Rooster_DAR Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 Scenario, Your G/F's best friends father is divorcing his current wife (and having an affair with a younger woman) because she is bed ridden and is physically unable to do anything. Your G/F says to you "I can understand why he's having an affair and divorcing her, he's still vivarant and she's incapable of doing anything". My recent EX G/F made this comment to me several months ago when we were just talking one night, and somehow that really bothered me. What do you guys think, is this something that would red flag you? Regards,
amaysngrace Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 Um...yeah. Major red flag. Can anybody say "selfish"???? I can't believe you even need affirmation on this one, Rooster. You must be quite smitten with the GF.
bluetuesday Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 yes, i would be slightly concerned she thinks it's fine to leave a spouse because of an infirmity. what the hell happened to 'in sickness and in health'? did he have his fingers crossed in that bit? but she's your ex now, did you say? good decision. whoever made it.
Author Rooster_DAR Posted October 8, 2006 Author Posted October 8, 2006 Yeah, I knew it wasn't right but I just like to get feedback to find out how other peopel feel. I made comments back to her stating that when you marry someone it's in sickness and in health. Kind of went in one ear and out the other. This is another affirmation for me that I was with the wrong person. Regards,
Adunaphel Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 I don't see it as a red flag. "I can understand" is very different from "I approve" and "I support". I think I can understand why some people cheat, do drugs, do physical damage to other people, backstab friends, and I haven't done any of those things (yet) nor I'm planning to! Funnily enough, I wouldn't get/understand why single women (or men) got into affairs with married people, and I ended up doing exactly that.
alphamale Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 Your G/F says to you "I can understand why he's having an affair and divorcing her, he's still vivarant and she's incapable of doing anything". my first question would be WTF does "vivarant" mean...
Jane Doe Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 I think that was supposed to be "vibrant." Yes, this is a MAJOR red flag. Pray you never get sick or injured.
bluechocolate Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 hmmm.... I'm not sure that understanding why someone acts a certain way is the same as condoning that action or even saying that one would react the same way in a similar situation. Further exploration & observation would be needed for me to decide if it was something major enough to warrant the end of a relationship.
amaysngrace Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 hmmm.... I'm not sure that understanding why someone acts a certain way is the same as condoning that action or even saying that one would react the same way in a similar situation. Further exploration & observation would be needed for me to decide if it was something major enough to warrant the end of a relationship. It's the distribution of empathy. Clearly a kinder person would sympathize with the one who is injured, and the more selfish would find understanding with the caregiver that bails. As I see it, anyway.
Author Rooster_DAR Posted October 8, 2006 Author Posted October 8, 2006 my first question would be WTF does "vivarant" mean... Virile is the word I was looking for.
Author Rooster_DAR Posted October 8, 2006 Author Posted October 8, 2006 I don't see it as a red flag. "I can understand" is very different from "I approve" and "I support". I think I can understand why some people cheat, do drugs, do physical damage to other people, backstab friends, and I haven't done any of those things (yet) nor I'm planning to! Funnily enough, I wouldn't get/understand why single women (or men) got into affairs with married people, and I ended up doing exactly that. That is not the context she used. She was basically saying he shouldn't have to sacrifice his love life because his wife is incapable of intercourse. Being married and saying this is totally lame. But if you were just dating, maybe that would be different. Either way, pretty ****ing shallow to me.
climbergirl Posted October 8, 2006 Posted October 8, 2006 It's the distribution of empathy. Clearly a kinder person would sympathize with the one who is injured, and the more selfish would find understanding with the caregiver that bails. As I see it, anyway. I agree. Empathy being the operative word....meaning that when they got married they understood that this situation could happen to either one. I feel bad for the wife that she was duped into marrying a coward. However, karma always wins in the end. Chances are that this younger woman/older man will play itself out in a similar manner.
bluechocolate Posted October 9, 2006 Posted October 9, 2006 It's the distribution of empathy. Clearly a kinder person would sympathize with the one who is injured, and the more selfish would find understanding with the caregiver that bails. As I see it, anyway. Worth repeating perhaps? I'm not sure that understanding why someone acts a certain way is the same as condoning that action or even saying that one would react the same way in a similar situation. Further exploration & observation would be needed for me to decide if it was something major enough to warrant the end of a relationship. I have no ideal what her thoughts are regarding the wife's situation. I don't even know the context of the conversation which led to her exclamation of understanding for the husband. Do you? However the OP has now added: She was basically saying he shouldn't have to sacrifice his love life because his wife is incapable of intercourse.
climbergirl Posted October 9, 2006 Posted October 9, 2006 Worth repeating perhaps? I'm not sure that understanding why someone acts a certain way is the same as condoning that action or even saying that one would react the same way in a similar situation. Further exploration & observation would be needed for me to decide if it was something major enough to warrant the end of a relationship. I have no ideal what her thoughts are regarding the wife's situation. I don't even know the context of the conversation which led to her exclamation of understanding for the husband. Do you? However the OP has now added: She was basically saying he shouldn't have to sacrifice his love life because his wife is incapable of intercourse. I'm a bit confused by your post............ The OP originally stated that the husband is leaving his wife because she was "bed ridden and physically unable to do anything"-this has been the main contention per husband as I've read it. Anyways, If someone I was with condoned this sort of abandonment (again, based on reasons given)-I would certainly question my bf's moral character.
