Marriage intact only due to finances?

[LauraGB]

What are your thought about this?

 

My friend recently confided in me that she and her dh are only still married because they can't afford to get divorced. :confused: They've been living like this for over five years. They have three children; the oldest is grown, the youngest is my kids' age. She has always been a SAHM, and has homeschooled all of her kids at different stages as she has deemed necessary. He has had enough breeches of the same manner during their marriage to warrant divorce (imo, anyway), but every time she tries to leave, the final discussion comes down to how they cannot afford to support two households.

 

I'll be honest when I say I question her sanity for staying with him - he's not a "bad" guy, just an incredibly self absorbed one. She claims there hasn't been a "love" in many, many years, but they remain married out of financial necessity. Gosh, I'm not sure I could handle the emotional end of something like that.

 

What am I missing? Is this reasonable? Can a marriage survive this sort of...compromise...? How many marriages are like this, do you think?

[Joker]

My best friend is in the same situation. She's in nursing school right now and when she graduates and gets a job she plans on leaving. They have two children and from what she says they are completely living seperate lives. I don't get it either.

[Caitilin]

My MIL, a attorney, says that this is true of many people--but many of those divorce anyway. I would bet that the number is higher than we care to contemplate.

[LisaKinVA]

My parents... although respectful and considerate aren't really part of the equation. More like, bitter and resentful. :glare:

[rafiki]

.

[tex-mex]

What are your thought about this?

 

My friend recently confided in me that she and her dh are only still married because they can't afford to get divorced. :confused: They've been living like this for over five years. They have three children; the oldest is grown, the youngest is my kids' age. She has always been a SAHM, and has homeschooled all of her kids at different stages as she has deemed necessary. He has had enough breeches of the same manner during their marriage to warrant divorce (imo, anyway), but every time she tries to leave, the final discussion comes down to how they cannot afford to support two households.

 

I'll be honest when I say I question her sanity for staying with him - he's not a "bad" guy, just an incredibly self absorbed one. She claims there hasn't been a "love" in many, many years, but they remain married out of financial necessity. Gosh, I'm not sure I could handle the emotional end of something like that.

 

What am I missing? Is this reasonable? Can a marriage survive this sort of...compromise...? How many marriages are like this, do you think?

How sad. I wouldn't give your friend any reason to leave the guy -- that is purely up to her.

 

But the thought of helping her rise above her situation (offer hope) is an idea. Does she feel trapped? Does she have any any skills or degree to enter the workforce? I'm thinking aren't there any family or friends nearby who could take her and the kids in while she works? Save enough money for a down payment on a apartment for her and the kids? Welfare is there for her in such a situation like food stamps, job retraining, and childcare.

 

Many others go thru the pain of divorce and find they are capable of many things they thought they could not handle. Many ex-hubs do not even pay for child support or ailmony. Many are legally separated for years due to not able to get $$$ for the final legal divorce.

[Plucky]

My best friend is in the same situation. She's in nursing school right now and when she graduates and gets a job she plans on leaving. They have two children and from what she says they are completely living seperate lives. I don't get it either.

 

I have to tip my hat at your friend though. I am one that does not think highly of divorce, but to take the necessary steps financially before divorcing is very, very smart. Marriage is hard, and some can't (or won't) make it.

[Joanne]

What am I missing? Is this reasonable? Can a marriage survive this sort of...compromise...? How many marriages are like this, do you think?

 

Yes, I believe some people can negotiate a "stay together" and it not be pathological, unhealthy or inappropriate.

 

If love has died, if couples have changed and grown apart on major issues (spiritual? political? career?).........

 

I think a utilitarian arrangement can be ok.

 

But if the marriage is contentious, includes cheating, disrespect, abuse, no.

 

I think it would be *rare* for a utilitarian marriage to work and be healthy. It's a compromise, and one of the compromises would be the richness of intimacy and intimate companionship.

 

But do-able? Yes.

[lionfamily1999]

Well, I think that's a reason that many sahspouses would understand.

 

We, for instance, live paycheck to paycheck. Thank God we're nowhere in the vicinity of the dreaded d, but even if we were... where would we go, what about the kids? I mean, I could live with my mother (that statement negates itself though, live with my mother???). Dh could live in his car...

[Jean in Newcastle]

I read recently (in Reader's Digest, I think) that divorce rates are down right now. Divorce is expensive. More so for the woman usually.

