NoIDidn't Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 Frannie and PoshPrincess both said something in my other thread that, I admit, confused the he** out of me. They don't believe in "til death do us part" and Posh said she doesn't believe in staying with one partner for life (or that's what it seems like was said). Not wanting to change the direction of the thread, I post this new one to address that. What's the point of being involved with a MM and helping him risk all that he has that you don't believe in if you have no intention of "love for life" with him? It just sounds cruel and unnecessary. Most people, whether they admit it or not, like committed guys because they are safe and there is presummably the possibility that he might commit to them one day. If you don't believe in M or lifetime commitment, is having an A a way of thumbing your nose at society (self-destructively, at that)? I am really confused. And frannie and Posh, this isn't personal or a judgment on you, I am really at a lost in understanding "what it means?". Anyone?
frannie Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 Hmm well that's not exactly what I said or meant. I was talking specifically about staying married for the sake of staying married 'til death. When all there was to have in a relationship has gone, and there's no getting it back, why keep on with it? Doesn't make sense to me. But to me it's more important to have a good relationship than 'be married' per se. I also think marriage is a great idea in theory. It's not something 'I don't believe in' at all. I just happen to believe that when it's over, it's over, and it would be better ended. As much as I believe in marriage, I also believe in divorce. THAT is specifically what I was commenting on. I also said that I'd never been married because I'd never found anyone I could imagine that I could spend a lifetime with and stick to those vows as truthfully and honestly and well as I'd want to (i.e. always loving, only one person, through everything, no matter what, til death). Just not something I could promise, so I never have, because it would have been dishonest of me. Make sense now?
frannie Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 What's the point of being involved with a MM and helping him risk all that he has that you don't believe in if you have no intention of "love for life" with him? It just sounds cruel and unnecessary. Most people' date=' whether they admit it or not, like committed guys because they are safe and there is presummably the possibility that he might commit to them one day.[/quote'] Just to answer this bit specifically. I wouldn't say I have no intention (or hope?) of being with him for life. But there is no way at this stage that I could promise him that. Neither would he expect me to. We actually had that discussion a few weeks ago when he was (supposed to be) about to tell her he wanted a separation. I was getting worried about what would happen after that, and whether I'd feel guilty about things if our relationship didn't work out. He said, that's not an issue. Because if he left, he'd be leaving because it was the right thing for him to do, and the right thing for his children, all things considered. And that there was no pressure on me, and no question of him doing it 'for me'. So, that's how I can encourage him to do what's best for him, and get a divorce if that's what he wants for himself.
hardknocks Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 does anybody really believe in 'till death do us part?' I mean it's something we Hope for.. and say at the start of marriages to state our intentions.. I mean I think we all want that .. but in our heads we know the realities and all the things that would nullify the arrangement in our minds. i.e. after marriage husban becomes a different person and physically abusive.
frannie Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 does anybody really believe in 'till death do us part?' I mean it's something we Hope for.. and say at the start of marriages to state our intentions.. I mean I think we all want that .. but in our heads we know the realities and all the things that would nullify the arrangement in our minds. i.e. after marriage husban becomes a different person and physically abusive. Hmm well this is what I suppose I think in a way... if the person you married isn't upholding their half of the bargain, then that renders the agreement null and void. I personally would see someone falling out of love with me, not fulfilling my emotional needs (or as you say, becoming abusive), or having an affair as enough for me to end the marriage. BUT if you read some of the threads on here from BSs, especially the one on why they stay married when their partner has cheated, they are saying that even if their husband didn't love them, and he loved someone else, that they still would stay married because they have made that commitment. I think you're right that it's more of a statement of intention... certainly makes more sense that way. I always seem to want to take things to extremes, however... if I'm making a promise I want to be able to keep it. Just seems like a pretty scary promise to make. Then again, do ALL marriage vows state 'til death'..? I'm not sure they do.
