Disgusting story disguised as good

[Scarlett]

Thank you. I can barely breathe right now just due to being so sad.

 

:grouphug:

[NASDAQ]

Seriously? What kind of marriage is not "til death do us part"? What do they say today? "As long as we get along great and haven't met anyone else"?

 

I'm seriously asking. [Maybe you got married elsewhere in another culture, but I don't know of any marriage vows that don't include lifelong fidelity to one's husband or wife... educate me]

 

Not surprised. We used to know what marriage was, but we don't anymore. Now it seems to be whatever someone thinks it is.

 

All Jewish and Muslim marriages are undertaken with the understanding that divorce is to be avoided, but is possible. Last I read, the divorce rate in the Yeshivish/Chasidic community is around 3%. Clearly it is possible to honour marriage while recognising that at times marriages can be honourably dissolved.

 

I resent the implication that I don't know what marriage is.

 

I also suspect that LDS marriage vows do not include "til death do us part," since they believe in an eternal family togetherness.

[mommybee]

Now I am singing the Sublime song "Then you really might know what its like". Sad song.

 

Hey AngelBee....that song is by Everlast from House of Pain, not Sublime.

 

I love Sublime and it does sound a lot like them.

 

Off topic I know :)

Edited January 30, 2012 by mommybee

[Mrs Mungo]

 

But I can tell you that if DH were physcially abusive of me, my children and I would be out of his physcial presence. In other words, I would leave. For however long I had to. I don't think I'd ever file for divorce, but if he did, that would be on him. (I would NOT be free to remarry, though). I suppose if his unrepentance went on for long enough, and if I had exhausted all avenues (which, let me say, would definitely include law enforcement if he ever were to physically assault me), I might discuss with my Christian brothers and sisters the possibility of a legal separation. Which as I understand it, would still leave me married to him, but separated as far as financially, etc.

 

This would be an extraordinarily dangerous situation for an abused woman and/or a woman with a mentally ill husband to put herself and her children in. My relative divorced her mentally ill husband because he had already had a complete mental breakdown, to include a suicide attempt, thinking he was the anti-Christ, hitchhiking 3 states away and not knowing who he was when the police found him.

 

If you are not divorced with full custody, what are you going to do if he picks up your kid from school in the midst of a breakdown? She loved her husband. She didn't remarry after the divorce. She didn't remarry after he died in a self-inflicted car accident. It has been almost 20 years since he died and she has said that she would always love him. But, she did her job as a mom and protected her kids the best that she could.

[LucyStoner]

This would be an extraordinarily dangerous situation for an abused woman and/or a woman with a mentally ill husband to put herself and her children in.

 

:iagree:

 

An abused spouse needs to get the sort of binding custody order that is only possible with legal separation/divorce- sooner rather than later.

 

I know a woman whose husband, while they were separated, installed camera equipment in her home to spy on her. He later broke into her home and sexually assaulted her with their children at home. Had she not had a custody order in place, he could have legally left with her kids. As it was, it was a near miracle that she was able to sever his legal rights to her kids. No one can tell me dude did not violate his marriage covenant or that she should try and reconcile with him after his release from prison where he is serving time for the rape. Or that as a 20 something year old woman who has since graduated from college and started to date again she should remain unmarried for the balance of her life to remain true to a man who married her when she was barely 14 (she was born into a religious community where this was encouraged), abused her and her kids and raped her. That defies all sense of human decency, quite apart from any religious teachings on the matter.

[Desert Rat]

I think both sides feel this way.

 

Probably. The difference is that one side is more "live and let live". The other side is more judgemental, IMVHO.

It may not be what you would do, but let's hope you never have to find out.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

 

An abused spouse needs to get the sort of binding custody order that is only possible with legal separation/divorce- sooner rather than later.

 

I know a woman whose husband, while they were separated, installed camera equipment in her home to spy on her. He later broke into her home and sexually assaulted her with their children at home. Had she not had a custody order in place, he could have legally left with her kids. As it was, it was a near miracle that she was able to sever his legal rights to her kids. No one can tell me dude did not violate his marriage covenant or that she should try and reconcile with him after his release from prison where he is serving time for the rape. Or that as a 20 something year old woman who has since graduated from college and started to date again she should remain unmarried for the balance of her life to remain true to a man who married her when she was barely 14 (she was born into a religious community where this was encouraged), abused her and her kids and raped her. That defies all sense of human decency, quite apart from any religious teachings on the matter.