[Annie]

While it isn't the way I would want to live, marriages were more like business contracts for hundreds and thousands of years. If people can be kind and respectful to one another I think it can be an effective partnership - as long as both people understand what it really is (more business and practical than romance). Personal fulfillment can come from other sources.

 

It sounds like maybe your friend's dh isn't keeping up the "respectful" end though?

 

:iagree:

 

I immediately thought of Charlotte and Mr. Collins when I read the OP. To paraphrase Charlotte, not everyone is a romantic. Mr. Collins's personal fulfillment came from his garden and his work, and Charlotte was content to have a comfortable home to run and be pretty much left alone.

 

Is it the type of marriage I would choose to enter into? No, but if it developed into that type of marriage over the years, I think I would probably stay. I'm the practical, unromantic type. As an aside, I'm madly in love with my amazing husband, so I hope this continues to br purely hypothetical.

[Garga]

How sad. I wouldn't give your friend any reason to leave the guy -- that is purely up to her.

 

But the thought of helping her rise above her situation (offer hope) is an idea. Does she feel trapped? Does she have any any skills or degree to enter the workforce? I'm thinking aren't there any family or friends nearby who could take her and the kids in while she works? Save enough money for a down payment on a apartment for her and the kids? Welfare is there for her in such a situation like food stamps, job retraining, and childcare.

 

Many others go thru the pain of divorce and find they are capable of many things they thought they could not handle. Many ex-hubs do not even pay for child support or ailmony. Many are legally separated for years due to not able to get $$$ for the final legal divorce.

 

Maybe she feels that living with relatives, giving up homeschooling, working all day while someone else raises the kids, living on welfare isn't "rising above it."

 

I think it would be easier to live with a husband that is like a roommate or friend but who loves the kids and supports me, rather than living a lonely life of working full time, getting a degree, living with relatives and on welfare with my kids in ps and afterschool care. There are no guarantees that she'll find another man to marry and support her any time soon if she leaves dh, so she'd have to work full time and give up being with the kids all week. Comparatively, maybe her situation isn't as miserable as it might sound. (Not saying it's all sunshine, but it's not necessarily misery.)

[LauraGB]

It sounds like maybe your friend's dh isn't keeping up the "respectful" end though?

 

Outwardly, yes. He's always been amiable around me, and I've known them well for close to 5 years. And to her...well, he's a liar. Plain and simple. I'm not sure how much he outwardly admits of his...issues...that might in turn humiliate her or their children, but she knows he lies about things constantly to her. I know the situation is troubling and hurtful to her on a real, day-to-day level.

[Audrey]

I can see that. I have several friends who fully admit they are in loveless marriages and that they stay in them because it's more convenient and financially sound to stay than to go. In all of those cases there is no cheating or abuse (that they admit to or that is evident in other ways -- and in this tiny area, everyone knows you've been cheating before you can even get your pants zipped again).

 

I would feel awful in that situation, but I can see how, if it just sort of happens over time, that a person could get comfortable with it. While I don't think that's the most desirable thing, I also don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if both parties can stay civil with each other.

 

I admit, however, that I do secretly hope that each one of them is someday able to rekindle the spark of love in their relationships. I'm a bit of a sappy romantic that way.

[FaithManor]

DH's parents did this. They really, really wanted to be divorced but could not come up with an equitable financial arrangement or for that matter, custody as well. Dh's sister was becoming a real handful, got her height young, and was physically aggressive. She was known to even hit her mother and MIL is a very small person. So, she wanted fil to take their daughter and leave her with the boys. He was willing to take her and their second child, dh's older brother, but he did not want dh...he was too young, and bothersome...ie. "I don't want to single parent a kid that needs to be potty trained and will be a while before he's school aged." MIL was really close with dh's brother and she also felt it was best for the two boys to be raised together.

 

So, they stayed together. They maintained separate bedrooms for the rest of their married lives and I did not witness a single sign of affection between the two of them until a couple of years before fil died of cancer and they had both gone through a lot of mellowing out and mended some differences. Up until then, they seemed to just be amicable roomates.

 

Dh says it made him want SOOOOOOOOOOO much more out of marriage and he was also determined not to be like his father. He's been a great hubby and his brother has been pretty good to sil. But, oh my, the sister is NASTY! However, I don't know if I would blame that on the upbringing so much as inate personality. She is exactly like her great-grandmother who was one wicked mean woman with quite a twisted view of reality.

