PDA

View Full Version : Happy being single



natlee
15-09-2012, 13:56
Are any of you? Am sure plenty men are, so am more interested in the women's responses - sorry ;)

After nearly three years my on/off long-distance relationship is officially over with 'staying friends' looking highly unlikely despite all of the 'will love and be there for you forever' promises from my ex ;) We seem to have grown to resent each other too much for that.

So, as I'm wiping the pathetic tears, I'm starting to think it may be time to give up on the happily ever after story for my life, and get used to and happy with being me, myself and I (and my lovely daughter, of course!). Is that actually possible?

Lost in moscow
15-09-2012, 16:43
Depends what you want.

Give yourself time, see what your desire will be once your over him.

natlee
15-09-2012, 18:16
Depends what you want.

Give yourself time, see what your desire will be once your over him. I'm over him, it's the fear of staying single I may not be over. Have always wanted to meet a good guy, have another child, be a happy family.. never thought it were possible to be happy without any of that. And now.. now I'm thinking, what if it is? :)

Lost in moscow
15-09-2012, 18:40
I just got out of a three year relationship also. But not long distance, though, dont fear being alone, it is impossible, you meet so many people throughout the year, That eventually, the odds will play in your favor and you will meet someone you want to see more, be with.

Major mistake is when you start being with just about anyone just to not be alone.
Though I understand you

But it is possible, my mom and I are living proof:)

rusmeister
15-09-2012, 18:45
"Staying single" is another way of saying "being alone".

It is ALWAYS good to be alone for a little while, but not for a lifetime. Even God said, "It is not good for man to be alone". We are social beings in general. Women's bodies were designed for the bearing and weaning of children. The family is the natural human institution that for most of us answers these basic needs. A person may really have a special calling that precludes it, such as monasticism (and Christian monasticism remains social in nature), but the desire for human society remains a normal thing.

There's nothing particularly desirable about growing into a lonely old man or woman just because it was "fun" to party in your twenties and thirties, and that's what I think being "single" as a lifetime status without a special purpose for being so tends to translate into.

franzewich
15-09-2012, 18:51
I'm over him, it's the fear of staying single I may not be over. Have always wanted to meet a good guy, have another child, be a happy family.. never thought it were possible to be happy without any of that. And now.. now I'm thinking, what if it is? :)

Well, I'm not a woman. :) But for all sexes alike, I find it quite normal to loose balance a bid after a relationship ends, even when we think we are over it. After all, we were leaning against a partner whom we trusted, in whom we believed, who we thought would give us support - and maybe a future.

The tumbling will end, sooner or later; and while we are struggling through this state of a half live, we find ourselves in doubt whether or not we will find our own self, our happiness, our prospects again.

It will come back again! Wish you all the best. :)

penka
15-09-2012, 18:53
"Staying single" is another way of saying "being alone".

It is ALWAYS good to be alone for a little while, but not for a lifetime. Even God said, "It is not good for man to be alone". We are social beings in general. Women's bodies were designed for the bearing and weaning of children. The family is the natural human institution that for most of us answers these basic needs. A person may really have a special calling that precludes it, such as monasticism (and Christian monasticism remains social in nature), but the desire for human society remains a normal thing.

There's nothing particularly desirable about growing into a lonely old man or woman just because it was "fun" to party in your twenties and thirties, and that's what I think being "single" as a lifetime status without a special purpose for being so tends to translate into.

It is not funny being alone all your life. But, it is better than being with a wrong person or with somebody for all wrong reasons.

I wish everybody who is single to find a soulmate!:fireworks:

Lost in moscow
15-09-2012, 19:09
"Staying single" is another way of saying "being alone".

thats total crap.

You can be single but not alone.

You out of all people should know that, being as religious as you claim to be.

Potty
15-09-2012, 19:13
thats total crap.

Now i understand why the question was addressed to ladies.:D

rubyrussia
15-09-2012, 19:14
"My advice to you is get married: if you
find a good wife you'll be happy; if not,
you'll become a philosopher." - Socrates

Lost in moscow
15-09-2012, 19:17
Now i understand why the question was addressed to ladies.:D

No, even for ladies, you have friends, family, you are never "alone"
Just because you don't share the same bed with a guy every night does not make you alone. There are always people in your life that love you and will be there for you.



But you can be single,

Or am I wrong here?

franzewich
15-09-2012, 19:25
thats total crap.

You can be single but not alone.

You out of all people should know that, being as religious as you claim to be.

You can be alone without being lonely. And you can be in middle of a huge crowd and still feel lonesome.

It depends on what somebody really wants. Being with a permanent partner or stay a swinger? Focussing on a future life in relaxed togetherness and mutual support, or being on the permanant chase? Both can be exciting and frustrating at the same time, but the way to find out can be quite rocky.

Finding a partner who can be fully trusted is difficult. How many people have given up and turned their necessity of being single into a virtue?

NotMe
15-09-2012, 19:34
So, as I'm wiping the pathetic tears, I'm starting to think it may be time to give up on the happily ever after story for my life, and get used to and happy with being me, myself and I (and my lovely daughter, of course!). Is that actually possible?

It depends on person. :)

Try to make sure that it's acceptable (or not acceptable) for YOU.

Someone's else experience is a bad adviser here. ;)

kassandra
15-09-2012, 19:59
There's nothing particularly desirable about growing into a lonely old man or woman just because it was "fun" to party in your twenties and thirties, and that's what I think being "single" as a lifetime status without a special purpose for being so tends to translate into.

So forget about having fun and spend your life preparing to your anility?

MashaSashina
15-09-2012, 20:07
it's possible, of course. depends on your picture of happiness though.
I would think of the real reason why you were in long-distance relationship for 3 year if you want to have a real and happy family. no offence, it's from my experience when I declared desire to have a family, but actually kept everyone away from me. maybe you need a break?

kassandra
15-09-2012, 20:23
Actually I dont think it is possible to be truely happy being single. It is just against our nature.
But talking from my own experience we NEED to be single for a while after the end of relationship.

rusmeister
15-09-2012, 22:25
It is not funny being alone all your life. But, it is better than being with a wrong person or with somebody for all wrong reasons.

I wish everybody who is single to find a soulmate!:fireworks:


Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might be found more suitable mates. But the real soul-mate is the one you are actually married to.
J. R. R. Tolkien, Letter to Michael Tolkien, March 1941

Try saying Tolkien was stupid.

"Being" with someone and being married by a vow are two different things. In the latter case, you must learn to love a different person after the fire of "being in love" has gone out. You must, in nearly all cases, make "the wrong person" into "the right person", and learn to appreciate what you have.

rusmeister
15-09-2012, 22:29
So forget about having fun and spend your life preparing to your anility?

Well, I think we place too much emphasis on"having fun"; we've made it much more important, given it much more weight than it should have in our lives. That's not to say "Don't have fun", only that fun has a place and we should not exaggerate that place so that we make ourselves unhappy when we are not "having fun".

rusmeister
15-09-2012, 22:31
thats total crap.

You can be single but not alone.

You out of all people should know that, being as religious as you claim to be.

I DO know that. I was speaking about a lifetime, ot just a few years, and about most people, not all people.

Maybe it would be more polite if you posed questions on what I mean instead of just writing it off as "crap"?

BabyFirefly
15-09-2012, 22:36
Hmmm, I got married, so, guess I can't say much, but there is a lot of happiness in the freedom of being able to live as you wish. ALso, nothing worse than being stuck with someone you don't care about anymore.

I'd enjoy it if I were you, take everything slow, don't get married or date just because.

kassandra
15-09-2012, 22:51
Well, I think we place too much emphasis on"having fun"; we've made it much more important, given it much more weight than it should have in our lives. That's not to say "Don't have fun", only that fun has a place and we should not exaggerate that place so that we make ourselves unhappy when we are not "having fun".

Oh no! Ideally everything should be fun. God is loving and smart, he gave us abilty to enjoy or hate things to distinguish right ones from wrong.

GalinaP
16-09-2012, 00:42
Are any of you? Am sure plenty men are, so am more interested in the women's responses - sorry ;)

After nearly three years my on/off long-distance relationship is officially over with 'staying friends' looking highly unlikely despite all of the 'will love and be there for you forever' promises from my ex ;) We seem to have grown to resent each other too much for that.

So, as I'm wiping the pathetic tears, I'm starting to think it may be time to give up on the happily ever after story for my life, and get used to and happy with being me, myself and I (and my lovely daughter, of course!). Is that actually possible?

Everything's possible, being happy alone with your daughter, enjoying occasional dates, looking around or not looking anywhere or... lightning may strike, leading to the happily ever after. You never know, that's why life is so good, you turn a new page and things are awaiting!

rusmeister
16-09-2012, 07:34
Oh no! Ideally everything should be fun. God is loving and smart, he gave us abilty to enjoy or hate things to distinguish right ones from wrong.

