Pyro Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 You are purely speculating about why women file 75% of the time. You do not know why. I could equally speculate that they do so because they lack relationship conflict resolving skills, are immature and unrealistic in their expectations and lack endurance and have little tolerance for inconvenience. Come to think of it - that is much more likely than your 'theory'. Well since you or I do not know 75% of the female population that files for divorce, then neither one of us is more correct then the other. All that you and I can do is state our opinions. I don't need a book or talk show to tell me how deal with things in my marriage. The people who write these books don't know me or my wife so how can they judge us and properly assess the situation. If I don't notice of the relationship is 90% bad that would mean she has some communication problems. Well since you don't know a majority of the female population, then it would be unfair to say that a majority of their population is evil. I'm just saying.
Trialbyfire Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 Well since you or I do not know 75% of the female population that files for divorce, then neither one of us is more correct then the other. All that you and I can do is state our opinions. Well since you don't know a majority of the female population, then it would be unfair to say that a majority of their population is evil. I'm just saying. I can speak for my percentage of the statistic. I divorced him because he was a cheater. I personally see it as a valid reason for divorce, don't you?
Pyro Posted October 17, 2007 Posted October 17, 2007 I can speak for my percentage of the statistic. I divorced him because he was a cheater. I personally see it as a valid reason for divorce, don't you? I sure do.
serial muse Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 I can speak for my percentage of the statistic. I divorced him because he was a cheater. That's funny; so did I! Does that make me a "walkaway wife"? I probably should have run.
ItIs Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Woggle wrote: If you can't answer these questions for sure this is why many men are commitmentphobes. Marriage today has a 50% divorce rate and 75% of divorces are filed by women so men are taking a huge gamble when they marry. You factor in family court bias and it seems it is safer to just go down to Atlantic City and bet half of what you own. Right on, Woggle. I've seen so much "serial matrimony" that many people might as well call it their "1st marriage," "2nd marriage," or whatever straight away. And a lot people divorce for no reason other than the flame dying out ... which happens to some degree anyway. My rule #1: Do not marry before the infatuation dies down unless you stand to gain from the divorce.
ItIs Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 The fact that there's good reason to be very cautious before marrying does not apply to men only, by any means. If the woman makes more money and has greater assets, she could just as well get literally screwed out of a lot of it by a cheating fellow who gets a no-fault divorce when he's decided to look elsewhere for his kicks when she's done absolutely nothing wrong. The no-fault divorce has done as much as anything else to make marriage unattractive for many people. Whether of not more women or more men are likely to ditch a marriage on a whim is not the issue so much as the very fact they can.
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 That's funny; so did I! Does that make me a "walkaway wife"? I probably should have run. These boots are made for walking...and that's just what they'll do... The next sentence is applicable too...
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 The fact that there's good reason to be very cautious before marrying does not apply to men only, by any means. If the woman makes more money and has greater assets, she could just as well get literally screwed out of a lot of it by a cheating fellow who gets a no-fault divorce when he's decided to look elsewhere for his kicks when she's done absolutely nothing wrong. The no-fault divorce has done as much as anything else to make marriage unattractive for many people. Whether of not more women or more men are likely to ditch a marriage on a whim is not the issue so much as the very fact they can. A prenup helps to reduce the risk of losing it all or at least a goodly portion. What it fails to cover, which is only rational, is the income/assets accumulated during the length of the marriage.
jophil28 Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 I notice that women when they were with a scumbag like an abuser or a cheater they will put up with all types of mistreatment and nobody can convince them to leave this man because they are in love. The worse a man treats a woman the more she loves him. With a good man that treats them well they will pick apart the slightest most minute imperfection and start resenting the hell out of him for it. They see his weakness and they will use it against him. Hey Woggle - you and I both know the truth in this post . Don't waste your wisdom on this bunch of hens and manginas. They will never agree with you because to do so paints them in a very poor light . Women think that what THEY think is reality. What women SAY is usually meaninglesss fluff. The greater truth is in their behavior.
uniqueone Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Hey Woggle - you and I both know the truth in this post . Don't waste your wisdom on this bunch of hens and manginas. They will never agree with you because to do so paints them in a very poor light . Women think that what THEY think is reality. What women SAY is usually meaninglesss fluff. The greater truth is in their behavior. Yes....please don't waste your time with us. We could never evolve to this level of higher thinking. I'm thinking there's probably a "Hooters" open somewhere for you two to feel more comfortable at.....