 

 

I worked with many women who were raped by their husbands. Some were sodomized so badly that they required surgery to repair the damage. All of them thought that they deserved such treatment b/c it was "their job to submit". :001_huh: I discussed it in terms they spoke in. I said,"if you believe that you are to submit to him b/c the bible says so and that the same bible says that "husbands are to love their wives as christ loves the church" then where in the bible does it talk about Jesus raping the church until the church needs surgery?!" That usually brought about a :eek: look and I would say, "EXACTLY! if you believe that Jesus loved you enough to die for you then would he not be sad and angry that you were just treated this way?"

 

For most I could actually SEE the moment of clarity.

[Sputterduck]

:iagree:

 

An abused spouse needs to get the sort of binding custody order that is only possible with legal separation/divorce- sooner rather than later.

 

I know a woman whose husband, while they were separated, installed camera equipment in her home to spy on her. He later broke into her home and sexually assaulted her with their children at home. Had she not had a custody order in place, he could have legally left with her kids. As it was, it was a near miracle that she was able to sever his legal rights to her kids. No one can tell me dude did not violate his marriage covenant or that she should try and reconcile with him after his release from prison where he is serving time for the rape. Or that as a 20 something year old woman who has since graduated from college and started to date again she should remain unmarried for the balance of her life to remain true to a man who married her when she was barely 14 (she was born into a religious community where this was encouraged), abused her and her kids and raped her. That defies all sense of human decency, quite apart from any religious teachings on the matter.

 

I agree. I do think that God is beyond the understanding of legalistic Christendom. It's like when Jesus healed on the Sabbath and the Pharisees were pissed. God did restrict things on the Sabbath. They could have said, "But God said don't do X, Y, or Z." and even had a reasonable argument. But God didn't ever mean that people should suspend compassion to follow the letter of the law.

 

People like to hyper-focus on details and forget the meaning *behind* the things God has put in the scriptures. Love, compassion, and understanding. Those should go to the women in the above examples. If those are suspended for details, something is wrong.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Sputterduck

[Impish]

My understanding about divorce in abuse situations has never killed anyone. Ever.

 

THE ABUSIVE SPOUSE is what has killed. Not scripture, nor my understanding of scripture.

 

Let's make sure the blame for abusive spouses is put squarely where it belongs; on the abusive spouse.

 

(And fwiw, like I have already stated, regarless of my belief regarding divorce, I absolutely believe that a woman should not physically stay in a physically dangerous situation. I just don't believe divorce is the only OR right way to accomplish that.)

I'm guessing you've never been in an abusive relationship.

 

Live in that level of terror and violence, and ANY link btwn the abused and abuser is unacceptable, and simply used for power, control, and more abuse.

 

Yes, children included. Abusers have no hesitation about using innocent children to exert punishment on the victims that dared defy them by leaving.

[*********]

I'm guessing you've never been in an abusive relationship.

 

Depends what you mean by relationship. If you mean strictly boyfriend/spouse, then you'd be right. But if your definition includes biological family members, well then no ma'am, you'd be wrong.

 

And I don't really care for the 'you have no idea what you're talking about because clearly you haven't lived it' argument. I've never done a lot of things; doesn't mean I can't know what I believe (and WHY I believe that way) in relation to them.

 

(NOT picking on you, Imp. But that's been mentioned a LOT in this thread. 'Don't judge until you've been there', and so on.)

[Sputterduck]

I'm guessing you've never been in an abusive relationship.

 

Live in that level of terror and violence, and ANY link btwn the abused and abuser is unacceptable, and simply used for power, control, and more abuse.

 

Yes, children included. Abusers have no hesitation about using innocent children to exert punishment on the victims that dared defy them by leaving.

 

A link can be used to convince the woman to come back home or continue the emotional issues that the women needs to get away from. A link can also trigger issues with a woman who needs healing. I used to have flashbacks in the days after a phone call from my ex. The worst and last one was when I was *driving*. I almost drove off the road because I was back in a time with my ex and not aware that I was driving a car. After that, I insisted on no more phone calls. If he needed to contact me for any reason, I told him to use the internet.

[AngelBee]

Hey AngelBee....that song is by Everlast from House of Pain, not Sublime.

 

I love Sublime and it does sound a lot like them.

 

Off topic I know :)

 

Thanks. I had no clue.......remembered it wrong all these years :)

[AngelBee]

Thank you. I can barely breathe right now just due to being so sad.

 

:grouphug:

[Impish]

Depends what you mean by relationship. If you mean strictly boyfriend/spouse, then you'd be right. But if your definition includes biological family members, well then no ma'am, you'd be wrong.

 

And I don't really care for the 'you have no idea what you're talking about because clearly you haven't lived it' argument. I've never done a lot of things; doesn't mean I can't know what I believe (and WHY I believe that way) in relation to them.