I agree with your latter statements, but not with the first.
Yes, we should enjoy what can be enjoyed. But on seeking fun in everything:
One, it sets up an expectation bound to be foiled (as we see in marriage).
Two, it's not difficult to think of situations where "fun" is inappropriate. Dealing with another's grief or loss, just for starters.
And as I said, it puts our life out of balance, gives us a wrong focus.

robertmf
16-09-2012, 07:55
Actually I dont think it is possible to be truely happy being single. It is just against our nature.
But talking from my own experience we NEED to be single for a while after the end of relationship.

:mml: Inger Stevens :bong: :tongue:

Clint Eastwood has fathered at least seven children by five different women and been described as a "serial womanizer". He has had affairs with actresses Catherine Deneuve, Jill Banner, Jamie Rose, Inger Stevens, Jo Ann Harris, Jean Seberg, script analyst Megan Rose, James Brolin's former wife Jane, columnist Bridget Byrne, and swimming champion Anita Lhoest. One relationship that could not be classified as an "affair" was with Barbra Streisand, whom he briefly dated.

Clint Eastwood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You must be right :)

RichardB
16-09-2012, 12:17
natlee. What happened to the hugger then??

Kartoshka
16-09-2012, 12:23
I have been single for the past two years. I am happier having accepted that I am likely to stay single, than I was when I was still hoping to meet someone. In the long term, though, I don't think it's possible to be properly happy without a partner, not unless you have friends in a similar position, just because it's so lonely. But the thing that makes me the most sad about being permanently single is that, when I die, all my keepsakes, photos, memories will mean nothing to anyone. No-one will want them, no-one will care. It will be as if I never lived. At least you have your daughter to give your life some meaning.

GalinaP
16-09-2012, 12:29
I have been single for the past two years. I am happier having accepted that I am likely to stay single, than I was when I was still hoping to meet someone. In the long term, though, I don't think it's possible to be properly happy without a partner, not unless you have friends in a similar position, just because it's so lonely. But the thing that makes me the most sad about being permanently single is that, when I die, all my keepsakes, photos, memories will mean nothing to anyone. No-one will want them, no-one will care. It will be as if I never lived. At least you have your daughter to give your life some meaning.

No man is an island, you and everything you are about will stay in somebody's mind, I'm sure.

MickeyTong
16-09-2012, 14:24
No man is an island, you and everything you are about will stay in somebody's mind, I'm sure.

Jah Wobble's Invaders Of The Heart Every Man is an island - YouTube

rusmeister
16-09-2012, 15:28
No man is an island, you and everything you are about will stay in somebody's mind, I'm sure.

Well, Galina, this normally comes up in apologetics, but after our deaths even our friends eventually put our memories behind them. (and in the long run, they die, too, and memory still fades). In the short term, family tend to remember longer than friends.

natlee
16-09-2012, 15:46
natlee. What happened to the hugger then?? Despite that being a question to be asked on FB... ;) He's back home, a good friend, another one living too far.. Seems like I don't have many people left close to home I care much about.

Russian Lad
16-09-2012, 16:31
Actually I have a theory that we are born in loneliness and we die in loneliness. I have a gf but in many ways she still doesn't understand me, though she is the best I have found so far, out of thousands.
On the other hand, Natlee, no reason to fool yourself, a woman needs a man in her life, so you better find one.:) Your selection process should be rather easy - you have a child from another man already, and if a person doesn't really love you he will never want to be with you for long or let alone to marry you. I have never been married, but I will need to be in love with a woman like a crazy to be willing to take care of another man's child for the rest of my life, if you know what I mean.
Better find a foreign partner on my site or here.:)

mds45
16-09-2012, 16:36
Despite that being a question to be asked on FB... ;) He's back home, a good friend, another one living too far.. Seems like I don't have many people left close to home I care much about.

I think we all are looking forward to hearing a happy conclusion to your story - I have no doubt happy days are not far for you :) just don't forget to tell us all about it :)

Potty
16-09-2012, 16:52
but I will need to be in love with a woman like a crazy to be willing to take care of another man's child for the rest of my life, if you know what I mean.

does it mean that initially you don't like the idea to "take care" of your potential wife's child from previous marriage? and why?

NotMe
16-09-2012, 17:08
does it mean that initially you don't like the idea to "take care" of your potential wife's child from previous marriage? and why?

I am second for this question, though I know the answer beforehand.

To Natlee- if one day you meet a decent guy who will truly love you, he will not consider your child as a child from another man.

He will take your child as a child of beloved woman and treat her/him accordingly.

franzewich
16-09-2012, 17:16
I am second for this question, though I know the answer beforehand.

To Natlee- if one day you meet a decent guy who will truly love you, he will not consider your child as a child from another man.

He will take your child as a child of beloved woman and treat her/him accordingly.

Fully agree! If a man really loves a woman he will accept her kid as his own. If he is a decent and responsible guy, he will adopt him/her and will do his best to be a good father. After all, your kid is part of you.

ChiTown
16-09-2012, 17:26
Natlee-
You have a child, and this means you will never be alone. Regarding marriage, just remember that "the grass is always greener on the other side of the zabor"

Potty
16-09-2012, 17:26
Fully agree! If a man really loves a woman he will accept her kid as his own. If he is a decent and responsible guy, he will adopt him/her and will do his best to be a good father. After all, your kid is part of you.

it is true in theory. But in practice after some days, months, years of living all together as a family some problems you never expected can come up. But I guess it is easier when you have a girl, not a boy. I've never seen in my life step-fathers treating their step-sons as their own ones. The best what they could get was neutrality.

Russian Lad
16-09-2012, 17:31
Originally Posted by Russian Lad
but I will need to be in love with a woman like a crazy to be willing to take care of another man's child for the rest of my life, if you know what I mean.
does it mean that initially you don't like the idea to "take care" of your potential wife's child from previous marriage? and why?

Because to be willing to pay for someone's mistakes for the rest of your life, financially, emotionally, time-wise and in every other possible manner, you really need to be in love with that person, like I said, like a crazy. Children are great, don't take me wrong, by mistakes I mean the marriage that didn't work out and left the child fatherless.
I am not saying I don't like the idea, I am saying it can be as a test when choosing a new soulmate - most will run away who would have stayed otherwise, i.e. if there wasn't a child from another man. I personally may go for it, but only if in love - the kind you experience mostly when you are young, before the catarsis.


if one day you meet a decent guy who will truly love you, he will not consider your child as a child from another man.

It is called self-deception. But, on the other hand, big love is all about it, so why not?

Potty
16-09-2012, 17:35
Because to be willing to pay for someone's mistakes for the rest of your life, financially, emotionally, time-wise and in every other possible manner, you really need to be in love with that person, like I said, like a crazy. Children are great, don't take me wrong, by mistakes I mean the marriage that didn't work out and left the child fatherless.

and if there is the bio-father with financial support, help, time etc?

Russian Lad
16-09-2012, 17:50
and if there is the bio-father with financial support, help, time etc?

It is a big IF, especially in Russia where most fathers are poor as church rats.
In case of this IF, one would still need to be ready for what I have mentioned, maybe for less of it, due to such a wonderful bio-father, but still. The emotional part will remain in full, for example.

natlee
16-09-2012, 17:58
I have never been married, but I will need to be in love with a woman like a crazy to be willing to take care of another man's child for the rest of my life, if you know what I mean. Obviously, it is different for me because a) I'm a mom myself and b) my potential, er, husband's (?) children probably won't be living with us, but... My story for you! My ex has never been married, no kids, so for a while there he was dying to marry me and raise my daughter as his own (his words, despite my daughter having a father however far away) and overall, I was the center of his universe. He was available to me by phone/text/email 24/7 and even attempted moving over here (a huge culture shock for most, didn't quite appreciate it then) but, as it turned out, never ever understood that being a single mom could be just as hard (and I'm being sarcastic here ;)) as being a single guy with a job taking care of himself. He loved my daughter as best he could, but never quite figured out just how to treat her exactly, and what killed me the most (except for, perhaps, in the early stages of being madly in love with me) never wanted children of his own. At this point in time, he seems perfectly content with being single, alone, never marrying, dying alone (oops) and all that. TV and the booze are enough. We're from different planets, so I have very few regrets, if any (I quite regret wasting my good years on what was never going to work). My point is, I'd prefer my imaginary love to either have children of his own (which, of course, would mean less time for me but is well worth it!) or be very much into having a child with me (=hadn't met the right woman etc. but did want children), preferably both :) As far as me having a daughter, my big concern is, I would've been way better off remarrying while she was still young, she'd have accepted virtually anyone (still would do, but how long for?) and honestly, I've so far not come across a man who was scared off by me having a daughter.. if you met her, you'd understand :p

Jas
16-09-2012, 18:06
Sometimes u just got to get married for practical reasons and stuff to the extent that u got no other choice.