 

Dh does think that they probably would have been worse off if his parents divorced. His mom would have had to worked some ungodly hours and if she had been raising the two boys, they would have been on their own a lot. Dh's brother was quite mean to him when they were children. He thinks that even his sister would have been worse!

 

They did mend their relationship about three years before dh's dad died. I think that was good for both of them.

 

Faith

 

So, they stayed together. After a few years, when they

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

In this economy, many are probably choosing to stay together because of finances. I know of at least two couples where the wife cannot afford to divorce her husband because they could not unload their debt (upside down in home, credit problems) and start over. The roommate scenario is beginning to look very appealing at this point in both relationships. I just don't know how realistic it is.

 

In my own life I had a very modest (poor) upbringing and I could adjust to a financial downturn that would come with a divorce (no one is really better off), but my children would have a harder time. Personally, I'd rather be broke and alone than in some of these marriages. But it's hard to explain to children the lifestyle changes (one house to two, less resources) that take place are for the best for the parents when the children are used to a certain lifestyle. KWIM?

[Heather in Neverland]

My parents stayed to gether for financial reasons my whole life. They divorced when all 3 kids were grown and gone. But they fought and cheated and fought some more. It was awful.

 

I know LOTS and LOTS of people who stay married for financial reasons or because they don't want to be away from their kids, etc. In fact, I probably know more people who stay together for every reason conceivable EXCEPT love than I do couples who ARE in love.

 

I just realized that. wow. very sad.

[Renee in NC]

My best friend is in the same situation. She's in nursing school right now and when she graduates and gets a job she plans on leaving. They have two children and from what she says they are completely living seperate lives. I don't get it either.

 

I have a friend like this as well, but she is in grad school.

[FaithManor]

I understand where Heather is coming from...at our previous church there were so many people that just seemed to be floating through life just barely putting up with one another because of finances, kids, thought it was wrong to divorce unless for adultery or abuse, etc. It made us feel almost guilty for being so happy in our marriage. It was a bit depressing.

 

But, at our current church, we have a lot of friends who are as equally satisfied in their marriages as we are in ours. This FEELS a lot better.

 

I would hope that maybe the couple in the op's post would consider some marital counseling. Surely it would be better to work on it and make improvements than to continue in desperation.

 

Faith

[Gratia271]

Over the years, we have had friends similarly situated. It appeared to work for them. I think their view of marriage was different than mine, but it did work for the couples that I knew.

[Audrey]

My parents stayed to gether for financial reasons my whole life. They divorced when all 3 kids were grown and gone. But they fought and cheated and fought some more. It was awful.

 

I know LOTS and LOTS of people who stay married for financial reasons or because they don't want to be away from their kids, etc. In fact, I probably know more people who stay together for every reason conceivable EXCEPT love than I do couples who ARE in love.

 

I just realized that. wow. very sad.

 

 

I think I'm there with you, Heather. I know more women who say they are miserable with their spouse, or in a loveless marriage, or just "in it for the kids, the money, whatever" than I do people who say nothing, or say they still cherish their spouse.

 

It breaks my heart.

[Denisemomof4]

It's really sad, but I understand. I have two personal experiences with this. First, one of my best friends of 28 years is in this situation. He's a senior VP of Bank of America, in a position/department where he's only one of three with his responsibility in the nation. He makes good money, BUT they live in NJ. He's been married for 23 years and almost left his wife years ago but I talked him out of it. I try not to feel guilt about that (ultimately it was his decision anyway.) There are many issues and I know both sides of the story (she has shared, too) but really, there's no way to make it work. AND, there's no way he can leave. His wife is a hoarder and it will take months of work to get their house in order for it to be listed on the market. And he'll have to do all the work as she won't get rid of anything. It's a sad, desperate situation. So he's going to try to get an apartment and try to keep two households going. It will be hard, his ds will be going to college next year. They have decided to stay legally married so that she can have health benefits.

 

My sister is married to a scumbag. She's been a SAHM for 18 years and has bipolar and doesn't think she can work. Even though her husband cuts her apart behind her back to everyone me meets/sees, she stays with him because she has to financially. We have no family and I'm not going to bail her out. She and her husband have made a mess of their lives.

[Trish]

In this economy, it's becoming even more common. I've seen articles on it. Think, if you're underwater on your mortgage by a lot and can't afford to sell the house etc. Not to mention coming up with money for divorce lawyers.

[Luckymama]

Eh, we have no idea why dh's parents are still married :rolleyes: They have nothing, absolutely nothing, in common except for their children-------who are all grown with families of their own.

