz it created throughout the personal growth community in the 1970s with its unique explanation of communication types, and for a while, I went around observing the various transactions in my personal environment, but it ends there for me, and I think for most others. Once your own transaction types are identified, there are any number of methods to deal with them, and this is where the real growth takes place. I have no doubt Transactional Aanalysis has value to certain people, because we are all different. Clever, but not my cup of tea.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
And @Jeni I knew two people who divorced but still lived in the same house as their exes. One was a constituent with whom I had to call possible case to or receive them from him. We were in different parts of the state and developed a friendly working relationship over the phone. I used to tease him asking what his dates thought of his arrangement...did they think he was lying to them? He never seemed to have a problem in that area.

Another was a co-worker. She openly dated someone else and her ex and children were (or seemed to be) fine with it. She said she still cared for her ex, he was a good man but the had irreconcilable differences. She said they got along better after the divorce. Eventually he moved out. I'm pretty sure in each case financial issues had something to do with it.
Click to expand...
When I got divorced we lived in the same house while we both looked for new quarters. One of us would keep the house when the other found another house to buy. I knew that would be me, but my wife did look too. This arrangement lasted for a month, maybe two, and when we finally met with a lawyer, he was taking down personal information. He asked my wife for her address, and she said, "I'll be staying in our house." Then he asked me for my address, and I said it was the same place. The lawyer looked taken aback, and my wife said, "If he doesn't move out pretty soon, we will be Common Law." We all laughed. I did find a nice place which I lived in for a year, and then sold while I was building another house farther out of town in the woods.
 
Teacher Terry said:
I totally agree Jeni as I have seen very few couples that are happy in their senior years. Many will even say that they can’t afford to split. On another retirement forum it was eye opening to read the responses of people to a similar thread that were in long term marriages.
Click to expand...
Back in my going out to dinner years, I used to see a lot of old couples going out to eat. I thought maybe it was one of the few things both were still capable of doing. I constantly noticed couples who would eat, probably enjoying their meal, but not talking. They didn't seem happy. Mostly, I was aware of empty faces just getting through the meal. I mentioned to my cousin and his wife that old people in restaurants didn't look happy. We were even in a restaurant at the time. My cousin said he didn't think that was the case, but then my cousin and his wife were both very talkative, if mostly argumentative, but they were happy together. I passed it off as him not being very observant.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top