Russian Lad
16-09-2012, 18:12
I've so far not come across a man who was scared off by me having a daughter..

No man in his sound mind will tell you that openly. Your daughter will need to become his daughter also somehow, it is a big challenge, many will view it as an encumbrance - those who are not really in love with you anyway, so it is a good test for the potential candidates.:)


My point is, I'd prefer my imaginary love to either have children of his own (which, of course, would mean less time for me but is well worth it!) or be very much into having a child with me (=hadn't met the right woman etc. but did want children), preferably both

Yes, I think it can work out like that.:)

natlee
16-09-2012, 18:14
No man in his sound mind will tell you that openly. True, but as I get older (big cry) most men I come across have children of their own so few would be terrified :) Unwilling to take on the responsibility - maybe, and I'm cool with that!

scd167
16-09-2012, 19:16
Sometimes u just got to get married for practical reasons and stuff to the extent that u got no other choice.

There is nothing "practical" about getting married... even for a green card or TRP... there have to be better options.

:groan:

Jas
16-09-2012, 19:44
There is nothing "practical" about getting married... even for a green card or TRP... there have to be better options.

:groan:

Er, is that all u think I'm interested in, hey? U dont no me and if I met the right person then who knows? It's just rong to paint me as some kind of mecrenary cos I'm not that kind of person thanks. Life is complicated, more than what u think.

scd167
16-09-2012, 19:47
Sometimes u just got to get married for practical reasons and stuff to the extent that u got no other choice.

I guess I misunderstood what your post was implying.. "to the extent u got no other choice."

martpark
16-09-2012, 20:01
Actually I have a theory that we are born in loneliness and we die in loneliness.

The first part is most decidedly untrue. Babies who grow up without affection/contact have severe mental and physical problems in most animal species. Experiments have been done with monkeys where they are given a 'wire mother' who gives milk and a 'clothed mother' who gives nothing. The babies ate the milk but returned to the softer mother asap. Even with this option, the results were not good. The baby monkeys grew up developmentally delayed and often died young.

This all, of course, depends on how you define loneliness. If you define it as 'having loved ones in your life', most people do not die alone.

franzewich
16-09-2012, 20:07
it is true in theory. But in practice after some days, months, years of living all together as a family some problems you never expected can come up. But I guess it is easier when you have a girl, not a boy. I've never seen in my life step-fathers treating their step-sons as their own ones. The best what they could get was neutrality.

Yes, there are cases of conflict with step-parents, particularly when the kid is in puberty. But are there no conflicts between parents and their biological kids? Own children also come up with troubles which you never anticipated! It is possible to overcome. Of course, it does make a man think twice before he sais "yes" to a woman with another man's child, but for me it would not be a categorical reason to say "no".

NotMe
16-09-2012, 20:19
Fully agree! If a man really loves a woman he will accept her kid as his own. If he is a decent and responsible guy, he will adopt him/her and will do his best to be a good father. After all, your kid is part of you.

Well...
In fact, it's a tricky issue. :)

It could be considered as a some kind of betrayal with respect to child's father.

franzewich
16-09-2012, 20:23
Because to be willing to pay for someone's mistakes for the rest of your life, financially, emotionally, time-wise and in every other possible manner, you really need to be in love with that person, like I said, like a crazy. Children are great, don't take me wrong, by mistakes I mean the marriage that didn't work out and left the child fatherless
....

I would not call it a mistake if two people love each other and have children, just to find out after so many years that the marriage does not make them happy any more. Better split than making each others lifes miserable.

I got a divorce after 15 years of marriage, but that does not mean these had been misery, quite to the contrary. At one point we both felt that our expectations did not match any more, and I am still in good relationships with her and my daughter. The divorce case took more than three years, and I was quite unbalanced during that time; but in the end we were both happy about the split. Now I even have a good relationship with her new partner. So what?

Yes, it was bitter at times when my daughter had a closer relationship with another "dad" (who lives with my ex wife) than with me. But that's life, I love my daughter and I want her to be happy. So her happiness is not necessarily my unhappiness.

franzewich
16-09-2012, 20:32
Well...
In fact, it's a tricky issue. :)

It could be considered as a some kind of betrayal with respect to child's father.

Not necessarily, it depends on the circumstances. But when two parents decide to split, it should not be to the disadvantage of the kid.

A child needs a stronghold, derserves to know to whom he belongs. When I say "yes" to a woman, I will say "yes" to her kid. It does not mean that the child's biological father has to be completely cut off - unless he mistreats or ignores his child or starts causing other troubles.

iancarisi
16-09-2012, 21:04
I also just got out of a 3 year relationship, although not long distance. My two cents, learn to be and appreciate yourself. I do not need any other person to validate my existence. And, if you want true love, get a dog :)

rusmeister
16-09-2012, 21:25
Thoughts that come up amid the chaos...

I think nearly all of us applaud the sentiment of adopting a child that is not our own. However, I , for one, understand the natural desire of a man or woman that their children be natural-born. It springs from the normalcy of faithful marriages that understand that the desire to be constantly happy need not be the primary thing that determines a successful marriage, that normalcy is monogamy and faithfulness, stable families, in-laws and communities. So I get where RL is coming from, and consider myself lucky that my children ARE my own.

There certainly ARE practical reasons to get married. A man is stabilized, responsibility is required of him, a woman can seriously consider children when her husband "has got her back", so to speak and she can give herself over to the biological limitations of pregnancy and then child-rearing, without which none of us would exist; down the road, the companionship of two people who understand each other well, even if harsh words or a pot occasionally fly, and as I've said, reliable parents for children and grandchildren.

I think it very hard for divorced people to hear this stuff because it speaks of an ideal that some of them might have already missed out on. I think that if you can't, really can't patch up what you had, the important thing is, if you get married again, to get it right and not marry a second spouse with pre-nups and escape hatches all worked out. It's not about condemning people. It's trying to say, even if some of us are late in hearing it, what we should work toward. So in general and in short, yes, divorce, generally speaking, IS a mistake. I know we don't like to think that that choice could be a mistake when we've made it, but it's true. If you can't undo it, at least don't do it again. At most commit to being faithful for life, even for the times ahead when you will feel unhappy. The vow helps you through those hard times, especially if you have the right attitude.

I don't think the traditional concept of marriage for life with no easy outs is about "validating yourself". It's about establishing a stable family, something we, our children, our relatives, and society all need. What is popular now, temporary "relationships" that can be broken up tomorrow if I feel unhappy, destroys that.

Potty
16-09-2012, 21:35
especially in Russia where most fathers are poor as church rats.

I bet on your web-site there are rich international "fathers" :p

Russian Lad
17-09-2012, 01:22
I got a divorce after 15 years of marriage, but that does not mean these had been misery, quite to the contrary. At one point we both felt that our expectations did not match any more, and I am still in good relationships with her and my daughter. The divorce case took more than three years, and I was quite unbalanced during that time; but in the end we were both happy about the split. Now I even have a good relationship with her new partner. So what?


I was talking about the misery you caused to the child. Or your daughter went like: "Oh, ok, I have a new dad now, hello daddy, let's go play in the garden!"


Originally Posted by Russian Lad
especially in Russia where most fathers are poor as church rats.
I bet on your web-site there are rich international "fathers"

Well, yes, I am sure there are, we target mostly Western countries when it comes to men.

robertmf
17-09-2012, 01:34
... Well, yes, I am sure there are, we target mostly Western countries when it comes to men.

In the old days I brought over a lot of women. Then the Cold War ended and immigration bureaucrats took over.

franzewich
17-09-2012, 01:47
I was talking about the misery you caused to the child. Or your daughter went like: "Oh, ok, I have a new dad now, hello daddy, let's go play in the garden!"

Sorry, but your post reads completely differently of what you're claiming now.

Well, actually I had separation in mind a few years before I actually took the step; I waited because I felt that my daughter would be hurting less if she was a little older. That was a mistake, I admit, but I never saw it as a mistake to have married my wife.

It is painful for a child when his/her parents separate, it can be outright traumatizing, no doubt. But do you think it is better when the child has to stay in an atmosphere of disharmony, and, in the end, might get caught between two poles of mutual hate?

My daughter suffered, and she distanced herself from me. She was sixteen at that time, and I was stuck in Moscow, could not be with her very often. That hurt - both of us.

When another man entered my ex-wifes life (she had an affair with him while we were still married and I was in Moscow), my main concern was the well being of my daughter. And I am very grateful that this man treated her well; I think I even owe him for that! What is wrong with having two caring fathers?

Russian Lad
17-09-2012, 02:19
What is wrong with having two caring fathers?