serial muse Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to comment on "til death do us part' - my take on it (as a former BS) isn't really that I'd stay through any abuse, emotional or physical, either. Ideally, I think my personal view of marriage is that both partners are promising to work with each other first when things aren't okay in the reationship, and to basically be up front and honest about their feelings with each other throughout. If those feelings are irrevocably changed, that's one thing, but of course there's going to be ebb and flow in any long-term relationship, and it can be hard to distinguish the two. So what I would expect, if I ever get married again, is simply that my partner would come to me first when there are issues, and would prioritize working with me and determining with me and me alone whether those issues are insurmountable, and whether the relationship is salvageable or not. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask, but it does require that both partners find a way to be brave, not cowardly, about talking to each other and risking confrontation, in order to create and solidify the relationship they both want. That's something that can be huge for people, I know - many are deathly afraid of confrontation - but I personally feel that that's the essence of the contract you're entering into. And if it's too much to ask, then there isn't much point in getting married. However, sadly, I think that is often asking too much from certain personality types - which, I'm afraid, includes many MM. (Including my exH, which is a large part of the reason why I divorced him. I say he nullified the contract by essentially misrepresenting himself as a guy who would be able to do that. )
Author NoIDidn't Posted February 2, 2007 Author Posted February 2, 2007 frannie, Thanks for your clarification. Like I said in the beginning, I was confused. I was hoping it wasn't the way it came off initially. I am finding that I am in a minority even among the BSs here, or I guess anyone here, but when I said "til death do us part" I meant it and believed that he did too. It never occured to me, in my early 20-something-year-old mind that the vows he and I gave would one day become optional. Never. Maybe I was in denial back then too. Who knows? He**, at this point, who really cares after all that has happenned. I just thought it sounded really odd to read that an OW doesn't believe in the "happily ever after" as in "til death do us part" portion of M. We ALL want it, whether or not its worded in that way. Well, maybe not the fantasy part. But you get what I'm saying. I hope. Gotta go. I have a headache.
puddleofmud Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 However, my reply is not from the stand-point re: extra-marital affairs, but in general regarding marriage and the idiology of "til death do us part". I may be the odd ball but I hold no belief that there is but one "soul-mate" for each and every person-- find that an antiquated idea--not that I don't believe that souls communicate/connect--far from it. My approach is always one of a Spritual Nature. Frankly, I don't know any other way of connecting with anyone, be it a person on the street or someone I feel that I am in love. With that said, I shall now completely contradict myself: I also don't believe in the "to death do us part" theory, never have, because I do not believe that souls are "parted" from one another (any souls we care for) after death (that's a whole other discussion point). However, when one commits to marriage one commits for a life-time. If one does not wish to uphold that philosophy than I feel one is best not to marry, or maybe just casually "co-habitate". I feel that marriage is what differentiates what is casual and what is a formal commitment. YES, I do realize that couples live together for a life-time without being formally married, but I would not be one of them nor would I consider living with someone w/out the commitment of marriage. Once one is married than one stays that way because one's soul has committed to another's--even if one seemingly finds some other "soulful" connection. Why? Because we are human and emotional and this gets the way of what marriage is about: a soulful connection are two souls learning and growing together--and nurturing that and only that connection. That connection grows over time with everything both endure TOGETHER. Marriage means that one chooses their partner to BE their soul-mate, their one and only soul-mate no matter what other soul connections come along. I don't recommend divorce nor do I disagree. When partners are inept about nurturing each other, then why stay married? If the Spiritual bond is broken and beyond repair then there is no reason to BE married. Additionally, the human concept of emotional "love" may not be the barometer of a good relationship. Love may make the world go 'round but it doesn't mean two people are "meant for each other". Love is just one aspect. Falling in love is intense and blinding. Being in love is awakening and exciting. Staying in love is WORK. If two people aren't good at working together and willing to nurture each other's Spirit than being in love won't last too long. Frankly, one's seemingly so called soul mate by not be able to tie their freakin' shoes! Being married means being committed to working together for as long as one lives...easier said than done...but I still believe it's possible.