[Denisemomof4]

In this economy, it's becoming even more common. I've seen articles on it. Think, if you're underwater on your mortgage by a lot and can't afford to sell the house etc. Not to mention coming up with money for divorce lawyers.

 

:iagree: I also know people who can't afford divorce lawyers, and my friend mentioned above wanted to pay down/off the credit cards first.

 

I've also heard it be recommended that people divorce for financial reasons. I don't remember the details but think it's common in Michigan and Ohio, but I could be wrong on the locations.

 

Sad.

[LibraryLover]

ok, that was supposed to go in the enchilada thread. Sorry.

[Denisemomof4]

Outwardly, yes. He's always been amiable around me, and I've known them well for close to 5 years. And to her...well, he's a liar. Plain and simple. I'm not sure how much he outwardly admits of his...issues...that might in turn humiliate her or their children, but she knows he lies about things constantly to her. I know the situation is troubling and hurtful to her on a real, day-to-day level.

 

that's horrible. And desperately sad.

[Lawana]

In my extended family, this was the norm, rather than the exception. Although it also had a lot to do with religious belief, most of my aunts and uncles (as well as my parents) stayed married for financial reasons. I still find it difficult to relate to a marriage partner in other than adversarial terms.

[tex-mex]

Personally' date=' I'd rather be broke and alone than in some of these marriages. But it's hard to explain to children the lifestyle changes (one house to two, less resources) that take place are for the best for the parents when the children are used to a certain lifestyle. KWIM?[/quote']

 

I feel the same way. My mom was a single parent when I was 4 years old. My dad took off and never gave her a dime of child support. I didn't see him again until I was 17. She had to support us 3 girls and got her GED. She got a job as a school custodian after being on welfare and food stamps. I remember having no hot water in the house, no phone, no electricity, etc. Now that I am grown up, I realize how terrified she had to have been all on her own and my father living 15 miles away making $$$ and not willing to help. But she did it.

 

Her experience shaped me into a person with ambition. I worked my butt off since the 6th grade with small jobs and getting into college on scholarships and grants. I did not want to end up like my mom. And I became very independent. I still am. Perhaps that is why my attitude is you can homeschool (I know of some widows and single moms who do HSing) and be independent. It may not be easy, but it can be done. Maybe some people are too afraid?

 

ETA: My mom's brother (my uncle) had a marriage like this -- he and his wife (my aunt) had separate bedrooms for as long as I could remember. Their kids (my cousins) were messed up big time by what they saw in the marriage. One cousin ended up hating his father so much -- it almost destroyed the family. Another cousin's marriage ended in heartache and divorce. Cousin who never married declares she doesn't believe in marriage and has 2 children out of wedlock by different men. I grew up feeling sorry for my aunt. It was sad.

Edited November 17, 2010 by tex-mex

[eternalknot]

My grandparents had an arranged marriage; so did most of their peers. I have a handful of friends who go this route, too, even today. It's not uncommon in our circle, but it's not what I chose. I guess I don't see it as any big deal to stay in a marriage where love is "lost". It's nice to have, but not something to base a lifetime on. To me, 'lost' implies something can again be 'found' -- but the couple must remain committed, no? even during the 'lost' period, if their love is to be 'found' ever again.

 

I consider marriage to be better about commitment. In past eras, this looked more like a political or business arrangment. Heck, maybe that's what it's starting to look like again in our current economy. Either way, what do I require of a commitment? These:

 

mutual honesty

mutual trust

mutual respect

 

They're a bit intertwined, those three; sometimes all present under the "love" umbrella, but not always. We all know people who are crazy in love but have bizarre relationships understood only to them. Sharing a roof but living separate lives when there are honesty, trust, and respect present - why not? It's about also sharing a history, a family, resources, and a plan for the future. I know Western beliefs place high priority and emphasis on love, but I could never base a lifelong commitment on an emotion or feeling. They're too subjective, too vulnerable to outside forces. I hear love is blind; I hear love hurts. Having experienced love for myself, I know both to be true. Who, in either state of mind, can bring the most to the marital table ... neither, IMO.

 

Sure some "loveless" marriages leave behind sad, empty shells of what used to be fulfilled people; I think those are fewer and farther between than many non-typical marriages, though. I think part of the problem is in how our society emphasizes love and personal happiness above all else. Nobody should be miserable, nor should anybody expect to be 100% fulfilled 100% of the time (or even most of the time). Life and relationships are both about compromise and balance - and also, commitment. If you expect love to be enough, it will be ... until it's not. Better to make life-altering decisions based on character. If there are trust, honesty, and respect it sometimes makes just as much sense (if not more) to stay. To stay committed.