In the West, nothing is wrong with that, I have even heard neither of them can be the child's biological father, they can get married, shag each other and raise this child as two happy fathers:). I am strongly against such activities though.:) I personally would have rather stayed at an orphanage than have two faggots for my mom and dad.
On a serious note, I think it is quite wrong and may hurt a child real bad.

Russian Lad
17-09-2012, 02:32
In the old days I brought over a lot of women. Then the Cold War ended and immigration bureaucrats took over.

I have heard nowadays Americans (not sure about the Brits and others) can visit Ukraine even without a visa.

RichardB
17-09-2012, 02:35
Despite that being a question to be asked on FB... ;) He's back home, a good friend, another one living too far.. Seems like I don't have many people left close to home I care much about.

:iagree:

*removes foot from mouth*


Oh yes you do :)

Did you get to the Spasskaya then? What did you think?

Potty
17-09-2012, 02:40
Well, yes, I am sure there are, we target mostly Western countries when it comes to men.

I always admire at people who believe in their success.

Potty
17-09-2012, 02:43
I have heard nowadays Americans (not sure about the Brits and others) can visit Ukraine even without a visa.

Cool. Kiev Pechersk Lavra is a great place.

Russian Lad
17-09-2012, 03:26
Originally Posted by Russian Lad
I have heard nowadays Americans (not sure about the Brits and others) can visit Ukraine even without a visa.
Cool. Kiev Pechersk Lavra is a great place.


I am sure most of American men come over there specifically to see this Lavra.:))


Originally Posted by Russian Lad
Well, yes, I am sure there are, we target mostly Western countries when it comes to men.
I always admire at people who believe in their success.

Believing in success is not enough. One has to create conditions for the success to take place and to set realistic targets. For example, one can believe with all his heart that he can make a hole in a 1 meter thick cement wall by banging on it with his head. It will simply never happen.

franzewich
17-09-2012, 09:18
... I personally would have rather stayed at an orphanage than have two faggots for my mom and dad.
On a serious note, I think it is quite wrong and may hurt a child real bad.

Hahaha! You are funny! :) A child being raised by two single-sex parents was not exactly what I was referring to! :)

But I agree with you; a kid should have a female mother and a male father.

robertmf
17-09-2012, 09:38
But I agree with you; a kid should have a female mother and a male father.

Yes. :iagree:

natlee
17-09-2012, 09:52
:iagree:

*removes foot from mouth*


Oh yes you do :)

Did you get to the Spasskaya then? What did you think? And you would know how? ;) I didn't actually get to go, cry!

natlee
17-09-2012, 10:20
I would think of the real reason why you were in long-distance relationship for 3 year if you want to have a real and happy family. no offence, it's from my experience when I declared desire to have a family, but actually kept everyone away from me. maybe you need a break? None taken! It's all too simple to the extent of boring. Was going through divorce, hint hint, chatting to this guy online - funny, he annoyed the living c*ap out of me but made me laugh on occasion. He was in a long relationship coming to an end, so as soon as he got the chance he simply flew over and wouldn't let go since :) Called every night, visited every chance he got, sent me flowers for no reason and any time he'd even slightly upset me, got my daughter gifts etc. He was the type "sooo wrong for me" but "such a good guy, and loves me so much" it was impossible to even want to get rid of him. The plan always was to get married eventually, at first we even had a very clear one as to when exactly but then he wouldn't mention it thinking it was all set, and I'd enjoy the 'engaged' status unwilling to take the next step. Now as to why I was unwilling... a few reasons, but mostly.. I wasn't all that crazy about the idea of being a WIFE to someone I would not live with for another six months to a year. Felt like a bit of a jail sentence.. not helped by the fact that as time went by, we had less fun and more fights, yet whereas initially we both cried for days every time we parted (I know, time for a real man lol), it was just me in the end. I'm the type who develops serious withdrawal symptoms after living with someone for even a week :( Long story short, I hung onto him until I got seriously attached, at which point it seemed he decided to change his "I'd do anything for you" story for "as long as you fit in with my lifestyle, you can stay". I probably would've married him at some point anyway if I didn't have a daughter, but, thankfully, I forced myself to think of what I'd be giving up for her, too. Long story short, I always have wanted "a real and happy family" and never knowingly "kept everyone away".

robertmf
17-09-2012, 10:20
And you would know how? ;) I didn't actually get to go, cry!

Are those crocodile tears ? Why didn't you go :question:

robertmf
17-09-2012, 10:24
Long story short, I always have wanted "a real and happy family" and never knowingly "kept everyone away".

Did you ever think about talking with MickeyT or marrying The Rusmeister :question:

natlee
17-09-2012, 10:30
Are those crocodile tears ? Why didn't you go :question:

A couple of reasons.. By the time Richard reminded me (sort of lol) only the most expensive tickets were left, then I'd have to get my daughter one also and drag her along as I couldn't find a babysitter at such short notice, got freaked out at the thought of this being Russia after all and would I actually be subjecting my kid to any form of danger :shame: not to mention, the friend I had staying over didn't seem very excited at my mention of it so I just gave up... something I quite regret :(

Russian Lad
17-09-2012, 10:31
marrying The Rusmeister

hope she is not THAT desperate:)))

natlee
17-09-2012, 10:34
hope she is not THAT desperate:))) Irrelevant as he's already married ;)

RichardB
17-09-2012, 10:38
A couple of reasons.. By the time Richard reminded me (sort of lol) only the most expensive tickets were left, then I'd have to get my daughter one also and drag her along as I couldn't find a babysitter at such short notice, got freaked out at the thought of this being Russia after all and would I actually be subjecting my kid to any form of danger :shame: not to mention, the friend I had staying over didn't seem very excited at my mention of it so I just gave up... something I quite regret :(

I'll take you next year. Deal?!

natlee
17-09-2012, 10:41
I'll take you next year. Deal?! You said the same about this year! I have trouble trusting the Brits lately :D

robertmf
17-09-2012, 10:48
Irrelevant as he's already married ;)

Maybe irreverent :question:

**Sorry I'm being not funny on a serious topic**

RichardB
17-09-2012, 10:48
You said the same about this year! I have trouble trusting the Brits lately :D

When??!!

Ermm.... actually, I did didn't I? But that was when I was attempting to flirt with you and you hadn't yet buggered off to London to spend 7 weeks with you-know-who and you hadn't given Alise the camera to try and get some photos of you with a smile on your face :AngelPray:

:D :D :D

robertmf
17-09-2012, 10:50
You said the same about this year! I have trouble trusting the Brits lately :D

The Americans had the same suspicion :mml: So we threw :uk: them out (along with the queen bee).

Potty
17-09-2012, 10:51
But that was when I was attempting to flirt with you and you hadn't yet buggered off to London to spend 7 weeks with you-know-who and

:emote_popcorn::emote_popcorn::emote_popcorn:

natlee
17-09-2012, 10:54
When??!!

Ermm.... actually, I did didn't I? But that was when I was attempting to flirt with you and you hadn't yet buggered off to London to spend 7 weeks with you-know-who and you hadn't given Alise the camera to try and get some photos of you with a smile on your face :AngelPray:

:D :D :D Yes you did! And, no flirting would've made me give up tickets to London! :D Speaking of... Ah well, that'll be for another thread :)

robertmf
17-09-2012, 10:56
When??!!

Ermm.... actually, I did didn't I? But that was when I was attempting to flirt with you and you hadn't yet buggered off to London to spend 7 weeks with you-know-who and you hadn't given Alise the camera to try and get some photos of you with a smile on your face :AngelPray:

:D :D :D

Are you the "Richard" that Natlee is talking about ? :soapbox: You CAD !! HEEL !!!

:rofl:

RichardB
17-09-2012, 10:57
Speaking of... Ah well, that'll be for another thread :)

Or PM's... or FB!

mds45
17-09-2012, 10:59
Hey Natlee, you gonna be in London on Saturday the 3rd of November? Inna and I will be there and have tickets to the comedy club on Leicester Square, if fish & chips and a glass or 22 of wine with some laughter sounds good please join us ! would be great to see you :)

natlee
17-09-2012, 11:04
Hey Natlee, you gonna be in London on Saturday the 3rd of November? Inna and I will be there and have tickets to the comedy club on Leicester Square, if fish & chips and a glass or 22 of wine with some laughter sounds good please join us ! would be great to see you :) Unless I take a trip out of the city for a few days (should find out soon enough) I should be - I'll be going back home the next day. I will let you know, and it would be great to see you, too! And comedy club sounds like exactly what I need! ;)

Potty
17-09-2012, 11:06
Inna and I

what about Inna's twin sister?

mds45
17-09-2012, 11:09
Unless I take a trip out of the city for a few days (should find out soon enough) I should be - I'll be going back home the next day. I will let you know, and it would be great to see you, too! And comedy club sounds like exactly what I need! ;)

Great ! let's hope it works out , I've been to this one many times it's the best comedy club ever ! sometimes they have a special guest and anyone can arrive - had Robin Williams arrive un announced once and do a routine - never laughed so much in my life - still hate Mrs Doubtfire though:)

natlee
17-09-2012, 11:12
Great ! let's hope it works out , I've been to this one many times it's the best comedy club ever ! sometimes they have a special guest and anyone can arrive - had Robin Williams arrive un announced once and do a routine - never laughed so much in my life - still hate Mrs Doubtfire though:) I've only been to a comedy club once in New York and it was the best time I've ever had, laughter-wise ;) How come I haven't thought of going since?! Thanks! :)

mds45
17-09-2012, 11:17
what about Inna's twin sister?