 

(NOT picking on you, Imp. But that's been mentioned a LOT in this thread. 'Don't judge until you've been there', and so on.)

Like it or not, but there are simply some issues where experience does trump theory. Period. I've been both the child and the adult in domestic violence, and there is a different dynamic, *esp* when you're a parent.

 

To encourage women to maintain ANY sort of link w/their abuser is wrong. It's dangerous. It leaves them vulnerable for more abuse.

 

Everyone is free to *believe* whatever they like. *Knowing* comes from experience.

 

Personally, I'm praying the day will come when no one *knows* what it's like to be in an abusive relationship.

 

A link can be used to convince the woman to come back home or continue the emotional issues that the women needs to get away from. A link can also trigger issues with a woman who needs healing. I used to have flashbacks in the days after a phone call from my ex. The worst and last one was when I was *driving*. I almost drove off the road because I was back in a time with my ex and not aware that I was driving a car. After that, I insisted on no more phone calls. If he needed to contact me for any reason, I told him to use the internet.

:grouphug:

[LucyStoner]

Like it or not, but there are simply some issues where experience does trump theory. Period. I've been both the child and the adult in domestic violence, and there is a different dynamic, *esp* when you're a parent.

 

To encourage women to maintain ANY sort of link w/their abuser is wrong. It's dangerous. It leaves them vulnerable for more abuse.

 

Everyone is free to *believe* whatever they like. *Knowing* comes from experience.

 

Personally, I'm praying the day will come when no one *knows* what it's like to be in an abusive relationship.

 

:grouphug:

 

Well said. You can believe that you will act in a certain way. You truly can not KNOW certain situations that you have not lived.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Well said. You can believe that you will act in a certain way. You truly can not KNOW certain situations that you have not lived.

 

 

I will admit out loud here that I have read threads that other people started and thought, "I would do that differently" or "how could she?!" and I truly had no concept of what they were going through.

 

The truth is that, while I may have opinions, I do not know with absolute certainty what I would actually do in the situation.

[Joanne]

I'm skipping the abuse stuff in this thread as a sanity measure.

 

But, as a woman whose husband's brain is damaged daily.........

 

There are days that dealing with my DH is like dealing with a 3 year old. It is that bad. It can be that bad for days in a row. It is impossible to switch gears and respond at an adult level of affection (intimacy is limited as a result of his condition). It is a complex situation.

 

My husband will slowly get worse, and if he doesn't qualify for a transplant, an institution is a very, very real possibility for him before I turn 50.

 

I am 46 now.

 

I think that what this woman has done was take a very challenging situation, handle it with care and class. Many posters keep talking about "vows" and "committment". It seems to me that she's honored both of those to the degree presented by the situation. Her first husband is not able to be a husband in any way, shape, or form. She is still there in care, nurture, love, and commitment.

 

She does more for her first husband than many traditionally marrieds do.

[YLVD]

I worked with many women who were raped by their husbands. Some were sodomized so badly that they required surgery to repair the damage. All of them thought that they deserved such treatment b/c it was "their job to submit". :001_huh: I discussed it in terms they spoke in. I said,"if you believe that you are to submit to him b/c the bible says so and that the same bible says that "husbands are to love their wives as christ loves the church" then where in the bible does it talk about Jesus raping the church until the church needs surgery?!" That usually brought about a :eek: look and I would say, "EXACTLY! if you believe that Jesus loved you enough to die for you then would he not be sad and angry that you were just treated this way?"

 

For most I could actually SEE the moment of clarity.

 

Now THIS is disgusting.

[mommybee]

I will admit out loud here that I have read threads that other people started and thought, "I would do that differently" or "how could she?!" and I truly had no concept of what they were going through.

 

The truth is that, while I may have opinions, I do not know with absolute certainty what I would actually do in the situation.

 

 

:iagree: Yep, that's exactly what I wanted to say.

 

While we all have opinions on how others live their lives I wish we wouldn't judge with such certainty as to what others should or should not do. You just don't know what others are capable of enduring.

[5kidsforME]

Now THIS is disgusting.

 

That we can agree on.

[YLVD]

Like it or not, but there are simply some issues where experience does trump theory. Period. I've been both the child and the adult in domestic violence, and there is a different dynamic, *esp* when you're a parent.

 

To encourage women to maintain ANY sort of link w/their abuser is wrong. It's dangerous. It leaves them vulnerable for more abuse.

 

Everyone is free to *believe* whatever they like. *Knowing* comes from experience.

 

Personally, I'm praying the day will come when no one *knows* what it's like to be in an abusive relationship.

 

:grouphug:

 

I have to agree. This is something people cannot understand unless they have lived it.

[Joanne]

I'm guessing you've never been in an abusive relationship.