[duckens]

Divorce is one of the leading reasons for bankruptcy in this country.

 

If your spouse chooses to divorce you (even if you want to work on the relationship), you are very likely to end up in divorce court AND bankruptcy court.

 

The result is that your credit is shot, and you are judged for having been so irresponsible.

 

I feel bad for people in this situation. Sometimes there are no good answers.

 

I wish for healing for the people discussed in this thread. May we never have to go through a situation of loneliness, abandon, or worse, as this.

[nd293]

While it isn't the way I would want to live, marriages were more like business contracts for hundreds and thousands of years. If people can be kind and respectful to one another I think it can be an effective partnership - as long as both people understand what it really is (more business and practical than romance). Personal fulfillment can come from other sources.

 

 

I agree. I see much more problem with divorce than with a relationship taking on the form of a business partnership. Assuming that both adults can be respectful (and for all I know, having a discrete outside relationship might not be considered disrespectful by the partners involved) I think divorce is far more damanging to children than remaining in a non-romantic marriage.

 

Nikki

[mcconnellboys]

I think there are a lot more like this than we might guess. And I think with the financial crisis we'll continue to hear about more and more of them....

[sweetTN]

Sure some "loveless" marriages leave behind sad, empty shells of what used to be fulfilled people; I think those are fewer and farther between than many non-typical marriages, though. I think part of the problem is in how our society emphasizes love and personal happiness above all else. Nobody should be miserable, nor should anybody expect to be 100% fulfilled 100% of the time (or even most of the time). Life and relationships are both about compromise and balance - and also, commitment. If you expect love to be enough, it will be ... until it's not. Better to make life-altering decisions based on character. If there are trust, honesty, and respect it sometimes makes just as much sense (if not more) to stay. To stay committed.

 

:iagree: I'll take a marriage with respect, honesty, and trust, over one with only love any day.

[FaithManor]

I think out culture also defines love as only romantic emotions. It's sad but one does not really love one's spouse unless there is respect and honesty. Disprespect and dishonesty are not love but in our society as long as there's some romance and physical attraction, that's love.

 

I also believe that culturally, we've lost (maybe due to the numbers of hours that children spend during their formative years in the clutches of a morality neutral education system) a lot of preparation for marriage. Afterall, the dominating feature of most secular studies is "make me happy" and "I am number one". That is not going to lead to true love which is sacrificial in nature.

 

Faith

[Carrie12345]

:iagree: I'll take a marriage with respect, honesty, and trust, over one with only love any day.

 

These conversations always leave me baffled, because I will never understand how some people are able to separate love from respect, honesty, and trust, unless they're confusing love with lust.

 

I don't "believe in" staying together for financial reasons.

My parents split up when I was a teenager and, yes, it was a financial nightmare. We sometimes needed help from food banks. We went through periods of being car-less. Once in a while, the electricity would even get turned off. But I've never spent one second wishing my parents had stayed together to avoid that struggle. We're all better off for it.

 

Dh and I joke that we've stayed together *despite* financial issues. We've been poor and we've been (comparatively) rich. With tons of craziness swirling around us for more than a decade, yeah, it always does come down to love for us.

[Renee in NC]

These conversations always leave me baffled, because I will never understand how some people are able to separate love from respect, honesty, and trust, unless they're confusing love with lust.

 

I don't "believe in" staying together for financial reasons.

My parents split up when I was a teenager and, yes, it was a financial nightmare. We sometimes needed help from food banks. We went through periods of being car-less. Once in a while, the electricity would even get turned off. But I've never spent one second wishing my parents had stayed together to avoid that struggle. We're all better off for it.

 

Dh and I joke that we've stayed together *despite* financial issues. We've been poor and we've been (comparatively) rich. With tons of craziness swirling around us for more than a decade, yeah, it always does come down to love for us.

 

:iagree: To me, it's all wrapped up together. I don't see how you can have love and NOT have trust, honesty, and respect. I figure if those are gone, the love is gone as well.

[Tammyla]

Loveless marriages have been around for centuries, but I would not want one. I feel for your friend, but divorcing is something only the wife and husband should have a say in. I agree it is awful watching a friend suffer.:grouphug:

[Mejane]

I actually think a lot of women stay in so-so marriages due to finances. Someone - Ann Landers? - did a poll once and many women responded that they'd leave if they had the means.