They're not twins - just look similar :)

Potty
17-09-2012, 11:27
They're not twins - just look similar :)

Well it's enough I guess. I suppose nobody needs DNA-test.

rusmeister
19-09-2012, 08:50
Sorry, but your post reads completely differently of what you're claiming now.

Well, actually I had separation in mind a few years before I actually took the step; I waited because I felt that my daughter would be hurting less if she was a little older. That was a mistake, I admit, but I never saw it as a mistake to have married my wife.

It is painful for a child when his/her parents separate, it can be outright traumatizing, no doubt. But do you think it is better when the child has to stay in an atmosphere of disharmony, and, in the end, might get caught between two poles of mutual hate?


Generally speaking, yes, it IS better. It is difficult to say things that can be heard by people who have been divorced; they will necessarily take it as personal criticism and have an overriding motive to believe what they comfort themselves with. It might help to remember that I see us all as victims who have been taught specific and very wrong things, and need to come back to the saner understandings of our forefathers, who while not achieving perfection - no one ever really does - at least achived stable families and societies without elevating the individual to the level of worship.
Of course, it might not be better if both parents cannot control themselves for the sake of their own children that they ostensibly love and have placed their own desires above the genuine needs and desires of their children, who they never really ask. The adults don't realize this consciously, of course. But they have had it drummed into them that if they are not perfectly happy, they should walk (or run) away from what they have created on the basis of the very kinds of justifications you list. They have been taught not to fix what is broken, but to throw it away.


My daughter suffered, and she distanced herself from me. She was sixteen at that time, and I was stuck in Moscow, could not be with her very often. That hurt - both of us.

When another man entered my ex-wifes life (she had an affair with him while we were still married and I was in Moscow), my main concern was the well being of my daughter. And I am very grateful that this man treated her well; I think I even owe him for that! What is wrong with having two caring fathers?

Ask your daughter. I think accepting pain for yourself, and voluntarily sacrificing what you want for love, and renouncing even resentment, is better than the lifelong trauma visited on children because of parental incontinence. As long as we are not talking about axe-wielding maniacs, the children's good does NOT generally consist in e break-up of the family, whatever excuses are brought to bear.

natlee
19-09-2012, 10:22
Generally speaking, yes, it IS better. It is difficult to say things that can be heard by people who have been divorced; they will necessarily take it as personal criticism and have an overriding motive to believe what they comfort themselves with. Very true!.. however, stop torturing those of us having made that mistake! Pretty please? :)

A question for you.. what about relationships/marriages without children? What happens when you hit what seems to be a dead end there? Are they worth working on just for the sake of, I don't know.. the time invested, the feelings (positive ones somewhere deep, deep inside), the memories? What about when there ARE children involved but from previous relationships? As in, the child(ren) grew to love the new dad type character in their life? Under which circumstances might it be ok to just.. move on?

rusmeister
19-09-2012, 11:31
Very true!.. however, stop torturing those of us having made that mistake! Pretty please? :)

A question for you.. what about relationships/marriages without children? What happens when you hit what seems to be a dead end there? Are they worth working on just for the sake of, I don't know.. the time invested, the feelings (positive ones somewhere deep, deep inside), the memories? What about when there ARE children involved but from previous relationships? As in, the child(ren) grew to love the new dad type character in their life? Under which circumstances might it be ok to just.. move on?
Hi Natlee,
I came within a HAIR of making that mistake myself. Had a lawyer ready and everything - paid for it, too.

I have no intent to torture. But I'm sure that you would agree that, realizing that a mistake was made, you wouldn't want to do it again; that any future marriage would get it right, right? If you've made an irreparable mistake, you may HAVE to move on; you just don't want to repeat the mistake, part of which is certainly in thinking that it's "finding the right person".

On your question, yes, I believe the marriage has an absolute value even without children. It is difficult to say some things, though, without dragging my worldview into it, because they would only make sense coming from that worldview.

If you have a new husband, then yeah, you have to at least be faithful to him, and hopefully he holds the right worldview - one that encourages him to love your children as his own, and to be faithful to you, even when he doesn't "feel like it".

natlee
19-09-2012, 12:46
Hi Natlee,
I came within a HAIR of making that mistake myself. Had a lawyer ready and everything - paid for it, too.

I have no intent to torture. But I'm sure that you would agree that, realizing that a mistake was made, you wouldn't want to do it again; that any future marriage would get it right, right? If you've made an irreparable mistake, you may HAVE to move on; you just don't want to repeat the mistake, part of which is certainly in thinking that it's "finding the right person".

On your question, yes, I believe the marriage has an absolute value even without children. It is difficult to say some things, though, without dragging my worldview into it, because they would only make sense coming from that worldview.

If you have a new husband, then yeah, you have to at least be faithful to him, and hopefully he holds the right worldview - one that encourages him to love your children as his own, and to be faithful to you, even when he doesn't "feel like it". I'm not talking about being faithful (of course one should be faithful) but about allowing yourself to get out of a marriage (does it have to be a marriage?) when things really aren't working out, there're no children involved or you haven't hit the 5 (?) year mark yet. What if I want more children and can't seem to make my current (an example) relationship work? Won't I be hurting our future children if I keep on trying and it still doesn't work in the end? Couldn't it be better to move on and find a relationship that will? I'm not sure whether or not this is true, but a couple of people have once told me when I told them I was, as we put it, no gift myself... they said the right man will know to push the right buttons and avoid the wrong ones. Couldn't that be true? What if there's someone out there who will love me the way I am without me having to make myself into a brand new person for someone I possibly made the mistake of getting together with (or married to, if you prefer) in the first place?

A quick example.. I was feeling REALLY down the other day and decided to take my ex up on his offer of staying a friend... Well.. I ended up feeling WAY worse than I'd started out with having been verbally abused and pretty much told I didn't deserve so much as sympathy. I cried half the night, and he called up the next day like nothing had ever happened. Summarizes the relationship, and reminds me of the reason he's an ex! And yes, I could've worked on that one also.. the only way would've been to suck it up and swallow the tears anytime he hurts me but never, ever show or God forbid tell him! ;)

And yes, I realize I made a mistake with my marriage. Then again, it's a lot easier to say that now, when all of the c*ap I had to deal with (and yes, so did he) is far behind me, not to mention, I haven't exactly met the new love of my life ;)

franzewich
20-09-2012, 12:06
Generally speaking, yes, it IS better. It is difficult to say things that can be heard by people who have been divorced; they will necessarily take it as personal criticism and have an overriding motive to believe what they comfort themselves with. It might help to remember that I see us all as victims who have been taught specific and very wrong things, and need to come back to the saner understandings of our forefathers, who while not achieving perfection - no one ever really does - at least achived stable families and societies without elevating the individual to the level of worship.
Of course, it might not be better if both parents cannot control themselves for the sake of their own children that they ostensibly love and have placed their own desires above the genuine needs and desires of their children, who they never really ask. The adults don't realize this consciously, of course. But they have had it drummed into them that if they are not perfectly happy, they should walk (or run) away from what they have created on the basis of the very kinds of justifications you list. They have been taught not to fix what is broken, but to throw it away.

Ask your daughter. I think accepting pain for yourself, and voluntarily sacrificing what you want for love, and renouncing even resentment, is better than the lifelong trauma visited on children because of parental incontinence. As long as we are not talking about axe-wielding maniacs, the children's good does NOT generally consist in e break-up of the family, whatever excuses are brought to bear.

Children are part of ourselves, a blessing, and must be treated with utmost love, care, responsibility and cherishment. We live in a throw-away “fun” society; temptations are manifold, and too many are wondering how to end relationships rather than how to mend them. Selfishness must not go on cost of our children.

But who really wants the “good old times” back? There were no “saner understandings of our forefathers” because those were not moral reasons which tied husband and wife together, they were rather material, existential ones. Nowadays both sexes are educated, independent, and the traditional roles for men as sole financial supporters and women as household slaves have changed. And so have opportunities, expectations, and, yes, unfortunately, temptations.