Author NoIDidn't Posted February 2, 2007 Author Posted February 2, 2007 puddle that was beautiful. thanks. I don't believe in soulmates either. I, like you, believe that we CHOOSE to make our chosen partner into that soul-mate - the one we learn and grow with. I don't do co-habitating EVER without a M. Never have, never will. And yes, I said the dreaded NEVER word. I am beyond confident that I will never "shack up" with a man. I don't want to give the impression that I am against D. I am not for it, per se, but its like abortion for me: A matter of personal choice for the individuals that have to make that decision. But I still believe in aiming for "till death do us part" for those that made those particular vows. It irks me to constantly hear OW/MM/OM/MW alike complaining that that means a commitment to misery. That is a lame a** excuse for saying that you are too much of a coward to attempt fixing the issues. If they can't be fixed, that's different. We commit to so many things in our lives, our partners notwithstanding, so why is it that the M vow evokes such feelings of misery? I am a confrontational person by nature. Confrontational meaning that I don't allow things to fester, I confront issues in all of my Rs head on. I don't run. I don't let fear make me a coward. Cowards need not marry, its not for punks.
puddleofmud Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 I collect "sayings/quotes" thinking that someday I shall start a T-shirt factory and make a proverbial fortune. I have just added your pithy quote to my list: "Marriage is not for punks" HA! I love it--thanks!
Babybird Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 What's the point of being involved with a MM and helping him risk all that he has that you don't believe in if you have no intention of "love for life" with him? It just sounds cruel and unnecessary. What's the point in being involved with anyone if it's not intended to be 'love for life'? How is dating any different? Because he's married? He is going into the R with the OW with his eyes wide open. He knows his marriage is at risk and it's his choice. There is no guarantee that the couple will last even if it is supposed to be for life. Having an A isn't thumbing your nose at society. Society has norms that people are supposed to follow but doesn't mean that everyone agrees with them. Especially because there are so many different cultures. Ex. a woman that works with me is from vietnam. Her husband makes her ride in the backseat of the car. This sounds like BullS to me. Normal for them. Other cultures allow multiple wives and husbands. Ours just doesn't accept that idea. I don't necessarily believe in M anymore. People change and grow the older they get. The don't always change and grow together. If they discover they have different dreams and goals I don't think they should stay together. If they are unhappy..life is too short. What is it, like 50% or 60% of marriages end in divorce? Why bother?
Author NoIDidn't Posted February 2, 2007 Author Posted February 2, 2007 babybird I couldn't follow your post and have no idea of the point you were trying to make. Can you explain it again? Sorry.
Babybird Posted February 2, 2007 Posted February 2, 2007 She asked what was the point if you aren't in the relationship for life. When you date people you aren't always in it for life. You meet people, you date, you decide it doesn't work or it does. Does his marital status make that any different? It's his marriage not hers. Her mind is going through pretty much the same process it would if he wasn't married. Could I spend my life with him, have kids, grow old...etc. That isn't always a quick decision. Plus, there is no way of knowing if the relationship will last forever. What else do you need explained?
Author NoIDidn't Posted February 3, 2007 Author Posted February 3, 2007 She asked what was the point if you aren't in the relationship for life. When you date people you aren't always in it for life. You meet people, you date, you decide it doesn't work or it does. Does his marital status make that any different? It's his marriage not hers. Her mind is going through pretty much the same process it would if he wasn't married. Could I spend my life with him, have kids, grow old...etc. That isn't always a quick decision. Plus, there is no way of knowing if the relationship will last forever. What else do you need explained? Thanks. I couldn't have gotten that from the original post with the references to D statistics. If indeed she was saying that and you were agreeing with her, I have to say you both took the question too far. This question is in relation to getting and being married. Not dating, so yes, it obviously doesn't apply. Once dating gets serious and you've started having conversations regarding M with a guy, but you don't believe in "till death do us part" - what is the point? Yes? What is the point in taking it that far if you are too afraid to go the rest of the distance. Citing D statistics only shows that you don't have high expectations based on what others have done. You is used in a general sense, mind you. IMO, romantic relationships were intended to be like familial relationships, not casual but sometimes long-term flings. For the most part, our parents are stuck with us for 18 years, at least. That's longer than lots of Ms, unfortunately. But I think M should last longer than the time to raise a few children to adulthood. But that's me. Thanks for the clarification.
Recommended Posts