Jump to content

Too much invested to divorce?


Recommended Posts

A co-worker of mine spent 2 years sepearated from a man becuase she "raised her kids, grand kids, and also "raised her husband"

 

Whatever the "raised her husband" means, I dunno, but she said she was due some "Me time".

 

However, recently they reconciled and are now back together

 

Why?

 

She said, "She had too much invested"

 

Which IS a true statement....she's a 51 year old great grandmother with a family tree that has extended a good distance geographically (Most of her family is local) and she feels with that all said and done, with such a large family and also a good amount of TIME into her marraige....she's well invested or too invested to go through with any divorce.

 

That being said, I do think there's some legitimacy to that, I mean, I see this all the time, people divorcing after 25 or 30 years of marriage...and your'e an AARP age anyway? Why not continue just a little more into death?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did she separate? and I assume they each pursued outside relationships during this time?

 

Marriage is many things after a long time - and many reasons to stay it, particular if she explored some "me time" and found it was a bit selfish and singular in nature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally understand this position. Over 50 divorce is expensive, so you have to live in the marriage the best way you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Too much invested to divorce?

 

Translation: The apparently greener grass on the other side of the fence turned out to be less tantalizing than originally perceived from the married side of the fence. It happens. The ROI on the known, after examination, was perceived to be a superior value. It's an accounting exercise. Goes on all the time. Results vary, depending upon the ROI.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 isn't AARP age, for chrissake! I'd divorce today if I had to, family or not. There is no reason to think I don't have MANY happy years ahead of me.

 

My ex didn't fight the divorce, but didn't help either. In the end he was 'too lazy' to even downsize and move, and ended up burning thru all his savings and letting the house go to foreclosure. I guess he had too much invested in it, LOL! Now he's got nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I go to the AARP web site to find out that 50 is the baseline age for membership and also find out that Lauren Bacall died :(. However, that sad news bears witness to life after 50, in that she lived another 39 years, and quite successfully, as one example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I totally understand this position. Over 50 divorce is expensive, so you have to live in the marriage the best way you can.

 

This isn't true!

 

No one HAS to stay in the M!

 

I wanted freedom from the liar and cheater that he'd become.

 

I wanted freedom - from his controlling ways.

 

I was willing to lose what we'd acquired together and take my half.

 

Life is too short to settle.

 

When a person really thinks they are worth more than the way they are treated within a M - they divorce!

 

I won't live in fear anymore!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a kid, people over 40 (!) were in my opinion almost corpses. I thought there was not much to live for or to do after turning 40 or so.

As with many such presumptions this turned out to be wrong.

 

Investing - money, efforts etc. - is one thing and surely, when you separate at 50, you should expect some material or personal loss, but this should not be the only measure for living. It just depends on the point of view. A person who thinks in a banking manner, will certainly stay in personally unfavorable circumstances, as long as the account is positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My assumption is they were just worn out, posses off, disconnected and simply wanted to screw around for awhile and after a couple years realized the grass wasn't really that much if any greener on the other side.

 

That being said however a lot of people do get stuck in what is called the "sunken cost fallacy" which is when people feel they've put so much into something that they keep pumping time, energy and resources into it hoping it will pay off even though it's not panning out.

 

Worst case scenario is a gambler losing money at a slot machine or gaming table and just keeps putting more money into it because he/she has already lost so much he thinks he has to win some back.

 

Another example is a failing business where the owner has sunk a large amount of resources and the business continues to fail but the owner refuses to close the doors and stop the bleeding because he feels everything invested would all be for nothing so continues to pump even more resources into it.

 

People do it with relationships all the time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I totally understand this position. Over 50 divorce is expensive, so you have to live in the marriage the best way you can.

 

Divorce is often LESS expensive by 50. By 50 kids are often either legal adults or at least well into teens and so there isn't as many child support and spousal support issues.

 

By middle age both parties often have jobs and the means to support themselves so spousal support isn't as much of an issue.

 

And often by that time both people are pretty fed up and agreeable to divorcing so it's not as contested as when dealing with small children etc.

 

The reason there are so many divorces in middle age is because people are ready for it and can afford and won't be as harmed by it.

 

In otherwords people often divorce around 50 because they want to and they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Which IS a true statement....she's a 51 year old great grandmother with a family tree that has extended a good distance geographically (Most of her family is local) and she feels with that all said and done, with such a large family and also a good amount of TIME into her marraige....she's well invested or too invested to go through with any divorce.

 

I'm not really disputing what she she said of her specific rational but generally speaking, the more family connection and support someone has, the more enabled they are to divorce if the marriage isn't working for them. People feel more "trapped" in bad marriages if they are cut off from their support systems.

 

That being said, I do think there's some legitimacy to that, I mean, I see this all the time, people divorcing after 25 or 30 years of marriage...and your'e an AARP age anyway? Why not continue just a little more into death?

 

i am 50 and I disagree with this premise as well. If I was in an unhappy, dysfunctional marriage, I wouldn't waste one more minute staying in it.

 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course I go to the AARP web site to find out that 50 is the baseline age for membership and also find out that Lauren Bacall died :(. However, that sad news bears witness to life after 50, in that she lived another 39 years, and quite successfully, as one example.

 

 

 

All this time I thought the age was 55. I'm off to sign up for my discounts now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That being said, I do think there's some legitimacy to that, I mean, I see this all the time, people divorcing after 25 or 30 years of marriage...and your'e an AARP age anyway? Why not continue just a little more into death?

 

Because it's never too late to try to have a happy life. I was married almost 20 years and it was a mostly miserable 20 years. I stayed out of obligation and upbringing making me believe that you stay no matter what.

 

It's your only life. It's never too late to start over and try to make the rest of your life a happy one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Because it's never too late to try to have a happy life. I was married almost 20 years and it was a mostly miserable 20 years. I stayed out of obligation and upbringing making me believe that you stay no matter what.

 

It's your only life. It's never too late to start over and try to make the rest of your life a happy one.

 

You were actually miserable the ENTIRE 20 years? Even the first year?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This ties in (a little) with a discussion I had with a friend of ours. She asserted that if she won one of those big £80 million pound lotteries she wouldn't give a large sum to a friend because when people get a large sum of money they often divorce soon after. Her argument being (I assume) that the cash causes the break up.

 

I disagreed and argued that the cash enabled two people in an unhappy marriage to divorce safe in the knowledge that they could do so without ending up broke.

 

I often wonder how much the divorce rate would increase if couples suddenly came into a shed load of cash?

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...