 

I also think that's one of the reasons celebrities divorce so often; the couple each have their own fortune. Well, that and that many of them have no morals. ;)

Edited November 18, 2010 by Mejane

[mothergooseof4]

My late dh's parents were like this in earlier years of their marriage. He would even tell me that he knew the understanding when he was growing up was that once all the kids were gone, they would divorce.

 

They stuck together until the kids were gone and in the process God worked a miracle in their marriage. They just celebrated 43 years of marriage and are extremely happy. Yes, they still get aggravated with each other, but they have a fun, loving marriage.

 

So, I know it is sad. But, just because the marriage is in this place now, does not mean it will always be that way.

[Danestress]

and involves compromise that many people don't want to make. It's not just money that one loses. One loses time with children. One looses the illusion of control over those children. I think many women are still in marriages because of finances, and many men are still in marriages because they find the idea of just every other weekend with their children untenable.

 

Probably lifestyle decisions are one reason marriages stay together. Mom doesn't want to work, and knows a divorce might make that necessary. Dad doesn't want to give Mom half his money, and knows he might have to.

 

Yes. It's sad. I would not want to be in a loveless marriage. I also would not want to go back to work. I would not want to have my children grow up and have to choose whether to be with me or DH at Christmas. I wouldn't want to live the rest of my life chaste, and also would not want to remarry. My mother and MIL would be so sad I could not bear it. And I sure as heck wouldn't want to see my DH out dancing with a new wife - but probably because I love him.

 

So anyway, many marriages do end in divorce, and many more probably could but don't.

[Nestof3]

I'll be honest and say that yes, I think financial consideration needs to be given. I would not divorce just because the love is gone. No, I wouldn't stay in an abusive situation.

 

My parents stayed together, though we knew there was rarely a moment of real bonding between the two of them. They care for each other and depend on each other, but not nearly like the ideal. I knew growing up that marriage could be better. But, they set a good example in making sure we had a great upbringing.

 

Sometimes, I think we (women in particular) discount financial security too quickly. Sometimes, I think we even take it for granted. (Yes, I think our husbands take us for granted too).

 

Our eldest experienced a divorce, and it can be very hard on a child going back and forth between houses. The amount of stress that financial concerns can bring to newfound singlehood and to the lives of the children also need to be taken into consideration. Aaron was tired of being in afterschool programs, before school programs, etc. He wanted more time with his mom (who had weekday custody), but she was unable to give him that because of her financial situation.

 

Honestly, I'd rather put up with a ho-hum marriage than stress out my kids. I think their security and welfare are more important than whether I have a romantic, touchy-feely marriage. I chose my partner, but my children didn't have any choice in the matter. In this stage in my life, I would be willing to lay my life down for them. Again, I am not speaking of abusive situations.

 

Finally, I would ask if the wife is doing anything to keep the marriage alive.

 

And, yes, child support can be very expensive. My husband had to pay it for four year until he was granted full custody. He never sought child custody payments from his ex-wife, though. I'm always astonished at how many people think a man should pay child support but think women shouldn't.

Edited November 17, 2010 by nestof3

[eternalknot]

These conversations always leave me baffled, because I will never understand how some people are able to separate love from respect, honesty, and trust, unless they're confusing love with lust.

 

I think many people confuse love and lust, especially in the early stages of a relationship and usually in the middle stages when one is wondering: "Is this all there is?"

 

I also think there are different types of love. There is romantic love, which is what most people begin with. For some couples, that romantic love evolves -- never disappearing, but instead giving rise to a more mature love made more of shared memories, companionship, and the like.

 

People separate love from respect, honesty and trust every day - and not necessarily intentionally. We don't always put into action what we're feeling in our hearts. This is true of most of us, as spouses, children, and especially as parents. While I strive to always act from a place of respect, trust, and honor -- the reality is that I'm falliable, and am a work in progress. I know I'm not the only one.

 

I believe you can love someone, and still behave disrespectfully, dishonestly, and without trust. Some people are very weak, but it doesn't render them incapable of experiencing love - just perhaps, of showing love.

 

I'll close with a glimpse into my personal bias: I'm not Christian, and I spent years studying socio-biology. This colors my perspective in a way that is sometimes incompatible with various religious beliefs about people and the ways in which people act.