Like every relationship, marriage is only as good as BOTH partners decide to contribute. When agreements are continuously broken, consent is ignored and respect is not paid any more, then the only choice can be separation. Nobody has to accept abuse and humiliation - and self-sacrifice! - from a cheating partner. But you see a “mistake” with the one who decides to make an end to an unhappy situation in life, and not with the one who keeps breaking the vows which were once made. It is definitely better to end a fake family harmony which is resembles hell on earth BEFORE one turns into an “axe-wielding maniac”.

Of course a divorce is painful for every member in the family – but does not necessarily result in a life long trauma for the children; unless a parent completely deserts them. Forcing them into a tensed confined environment in which parents have nothing to tell each other any more (or worse) is more painful for a child on the long run than a clean cut and a new start. Children are perfectly capable of understanding this, and the divorced parent still can be a loving, responsible and reliable part in their lives. It depends on how the situation is being handled.

andymackem
20-09-2012, 12:43
I'm not talking about being faithful (of course one should be faithful) but about allowing yourself to get out of a marriage (does it have to be a marriage?) when things really aren't working out, there're no children involved or you haven't hit the 5 (?) year mark yet. What if I want more children and can't seem to make my current (an example) relationship work? Won't I be hurting our future children if I keep on trying and it still doesn't work in the end? Couldn't it be better to move on and find a relationship that will? I'm not sure whether or not this is true, but a couple of people have once told me when I told them I was, as we put it, no gift myself... they said the right man will know to push the right buttons and avoid the wrong ones. Couldn't that be true? What if there's someone out there who will love me the way I am without me having to make myself into a brand new person for someone I possibly made the mistake of getting together with (or married to, if you prefer) in the first place?

Like Franzewich says, it takes two to make a relationship. Rus has pointed out in the past, quite validly, that it is harder to stop loving (refuse to love?) someone who continues to treat you with love. And to a certain extent this gives you a tool to improve the behaviour of a wayward partner. But the flip-side also holds: it is harder to keep loving someone who continues to treat you with contempt. In a perfect world, virtue would be rewarded, and the rogue would see the error of his ways, repent and sin no more. But all too often the rogue reckons that (s)he's getting away with it, sees no reason to repent, and sins more and more. But, btw, I don't believe this is a product of a modern cult of individual gratification - after all, human nature doesn't change greatly so if we behave like this today, it suggests we always have. Although maybe in the past we were better at pretending we didn't ... jury's out on whether keeping up that appearance was a good or bad thing.

Anyone, once we have tried loving our sinner, and finding the sinner remains unrepentent, simply saying 'divorce is bad', 'breaking up is bad' is rather pointless. I don't think anyone separates 'for a laugh', but rather because they don't see any further way forward which won't generate greater pain - for them personally, and for their families and those close to them. It doesn't require an axe-murderer to make life unbearable; it doesn't even require violence (ask my sister about her divorce). Maybe saying this to people who haven't divorced (my parents spring to mind, among others) is similar to criticising divorce to a divorcee? There's a fundamental lack of understanding between the two camps (or that's what I'm picking up from the debate on here; having been neither married nor divorced I'm arguably cast out of both houses!).

I'm not sure I agree that the right person will always push the right buttons and avoid the wrong ones, though. The right person, logically, will learn which buttons have which responses, and will come to understand when to offer the arm around the shoulder, and when to offer the boot up the backside (metaphorically, at least). One of my weaknesses when faced with other people's problems is a tendency to advise, rather than sympathise (I think we discussed this on FB before). To get that balance right, obviously I need to understand more about all the buttons available. And to gain that understanding takes time - arguably a lifetime. While that's happen, I need to understand that my other half is (hopefully) going through my 'user manual' at a similar pace, and will make the same inadvertent errors that I make. It's not always easy to remember - I know that I like this and hate that, but I've known myself for 36 years and it just seems obvious. But I've known my parents and my sister for the same length of time, and still get things wrong dealing with them, so how can I be expected, or expect, everything to be flawless in any other relationship? From both sides?

Meh. Too much rambling. Haven't I got any work to do?

rusmeister
22-09-2012, 07:22
I'm not talking about being faithful (of course one should be faithful) but about allowing yourself to get out of a marriage (does it have to be a marriage?) when things really aren't working out, there're no children involved or you haven't hit the 5 (?) year mark yet. What if I want more children and can't seem to make my current (an example) relationship work? Won't I be hurting our future children if I keep on trying and it still doesn't work in the end? Couldn't it be better to move on and find a relationship that will? I'm not sure whether or not this is true, but a couple of people have once told me when I told them I was, as we put it, no gift myself... they said the right man will know to push the right buttons and avoid the wrong ones. Couldn't that be true? What if there's someone out there who will love me the way I am without me having to make myself into a brand new person for someone I possibly made the mistake of getting together with (or married to, if you prefer) in the first place?

A quick example.. I was feeling REALLY down the other day and decided to take my ex up on his offer of staying a friend... Well.. I ended up feeling WAY worse than I'd started out with having been verbally abused and pretty much told I didn't deserve so much as sympathy. I cried half the night, and he called up the next day like nothing had ever happened. Summarizes the relationship, and reminds me of the reason he's an ex! And yes, I could've worked on that one also.. the only way would've been to suck it up and swallow the tears anytime he hurts me but never, ever show or God forbid tell him! ;)

And yes, I realize I made a mistake with my marriage. Then again, it's a lot easier to say that now, when all of the c*ap I had to deal with (and yes, so did he) is far behind me, not to mention, I haven't exactly met the new love of my life ;)

I'm not really willing to comment on individual situations.
1) They ARE complex things and advisors rarely have a sufficiently complete picture of the whole truth.
2) People want what they want, whether it is truly what is best for them or not. ANYTHING can be justified to oneself if one wants to justify it.

So what I would say would be more like a formula for "how NOT to end up getting divorced (again)".

I said that some things can't be said without dragging my worldview into it.

The man you're looking for is Jesus Christ. Really. In more ways than one.

We ALL want someone who will "love us the way we are", etc. The trouble is, after five or ten years, you get tired of, as you put it, "all the c*ap" of another person. The initial romantic feeling generally fades, leaving you both naked in front of each other as imperfect people that want to get more than they give. We want to be loved ideally, but not to have to reciprocate. But that's part of the deal of what love is - accepting a person WITH their "c*ap". And we consistently fail to see our own c*ap that we want the other to accept us with. And it really takes a form of holiness to do so WITHOUT resentment, or mere tolerance (which is an antithesis of love). It takes someone who is like Christ, or at least who is committed to being like Christ, a saint, or a saint in the making.
Any one of the people flirting online with you, after a successful romance and marriage, is liable, over three to five years, to discover your c*ap - it is SO hard to see it in ourselves; we justify things others for ourselves that we would not justify in others; and when they do, the marriage will go "south", and soon one or both of you could be "cheating" and someone looking for a divorce (again). To avoid that sort of cycle, you both need to be committed to loving irritating and maybe detestable things you don't even know about yet. To plant a flag of permanent loyalty that you will NOT abandon. To at last understand Tatyana Larina (Evgeny Onegin) when she tells Onegin that though she loves him, she will be faithful to the fat old general for the rest of her life, something I think many modern people, seeing absolute faithfulness like a foreign language, puzzle over and scratch their heads.

If you "allow yourself to get out of a marriage", then you are by definition being unfaithful to your husband (or a man to his wife). It is unnecessary to demand faithfulness of two young lovers. It is no struggle and therefore no special virtue for them to be faithful to each other. The virtue of faithfulness becomes a virtue when it becomes difficult to be faithful; when, facing a surly husband at home, you are tempted to flirt with a pleasant young man. THAT is the time the vow to be faithful is needed - when you don't FEEL like being faithful. The vow helps you get through the hard times to better times ahead.

Now it is very true that for a marriage to be happy, both spouses need to hold this view. But unless YOU hold this stern view, you cannot hope for a marriage that will survive the rocks that generally arise after seven to ten years, sometimes longer and later, of being married. And unless you hold something very like the Christian view, in our modern society of individualists (an antithesis of the family), then in any "relationship" you will probably find yourself looking at another divorce, or divorces, and a lonely old age.

But the first step to that happy marriage is to change both your views, and your self, if you would make it possible. And that's where the Church comes in. Being the author of the Christian marriage, the genius of its world view is that it provides the way back to marriages that can and do last a lifetime. That way is not easy, and starts with "metanoia", changing yourself, and how you see things, and so, what you should expect of yourself and others, discovering your OWN c*ap and working on eliminating, or at least minimizing it (this was once called "repentance") - so that you can become the kind of woman that the analogous man wondering where the woman is who REALLY could love him "as he is" (which is what you yourself want) for a lifetime.

It does not guarantee specific results, but it makes them POSSIBLE, and provides guidance in any eventuality. Unless you can admit that you have your own c*ap, which can wind up poisoning your marriage over time, you won't get out of that rut.