Author Rooster_DAR Posted October 9, 2006 Author Posted October 9, 2006 Exactly! Not neccesarilty a ground for termination yes, but definitely a bad mark.
Adunaphel Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 That is not the context she used. She was basically saying he shouldn't have to sacrifice his love life because his wife is incapable of intercourse. Being married and saying this is totally lame. But if you were just dating, maybe that would be different. Either way, pretty ****ing shallow to me. Then I agree that it's a very lame thing to say (and a very sad thing to hear). Luckily she is an ex - and not your current gf!
lindya Posted October 10, 2006 Posted October 10, 2006 It's the distribution of empathy. Clearly a kinder person would sympathize with the one who is injured, and the more selfish would find understanding with the caregiver that bails. I think most daughters would find it incredibly painful to see their father abandon their mother when she was ill. It seems feasible that Rooster's girlfriend might attempt to deal with a variety of very difficult emotions by rationalising her father's actions. Another possibility is that she's deliberately adopting the male perspective in this scenario because she thinks that Rooster - as a male - will approve of her doing so. Sometimes people are so keen to show how rational they are, that it seems to adversely affect their ability to be emotionally intelligent.
amaysngrace Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 Another possibility is that she's deliberately adopting the male perspective in this scenario because she thinks that Rooster - as a male - will approve of her doing so. Sometimes people are so keen to show how rational they are, that it seems to adversely affect their ability to be emotionally intelligent. Lindya, there is no way that I believe that you believe that this is solely a male's attitude. This is a selfish attitude. The same rules would apply if a male became impotent due to illness and a female decided to leave based on that reason alone. Doing what's morally right is gender non-specific, ie: treat others as you would be treated.
magichands Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 Lindya, there is no way that I believe that you believe that this is solely a male's attitude. I don't like typing out of turn, but I believe the meaning is...the male perspective in this particular scenario (can't you read?!), dude. Not in general, haha. This is a selfish attitude. Well, I agree that a commitment is a commitment. Ideally the husband would want to be there for his wife, and his wife would accept that she would do the same under the circumstances - or selflessly "release" him from his commitment to her (depending on her prognosis). In the latter scenario, of course he would tell her that there is only one woman for him, and to stop talking rubbish.
amaysngrace Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 I don't like typing out of turn, but I believe the meaning is...the male perspective in this particular scenario (can't you read?!), dude. Not in general, haha. Of course I can read...I just can't comprehend, dude. Thanks for that. Sorry L...no offense?
re-searching Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 Your G/F's best friends father is divorcing his current wife (and having an affair with a younger woman) because she is bed ridden and is physically unable to do anything. Your G/F says to you "I can understand why he's having an affair and divorcing her, he's still vivarant and she's incapable of doing anything". I *think* your GF does nor like the current wife her dad is divorcing. She probably would have liked him to stay with mom & then her life would be happy ever after. It is hard to hate your mom & dad. It easy to hate anyone that messes up our picture of a happy life. I think your GF has issues about the divorce.
lindya Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 Of course I can read...I just can't comprehend, dude. Thanks for that. Sorry L...no offense? Of course not I could probably be clearer. To give an example of someone trying to rationalise another person's hurtful behaviour, imagine A's spouse cheats on her and A says "Well, that's just what men do, isn't it? Men get bored with one woman, so my husband's bound to look further afield. It's just the way of the world." Low self esteem and low expectations of a partner that have been packaged up as realism and common sense. We often see that on this board. To a certain extent, and bearing the weaknesses of human behaviour in mind, it maybe is common sense...but doesn't it also so often spill into cynicism? I've done the same thing to myself in a relationship (ie tried to avoid having any expectations, because I'm pretty certain they won't be met anyway - so what's the point?) What Rooster's girlfriend might be saying here may not so much be "this (leave a partner who is bed-ridden) is what I would do in the same situation" as "If I were married and became bed-ridden, I'm sure this is also what would happen to me. Just as my dad didn't love my mum enough to stick with her through this, nobody will ever love me that way either....but I can cope with the idea of that by being tough, unemotional and rational about it." I know it's pure speculation, but I'm just thinking of times I've heard people talk in a really blunt and cold way about things that I know are hurting them a lot. Things just aren't always what they look like.
magichands Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 I know it's pure speculation, but I'm just thinking of times I've heard people talk in a really blunt and cold way about things that I know are hurting them a lot. Things just aren't always what they look like. I think I'm getting the picture. Is this similar to rationalising abuse? (Well, for the abused, say.) As in, I'm not perfect...I must have done something to provoke a reaction...so I probably deserved it...I should try harder to please...(my abuser) is really a wonderful person deep, deep, deep, deep down...I mean, they are good to others, so it must be me - right? Every silver lining has a cloud.
lindya Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 Is this similar to rationalising abuse? (Well, for the abused, say.) As in, I'm not perfect...I must have done something to provoke a reaction...so I probably deserved it...I should try harder to please...(my abuser) is really a wonderful person deep, deep, deep, deep down...I mean, they are good to others, so it must be me - right? Maybe, but I'd see that as more of an emotionally driven response rather than a coldly detached one.
magichands Posted October 11, 2006 Posted October 11, 2006 Maybe, Or not. Haha. I think I have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. but I'd see that as more of an emotionally driven response rather than a coldly detached one. I see what you mean. (Because it's first-person dealing, rather than sort-of-third-person coming-to-terms-with?? I should stop rambling.) And so ends my troubled career in armchair psychology.
Recommended Posts