[OH_Homeschooler]

In this economy, it's becoming even more common. I've seen articles on it. Think, if you're underwater on your mortgage by a lot and can't afford to sell the house etc. Not to mention coming up with money for divorce lawyers.

 

Yep, this is the main thing right now. I have friends who took two years between "separating" (still sharing the house but intending to divorce) and making the divorce final a few weeks ago. Two young kids, one with special needs. One parent would occupy the house while the other would stay elsewhere for the night or weekend or whatever. While not ideal, at least for that period of time the kids had some stability. They got to stay in the same home and were not sent from house to house, and finally they were not having to hear the bitter arguments their parents had any longer since they were never home at the same time. I'm actually a little worried about how the kids will do with being shuffled from house to house, and I think they are going to lose the home they've lived in all along. :(

 

I don't know how this relates to families where there is a separation with no actual plans to divorce. At first I thought my friends were crazy for continuing to live in the same space. I think that would drive me insane...if it's over, it's over KWIM? But at least they were starting the process and making progress that whole time.

[LauraGB]

I actually think a lot of women stay in so-so marriages due to finances. Someone - Ann Landers? - did a poll once and many women responded that they'd leave if they had the means.

 

 

 

I wonder, if half of all marriages end in divorce (I'm guessing here - it's something like that), how many of the other 50% are people just stuck because of money? What if it's like 20%? Or more? That would leave the actual loving sort of marriages at...just 30% of all marriages? I had never really considered it before now.

 

I'm not sure I could feel good about the state of my life if the only reason my dh wanted me around was because he couldn't afford to get rid of me. I don't know - maybe because I'm not going through it myself, I'm just looking at it all wrong. Of course, there's no way in the world I would ever say anything like that to my friend, but I get the impression she feels the same way a lot of the time. It makes me completely sad for her.

[fiddledeedee]

I'll be honest and say that yes, I think financial consideration needs to be given. I would not divorce just because the love is gone. No, I wouldn't stay in an abusive situation.

 

My parents stayed together, though we knew there was rarely a moment of real bonding between the two of them. They care for each other and depend on each other, but not nearly like the ideal. I knew growing up that marriage could be better. But, they set a good example in making sure we had a great upbringing.

 

Sometimes, I think we (women in particular) discount financial security too quickly. Sometimes, I think we even take it for granted. (Yes, I think our husbands take us for granted too).

 

Our eldest experienced a divorce, and it can be very hard on a child going back and forth between houses. The amount of stress that financial concerns can bring to newfound singlehood and to the lives of the children also need to be taken into consideration. Aaron was tired of being in afterschool programs, before school programs, etc. He wanted more time with his mom (who had weekday custody), but she was unable to give him that because of her financial situation.

 

Honestly, I'd rather put up with a ho-hum marriage than stress out my kids. I think their security and welfare are more important than whether I have a romantic, touchy-feely marriage. I chose my partner, but my children didn't have any choice in the matter. In this stage in my life, I would be willing to lay my life down for them. Again, I am not speaking of abusive situations.

 

Finally, I would ask if the wife is doing anything to keep the marriage alive.

 

And, yes, child support can be very expensive. My husband had to pay it for four year until he was granted full custody. He never sought child custody payments from his ex-wife, though. I'm always astonished at how many people think a man should pay child support but think women shouldn't.

 

I totally agree with this.

I grew up with divorced parents, the custody battle was especially fun. I spent most of my day in preschool/day care, then kindergarten/day care. My mom remarried when I was 6 and became a SAHM.

 

If in my power, I refuse to put my children through divorce. I made my choice when I married, there's no abuse or any real fighting/arguing, and we are financially not well off. If I were to leave my husband, my children's life would substantially be for the worse. So I pretty much just suck it up. It's more important to me that my kids are happy than that I am happy. I assume my husband feels the same, since he won't discuss our marital issues, and we haven't divorced thus far.

 

Yeah, it's hard to be lonely, but there are worse fates in life.

[kalanamak]

These conversations always leave me baffled, because I will never understand how some people are able to separate love from respect, honesty, and trust, unless they're confusing love with lust.

 

I would have been baffled, too, until I met my ex. I am a perfectly rational, secure person, but I just don't think 11 years (particularly without physical affection the last 7) was "lust" on my part. Ronald Reagan once said that when Nancy came into a room, the whole room lit up for him. It was that way (and probably still would be) for me vis a vis my ex. Just as a book or movie or a physical place "resonates" with you, a person can, too.