I certainly do not want my spouse to try to change me. But I DO recognize the need to change myself, and to struggle against MY c*ap - which we call "passions". And I really had no idea how to do it. We are masters of self-deception. And that's where I found the Church, calling me to be like Christ.

rusmeister
22-09-2012, 08:56
Taking these one at a time; there are things to say in response, both acknowledgement of good things said and disagreement and challenge...



Children are part of ourselves, a blessing, and must be treated with utmost love, care, responsibility and cherishment. We live in a throw-away “fun” society; temptations are manifold, and too many are wondering how to end relationships rather than how to mend them. Selfishness must not go on cost of our children.
Very true. QFT.


But who really wants the “good old times” back? There were no “saner understandings of our forefathers” because those were not moral reasons which tied husband and wife together, they were rather material, existential ones. Nowadays both sexes are educated, independent, and the traditional roles for men as sole financial supporters and women as household slaves have changed. And so have opportunities, expectations, and, yes, unfortunately, temptations.

Alas, this is not so true. Whether the old times were good or not is certainly debatable; I do not assert that they were especially good, certainly not ideal. But I do assert that, regarding the family, they were at least better, and the understandings of our forefathers in regard to it decidedly saner. The reasons for forming the family were completely moral, and not merely economical. Even in primitive - meaning early, not stupid - society, the problem of number of spouses was recognized, and it was not merely economic, but about the formation of the entire society. I think the education most dubious when people are taught to blindly worship the god of "Science" and yet to doubt whether there is transcendent truth that affects everybody, and it is obvious to me that the one thing family members may not be is independent of each other. Children may not be independent of their parents, mothers may not yet declare their independence from their babies - unkess they happen to be unborn, in which case the baby's independence from its mother depends... on the mother's good will to not kill him or her, and if a couple is independent of each other, they may be business partners, but not in any meaningful sense husband and wife.
Broadly, your idea of wives as being household slaves, in Chrustendom, the most important and relevant historical concept in space and time, is, while commonly held in our particularly ignorant age, is decidedly false, and primarily found in books by modern historians, hardly at all in literature, (and spare me Wikipedia quoting said modern historians - I know that I am dealing with the view those historians wish to propagate) and the very opposite in the evidence found in folk and fairy tales, myths and legends of Christendom. If the idea of the wife as slave were true, then no myth of Zeus's philandering would have come down to us as is - we would have a Zeus, not running and hiding when caught by his wife, Hera, but a Zeus that blasted the impudent Hera with a lightning bolt for complaining about her master's choice of bed-partner. The fisherman who caught the golden fish would beat his wife for daring to try to boss him around. Hansel and Gretel's father would have kicked his step-wife around for ordering him to leave his beloved children in the woods to die. People listening to the stories we DO have would have laughed the stories out of town, not for their magic and miracles, but for the unbelievable behavior of ordinary human beings.

You, like so many of us, have been the victim of historical revisionism. Any defenseless kid can be forced to read history books until they believe what has been repeated many times. It takes someone using their brain to look at the evidence and see through the propaganda. You can certainly find exceptions, and I will agree that the exceptions were unjust, and then point out their exceptional character on the larger background, and it is those exceptions that you will find magnified out of proportion in Wikipedia and modern history books.


Like every relationship, marriage is only as good as BOTH partners decide to contribute. When agreements are continuously broken, consent is ignored and respect is not paid any more, then the only choice can be separation. Nobody has to accept abuse and humiliation - and self-sacrifice! - from a cheating partner. But you see a “mistake” with the one who decides to make an end to an unhappy situation in life, and not with the one who keeps breaking the vows which were once made. It is definitely better to end a fake family harmony which is resembles hell on earth BEFORE one turns into an “axe-wielding maniac”.

I've largely responded to this in my post to Natlee. I said it would take Christ, who DID accept abuse and humiliation, and insisted that He be the servant of all. Not as a doormat, but as a deliberate sacrifice of desire and abnegation of self. Certainly a truly happy marriage requires both partners, but a successful marriage - one that stays married out of love - requires only one. There is ALWAYS a choice to divorce. You may, like the man in Jane Eyre, have to commit your wife to an insane asylum, and then, unlike him, choose to be faithful. That is the meaning of "for worse" in the traditional English formula of the wedding vow: "for better or for worse", and it is the extremely difficult, AND most honorable thing to do, the thing we would respect the most, however undesirable the situation.

I DO see a mistake, and a great one (that is what "sin" means - "missing the mark") in the actions of the other spouse that drive you away. But 1) I think our natural tendency is to see our own faults as small, and those of others as larger, and so each holds him or herself wronged, and 2) a mistake is not corrected by a bigger mistake.

It is better still to change oneself to be like Christ and SAVE one's marriage and make a bad marriage into a tolerably good one. Almost every time, you'll discover that you simply didn't see your own faults, while your spouse's seemed like a mountain. It need never come close to the axe, or the kitchen knife.


Of course a divorce is painful for every member in the family – but does not necessarily result in a life long trauma for the children; unless a parent completely deserts them. Forcing them into a tensed confined environment in which parents have nothing to tell each other any more (or worse) is more painful for a child on the long run than a clean cut and a new start. Children are perfectly capable of understanding this, and the divorced parent still can be a loving, responsible and reliable part in their lives. It depends on how the situation is being handled.


This is patently false. Begging your pardon, but I have heard countless tales of adults with lingering trauma from divorce, setting aside my own. Children are perfectly capable of coming to doubtfully believe what a divorcing patent drums into them again and again, but they never, ever start out from that position. If we ask any child (who has not been specially coached) what they want, they will tell us that they want their parents to resolve their differences and remain together. I work with kids, and when the topic comes up, that's the answer I unfailingly get. Zero percent say they think it would be better for their parents to divorce. Not one. Ever.

martpark
22-09-2012, 10:15
I'm not really willing to comment on individual situations.
1) They ARE complex things and advisors rarely have a sufficiently complete picture of the whole truth.
2) People want what they want, whether it is truly what is best for them or not. ANYTHING can be justified to oneself if one wants to justify it.

So what I would say would be more like a formula for "how NOT to end up getting divorced (again)".

I said that some things can't be said without dragging my worldview into it.

The man you're looking for is Jesus Christ. Really. In more ways than one.

We ALL want someone who will "love us the way we are", etc. The trouble is, after five or ten years, you get tired of, as you put it, "all the c*ap" of another person. The initial romantic feeling generally fades, leaving you both naked in front of each other as imperfect people that want to get more than they give. We want to be loved ideally, but not to have to reciprocate. But that's part of the deal of what love is - accepting a person WITH their "c*ap". And we consistently fail to see our own c*ap that we want the other to accept us with. And it really takes a form of holiness to do so WITHOUT resentment, or mere tolerance (which is an antithesis of love). It takes someone who is like Christ, or at least who is committed to being like Christ, a saint, or a saint in the making.
Any one of the people flirting online with you, after a successful romance and marriage, is liable, over three to five years, to discover your c*ap - it is SO hard to see it in ourselves; we justify things others for ourselves that we would not justify in others; and when they do, the marriage will go "south", and soon one or both of you could be "cheating" and someone looking for a divorce (again). To avoid that sort of cycle, you both need to be committed to loving irritating and maybe detestable things you don't even know about yet. To plant a flag of permanent loyalty that you will NOT abandon. To at last understand Tatyana Larina (Evgeny Onegin) when she tells Onegin that though she loves him, she will be faithful to the fat old general for the rest of her life, something I think many modern people, seeing absolute faithfulness like a foreign language, puzzle over and scratch their heads.

If you "allow yourself to get out of a marriage", then you are by definition being unfaithful to your husband (or a man to his wife). It is unnecessary to demand faithfulness of two young lovers. It is no struggle and therefore no special virtue for them to be faithful to each other. The virtue of faithfulness becomes a virtue when it becomes difficult to be faithful; when, facing a surly husband at home, you are tempted to flirt with a pleasant young man. THAT is the time the vow to be faithful is needed - when you don't FEEL like being faithful. The vow helps you get through the hard times to better times ahead.

Now it is very true that for a marriage to be happy, both spouses need to hold this view. But unless YOU hold this stern view, you cannot hope for a marriage that will survive the rocks that generally arise after seven to ten years, sometimes longer and later, of being married. And unless you hold something very like the Christian view, in our modern society of individualists (an antithesis of the family), then in any "relationship" you will probably find yourself looking at another divorce, or divorces, and a lonely old age.

But the first step to that happy marriage is to change both your views, and your self, if you would make it possible. And that's where the Church comes in. Being the author of the Christian marriage, the genius of its world view is that it provides the way back to marriages that can and do last a lifetime. That way is not easy, and starts with "metanoia", changing yourself, and how you see things, and so, what you should expect of yourself and others, discovering your OWN c*ap and working on eliminating, or at least minimizing it (this was once called "repentance") - so that you can become the kind of woman that the analogous man wondering where the woman is who REALLY could love him "as he is" (which is what you yourself want) for a lifetime.