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 The greater truth is in their behavior. This is accurate, the rest is pure drivel. Actions over words, gender aside...
ItIs Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Trialbyfire wrote: A prenup helps to reduce the risk of losing it all or at least a goodly portion. True it can reduce the risk considerably, tbf. If people do it properly, so it can't be cut to shreds by any competent lawyer. . But you do need to have a partner who is level-headed enough to agree to one... Now I'll play (some of you might think quite literally) the "devil's advocate": Maintaining a sexually exclusive relationship for decades is a tall order. Both men and women "cheat." I often wonder if it's not best for people -- especially those who have dealt with that issue in their marriage -- to just drop the pretense and allow each other a bit of extracurricular activity (with due precautions for safety and discretion), and not toss away the benefits of the marriage in terms of the steady companionship, having a confidante, raising children, etc.? How many married people really are more sexually attracted to their partner than anyone else with whom they could have sex (in terms of attraction and opportunity)? Might a bit of novelty elsewhere help bring some novelty into their married sex life? If people really love one another would they not want the other person to have a much sexual satisfaction as possible? To sum up, might the expectation of sexual exclusivity be putting too much of a burden on marriage? There's nothing new about this. Frances Wright spoke in such terms in the early 19th century USA (mad props to her for having the guts to bring up such issues then, of all times and places). I'm sure these very questions might get me flamed to hell, but I've given them a lot of thought ... and I've yet to "cheat" on anyone when in an exclusive relationship, amazing as it may seem to some of you after reading the above. OK, now flame away ... (ItIs dons fireproof suit)
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 How many married people really are more sexually attracted to their partner than anyone else with whom they could have sex (in terms of attraction and opportunity)? Might a bit of novelty elsewhere help bring some novelty into their married sex life? I can honestly say through personal experience, that I'm one of the more unrealistic group that is more attracted to my partner, than novelty. If both parties are committed to the marriage or relationship, the novelty is moot. While no one is blind, deaf and dumb, the minute they enter a relationship, it's how far they're willing to allow attraction to go and how selfish an individual they are. It's not as if a simple attraction at first glance, causes people to instantly and obsessively gravitate towards another person.
ItIs Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Good for you if that's how you and your partner truly feel, tbf. But how does one define selfish? Could not expecting sexual exclusivity from another be construed as selfishness in many cases? One should not project their own paradigms on others. Doing so just leads to head0butting that accomplishes nothing but headaches. The real important thing, IMNSHO, is that both people understand each other's expectations and play by the same rules. Beyond that, anything goes, as far as I'm concerned.
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 If an open marriage has been defined from the start of the marriage, I agree. Beyond that, if one party redefines the terms and conditions of the marriage mid-stream, it's pure selfishness.
ItIs Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Agreed, Tbf. Changing the "ground rules" in mid-stream is not what I'd call "playing by the rules." Of course, it could be very interesting if one person (let's call them "M") was absolutely dead-set on a monogamous relationship straight away, and the other person (let's call them "O") would be fine with an open relationship, and married M with the understanding they would have a monogamous relationship, but M "cheated." In that hypothetical case, would it make more sense for O to divorce, or consider the "ground rules" to have changed and maintain the marriage on different terms? Stranger things have happened ...
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Are these amended terms and conditions, at the moment of discovery and afterwards, acceptable to "O"?
ItIs Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Well, it's a hypothetical case, but I could predict how such a situation would be likely to play out: M who demanded strict monogamy cheats (for whatever reason -- and we've never heard of someone who goes into a relationship expecting monogamy cheating, have we?), and O (who was open to an open relationship, but played by the monogamy rules to please M) discovers this, and now expresses the opportunity to engage in some extracurricular activities of their own. I'd give at least 10 to 1 odds M (whose actions went counter to the agreement M him/herself insisted upon) would get all bent out of shape if O expressed interest in following M's own example, and having an open relationship. Now. would it not be blatantly selfish on M's part to allow O one extracurricular experience?