 

I don't know if you've ever met a person with profound charisma (I'm not saying my ex had it). I recall a college professor whom everyone spoke of reverently. One day I went to his room to ask him for a list of scientific articles I should read if I was interested in graduate school in X. He was no more than 5'5", not handsome, greying, a bit of acne scar on his face, nothing exceptional. He was standing in his office looking at a book, the sun at his back, his door open. I went up to the door and he looked up and asked me what I wanted. I could barely speak. I felt like I was in the presence of ROYALTY. He was polite, he was helpful, he was dignified and IMPRESSIVE. He had PRESENCE. Now I understood why people raved about him. I even read his books, after that.

 

Anyway, my ex had, for me, personally, a profound charisma, and I was probably a bit selfish and foolish, and asked him over and over to try to make the marriage work after he asked out. And when, for his sake, I finally decided to let him go, I felt I was peeling one finger at a time off of some beloved object I would never get to see again. I had to force myself to let him go.

 

I know lust. This was not lust. This was not "mothering", this was the emotional energy people get when they die for causes. And it was out of character for me.

 

There is a truism that shows up on posters: they won't remember what you said, they won't remember what you did, but they will remember how you made them feel. I used to call my ex my Etch-A-Sketch: anything bad or hurtful or unpleasant, any heartache or fear, anything negative in my life just vanished when I met him, like an Etch-A-Sketch turned upsidedown and shaken. I had clear memory of my past, but the hurt was gone from all of my past. How could one not cleave to a person who has such a profound influence, for the positive, to your heart and mind.

 

There? Can you see it is possible now?

(And no, he was not honest with me, and no, I didn't respect him after I learned his dishonesty, and how can one trust someone who wants to leave you?)

[kalanamak]

ok, that was supposed to go in the enchilada thread. Sorry.

 

 

But isn't this about people who don't have "the whole enchilada"? :lol:

[kalanamak]

 

Honestly, I'd rather put up with a ho-hum marriage than stress out my kids. I think their security and welfare are more important than whether I have a romantic, touchy-feely marriage. I chose my partner, but my children didn't have any choice in the matter. In this stage in my life, I would be willing to lay my life down for them. Again, I am not speaking of abusive situations.

:iagree:as much as I can agree with anything on earth.

[Skadi]

I know Western beliefs place high priority and emphasis on love, but I could never base a lifelong commitment on an emotion or feeling. They're too subjective, too vulnerable to outside forces. I hear love is blind; I hear love hurts. Having experienced love for myself, I know both to be true. Who, in either state of mind, can bring the most to the marital table ... neither, IMO.

 

Sure some "loveless" marriages leave behind sad, empty shells of what used to be fulfilled people; I think those are fewer and farther between than many non-typical marriages, though. I think part of the problem is in how our society emphasizes love and personal happiness above all else. Nobody should be miserable, nor should anybody expect to be 100% fulfilled 100% of the time (or even most of the time). Life and relationships are both about compromise and balance - and also, commitment. If you expect love to be enough, it will be ... until it's not. Better to make life-altering decisions based on character. If there are trust, honesty, and respect it sometimes makes just as much sense (if not more) to stay. To stay committed.

 

I couldn't agree more. Too often divorce seems to just be used as "the easy way out" that the couple finds out isn't actually all that easy. What happens to people after the divorce? Our culture has this kind of myth circulating that divorce is better for the children, and that two people who have previously led one life but now go their separate ways have a chance to be more complete, happy people. There's even the idea that divorce will allow them to be better parents.

 

My experiences tell me otherwise. I can't think of a single divorced couple who embody that rosy storyline. Truth be told, most of them are more miserable now than they were when they were married, due to all the stresses associated with divorce. Many of them have become very bitter people. I don't think any of the children would tell you that the divorce improved things for them.

 

My parents had a stormy relationship as far back as I can remember. They divorced when I was about ten. I remember hoping that now it might be a bit like the movies where the parents, having divorced, learn to mutually respect one another and become friends. Nope. The poison between them seemed to only double, and to this day they can't seem to "escape their past" so to speak. Even after all these years and new relationships (one even re-married) they seem preoccupied with their former marriage. I would say that at the core, their attitudes are shaped by one word: regret. And I'm not romanticizing when I say that it would have been much better for us kids had they just stayed together.

 

Divorce, in most cases, just seems like a no-win situation to me. Happiness depends on ourselves. It isn't something that a simple change in scenery is going to solve.