It does not guarantee specific results, but it makes them POSSIBLE, and provides guidance in any eventuality. Unless you can admit that you have your own c*ap, which can wind up poisoning your marriage over time, you won't get out of that rut.

I certainly do not want my spouse to try to change me. But I DO recognize the need to change myself, and to struggle against MY c*ap - which we call "passions". And I really had no idea how to do it. We are masters of self-deception. And that's where I found the Church, calling me to be like Christ.

Watch the proselytizing, Rus. Everyone has heard of him. No need for a Sunday sermon.

rubyrussia
22-09-2012, 11:24
.

rusmeister
22-09-2012, 11:27
Watch the proselytizing, Rus. Everyone has heard of him. No need for a Sunday sermon.

I warned her I'd have to drag my worldview in.
I can hardly say "I see a way out of the trap" and then not say what it is because there is a totally unofficial ban on mentioning the name of the founder of my religion.

I'm not hopping on a pulpit shouting, "Y'all have to cum tah JEEE-zuss!". I'm saying that if you want a way out of the trap of inevitable divorce then my religion does offer it, because it comes with a complete philosophy of life. If you don't, then fine.

You've seen me around for years now, and while I know you're not crazy about my worldview, you know I generally stick to secular concepts that people can agree or disagree with. I DO advocate my worldview, of course, as Jan and RussianLad advocate theirs, and think it DOES offer practical answers that people ask about here. Preaching, though, is speaking to people who already agree with you, or at least the preacher ASSUMES that they naturally agree with him. I assume nothing of the sort.

Atheism and agnosticism can be and are preached more often than my religion, or even Islam, around here.

Don't worry, though. I've said all I think necessary on the topic.

martpark
22-09-2012, 13:07
I warned her I'd have to drag my worldview in.
I can hardly say "I see a way out of the trap" and then not say what it is because there is a totally unofficial ban on mentioning the name of the founder of my religion. There's no ban but on any forum, we have to deal with tiresome, repetitive spamming because some people refuse to see the light or take into consideration other posters. Send her a private msg with the 'good news' if you wish (but I think she already knows your 'worldview').


I'm not hopping on a pulpit shouting, "Y'all have to cum tah JEEE-zuss!". I'm saying that if you want a way out of the trap of inevitable divorce then my religion does offer it, because it comes with a complete philosophy of life. If you don't, then fine.It doesn't matter how you imagine it. No one, not even you, can give another person a 'complete philosophy of life' in a post.

You've seen me around for years now, and while I know you're not crazy about my worldview, you know I generally stick to secular concepts that people can agree or disagree with. I DO advocate my worldview, of course, as Jan and RussianLad advocate theirs, and think it DOES offer practical answers that people ask about here. I think, like everyone else, you interpret the things around you. You can call it what you like but let it be yours and not some response, such as 'JC is the answer'. In general, you rarely stick to secular issues. Usually, you find a post where you can 'express' your 'worldview' and return to the same message and themes ad infinitum but we are very generous here and let you express your thoughts...up to a point, where you stop thinking and just type repetitive slogans that every already knows. If the same were done with ' the Buddha is the answer', they'd get the same treatment.
Preaching, though, is speaking to people who already agree with you, or at least the preacher ASSUMES that they naturally agree with him. I assume nothing of the sort.That's preaching to the converted. You've confused things.

Atheism and agnosticism can be and are preached more often than my religion, or even Islam, around here.

Don't worry, though. I've said all I think necessary on the topic.
I have yet to hear one poster say Atheism, agnosticism or Islam can cure all your problems. If you find me a post like that please let me know.

So, in conclusion, lay off the simplistic jingo and continue to give your opinions as you have done many times in the past.

rusmeister
22-09-2012, 15:52
Like Franzewich says, it takes two to make a relationship. Rus has pointed out in the past, quite validly, that it is harder to stop loving (refuse to love?) someone who continues to treat you with love. And to a certain extent this gives you a tool to improve the behaviour of a wayward partner. But the flip-side also holds: it is harder to keep loving someone who continues to treat you with contempt. In a perfect world, virtue would be rewarded, and the rogue would see the error of his ways, repent and sin no more. But all too often the rogue reckons that (s)he's getting away with it, sees no reason to repent, and sins more and more. But, btw, I don't believe this is a product of a modern cult of individual gratification - after all, human nature doesn't change greatly so if we behave like this today, it suggests we always have. Although maybe in the past we were better at pretending we didn't ... jury's out on whether keeping up that appearance was a good or bad thing.

Anyone, once we have tried loving our sinner, and finding the sinner remains unrepentent, simply saying 'divorce is bad', 'breaking up is bad' is rather pointless. I don't think anyone separates 'for a laugh', but rather because they don't see any further way forward which won't generate greater pain - for them personally, and for their families and those close to them. It doesn't require an axe-murderer to make life unbearable; it doesn't even require violence (ask my sister about her divorce). Maybe saying this to people who haven't divorced (my parents spring to mind, among others) is similar to criticising divorce to a divorcee? There's a fundamental lack of understanding between the two camps (or that's what I'm picking up from the debate on here; having been neither married nor divorced I'm arguably cast out of both houses!).

I'm not sure I agree that the right person will always push the right buttons and avoid the wrong ones, though. The right person, logically, will learn which buttons have which responses, and will come to understand when to offer the arm around the shoulder, and when to offer the boot up the backside (metaphorically, at least). One of my weaknesses when faced with other people's problems is a tendency to advise, rather than sympathise (I think we discussed this on FB before). To get that balance right, obviously I need to understand more about all the buttons available. And to gain that understanding takes time - arguably a lifetime. While that's happen, I need to understand that my other half is (hopefully) going through my 'user manual' at a similar pace, and will make the same inadvertent errors that I make. It's not always easy to remember - I know that I like this and hate that, but I've known myself for 36 years and it just seems obvious. But I've known my parents and my sister for the same length of time, and still get things wrong dealing with them, so how can I be expected, or expect, everything to be flawless in any other relationship? From both sides?

Meh. Too much rambling. Haven't I got any work to do?

Good stuff, Andy. I appreciate a view that sees the deeper things. I recognize them 'cause I've been there myself.

I certainly acknowledge that problems can run deep. I do not at ALL "just" say "divorce is bad", though. But if we are talking about what people are trying to do when they get married in the first place, we must acknowledge that divorce IS bad.

I certainly agree: it IS harder to love someone who holds you in contempt. I hope I communicated that understanding; I thought I did, maybe I didn't. And certainly there are plenty of responses to bad behavior by a spouse that do not require divorce. I think I ought to clarify that in speaking of individualism, I refer to the ideas that say that two spouses ought to be independent of each other, which is antithetical to the concept of the family.

I think that what you refer to as behavior in the past is pretty specific to when divorce was difficult to obtain, when there was no "no-fault divorce", and regarding that, I don't think it was a matter of pretense, but a matter of insisting that families remain families, stable things even when relations between spouses were not good; that there was something even more important than those relations at stake, even if there was emotional pain in the relationship. The mentality of the past, as I said, WAS "for better or for worse" with an eye on "the worse".

FTR, I spent two years informally separated, practically divorced. I think I've been in the "divorced camp". I've been blessed to restore my relationship with my wife. I think I know something about the shouting, anger, child custody and so on from personal experience. Yet I am now still married to my first and only wife. So I have a solid foot in both camps, and as I said, we've been married over twenty years now, so I think I can speak from experience, and that's why I know what you are talking about so well.

Oh, and yes, yes, yes - gaining that understanding DOES take a lifetime - which is why it's so important to hold it together when it is difficult - and I insist that it IS difficult, just as I insist that it is important to hold it together. So I have no illusions about it being easy or simple.

Not sure if I can even talk about what different Christian Churches actually teach, but I'll risk it. I don't consider either a factual layout of what they teach or an expression of my belief in any of it to be "preaching".

The Catholic Church, in theory, doesn't allow for divorce at all. It is a perfectly logical stand to take, even if unpopular. Their release valve is at least in part through annulments.
The Orthodox Church DOES allow for remarriage after a divorce. BUT - no one may get more than two such remarriages in a lifetime, and if the first marriage ceremony is celebratory, the remarriage one is penitent in nature - it is a concession to human weakness, though the ideal IS to be absolutely faithful to one marriage only, no matter what (if you want to take the ideal to the limit, even if your bride is killed in a car accident on the way home from the church, that's it. Your one shot - not to be cruel; that's seen in the light that we are all eternal beings, and prayer for your bride of one day should occupy the rest of your life - but the Church acknowledges that the ideal is a stern thing, but still sets limits.
So I think the OC right, and the CC wrong.

Again, thanks for a good post!