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Apparently we have a different perspective of human nature: I see it playing out as "O" being outraged that "M", who was so adamant about non-cheating, indulged, while "O" was made to remain monogamous, through his/her agreement, as at the start of the marriage. If anything, this hypothetical marriage would probably dissolve.
ItIs Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Based on what I've been reading, I really couldn't see you coming from the perspective of (and hence understanding) an individual who would be into an open relationship. Upon further reflection< I think the way the hypothetical situation would be likely to play out would largely depend upon the degree to which the individuals involved are principled or relativistic in their ethical paradigms. Perhaps that (principled vis-a-vis relativistic tendencies) is the most significant of people's compatibility of all.
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 If you're suggesting that people who believe in open marriages are more capable of accommodating for a forced change within a predefined monogamous relationship, rather than someone who has principles, I'll disagree. Inequity can cause the most relativistic individual to become principled, in a relativistic hurry... Everyone is human.
ItIs Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Though it's true that hypocrisy can certainly rub someone (myself included) the wrong way, and that would certainly cast any situation in another light. On the other hand, I'd expect how a person reacts in such a situation would be influenced by whether they see it more as a violation or an opportunity. It could be seen in either light. It's somewhat analogous to an abundance vs. scarcity mentality or a "half empty" vs. "half full" mentality. I would also not expect a person who has a non-jealous nature to react to situations in a way that smacks of jealousy. It would be interesting to see how the different dynamics would play out. I have a rather complex perspective of human nature, which cannot be summed up in any sort of brief "sound bite."
Trialbyfire Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Jealousy is in itself, complex. Your point is that the jealousy is applied to "M", in that he interacted with a third party, without the consent of "O". My point would be that "O" would be jealous/envious of "M"s ability to indulge, while "O" was kept from indulging in same. Human nature can be complex but can also be condensed to simple needs and emotions. If you play fair, all will be well. If you cheat (apply both definitions) and create inequity, all will not be well.
jophil28 Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 This is accurate, the rest is pure drivel. Actions over words, gender aside... Aww - your so cute when you are mad !
serial muse Posted October 18, 2007 Posted October 18, 2007 Though it's true that hypocrisy can certainly rub someone (myself included) the wrong way, and that would certainly cast any situation in another light. On the other hand, I'd expect how a person reacts in such a situation would be influenced by whether they see it more as a violation or an opportunity. It could be seen in either light. It's somewhat analogous to an abundance vs. scarcity mentality or a "half empty" vs. "half full" mentality. I would also not expect a person who has a non-jealous nature to react to situations in a way that smacks of jealousy. It would be interesting to see how the different dynamics would play out. I have a rather complex perspective of human nature, which cannot be summed up in any sort of brief "sound bite." An interesting question. I think, though, that there's an assumption in your example that a person who says they want an open relationship is also, at heart, a "non-jealous" person - and I would argue with that. One obvious example is the MM/MW who is cheating on his/her spouse, but doesn't want their OW/OM to have other partners. Or the person who doesn't want a commitment from someone s/he's dating, but doesn't like that person dating others, either. The fact is, I tend to agree with TBF: If you're suggesting that people who believe in open marriages are more capable of accommodating for a forced change within a predefined monogamous relationship, rather than someone who has principles, I'll disagree. And I'll go even further with that. I agree that most people are tempted at some point, that most people consider cheating at some point. However, I also think that the person who is truly okay with their partner doing it is extremely rare. Even in polyamorous-type situations, there appear to be ground rules - the additional people have to be approved and accepted before bringing them in. In religions where men can have multiple wives, you don't see them wanting their women to return the favor. I'd argue that usually, an "open" relationship, when you take it apart and look at it closely, is anything but. People still set rules, establish boundaries, and that is fundamentally the issue - when people cheat, they do so as much to experience the thrill of the illicit, to have a secret, to do something dangerous, as to sleep around. Perhaps it's simply more honest to admit that, generally, you'd prefer your partner to sleep just with you (although if you're more secure, you can at least admit that they might want more from time to time)?
Recommended Posts