 

Live in that level of terror and violence, and ANY link btwn the abused and abuser is unacceptable, and simply used for power, control, and more abuse.

 

Yes, children included. Abusers have no hesitation about using innocent children to exert punishment on the victims that dared defy them by leaving.

 

:iagree: The focus on "physical abuse" is frightening. Women who are being abused through power and control are just as much at risk, in just as much danger, and need just as much protection and care.

 

The exclusive focus on physical abuse is concerning.

[Impish]

:iagree: The focus on "physical abuse" is frightening. Women who are being abused through power and control are just as much at risk, in just as much danger, and need just as much protection and care.

 

The exclusive focus on physical abuse is concerning.

IME, physical abuse does not EVER happen w/out the psychological happening first.

 

Problem is, legally, prove it. The damage doesn't leave physical marks, so there's no legal action, unless there is SOMETHING that can be seen, touched, photograped...proof.

 

A woman recounting the measures taken to keep her in a vulnerable, powerless, controlled position just isn't going to meet the burden of proof.

 

That's why there's the focus on the physical. Bruises can be seen. Broken bones show up on xrays.

 

Terror, fear, emotional trauma...there's no xray for those.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I'm skipping the abuse stuff in this thread as a sanity measure.

 

But, as a woman whose husband's brain is damaged daily.........

 

There are days that dealing with my DH is like dealing with a 3 year old. It is that bad. It can be that bad for days in a row. It is impossible to switch gears and respond at an adult level of affection (intimacy is limited as a result of his condition). It is a complex situation.

 

My husband will slowly get worse, and if he doesn't qualify for a transplant, an institution is a very, very real possibility for him before I turn 50.

 

I am 46 now.

 

I think that what this woman has done was take a very challenging situation, handle it with care and class. Many posters keep talking about "vows" and "committment". It seems to me that she's honored both of those to the degree presented by the situation. Her first husband is not able to be a husband in any way, shape, or form. She is still there in care, nurture, love, and commitment.

 

She does more for her first husband than many traditionally marrieds do.

 

:iagree: with the bolded. I do not have to deal with a brain damaged spouse, so I really can't say what I would do in that situation. But, I did talk this situation over with dh last night, and before I could even finish the story, he said he would not even expect me to take care of him at all in a situation like that. He thinks that woman is going way above her call of duty. Prior to marriage, we talked about drawing up living wills and not keeping each other on life support, but we never discussed brain damage. I told him that if I were ever in a situation where I was reduced to the state of a child, I hope he would find a nice place for me and make the kids visit every once in a while, but that he would be under no obligation to remain married to me.

[Scarlett]

Now THIS is disgusting.

 

Yes. Disgusting.

[Jenny in Florida]

Yes and no. You would be amazed at the amount of interference outsiders have. Even those who have disowned the person who is in a state that they have previously defined as having no quality of life will swoop in at the last moment to disrupt and throw out the life partner who has loved and dcared for the person for decades. This interference is often from "family" who have disowned their family member for homosexuality. This is why gay marriage is so important. A family member outside of the marital relationship can say nothing regarding the interpretation of a living will. Nor do they have legal standing to contest it. This type of situation is a perfect one for examining why, at minimum, gay civil relationships with all the legal rights of married couples are important. There are not enough legal documents to draft to protect gay couples who wish to have the legal benefits of marriage that are freely given to heterosexual couples who have done nothing to "earn" those rights other than having the opposing sets of genitalia. Thus the argument is that to deny them those rights based on sexual orientation is a violation of due process under the law, violating the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.

 

You betcha.

 

As an aside, the whole question of rights to make medical decisions was one of the reasons my husband I got married. I'm estranged from my "family of origin" and didn't want them to have any say in my life should I be unable to make my own choices. I wanted someone I trust to honor my beliefs in that role.

 

And, as an additional aside, it makes me crazy that the loving, committed gay and lesbian couples we know don't have an equally clear and acceptable legal right to that same security. Our city just took a small step forward by instituting a registry that allows all couples to sign. This allows them some basic rights within the city limits, including being able to visit each other in the hopsital and to make end-of-life decisions. The county is now considering a similar registry. It's not enough, but it's a start.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Jenny in Florida

[Scarlett]

I am not sure how we got off on the abuse issue, but just ftr, I do understand abuse in marriage and hope no one ever continues to take that.

 

I think the woman in the story is caring for him. I don't have an issue with her putting him in an assisted living home. I have an issue with her divorcing him so that she could marry another man. He isn't even in a vegetative state (and even then *I* wouldn't divorce my husband to marry another)...he has the mind/personality of an 11 year old. An 11 year old knows and feels emotional pain. That makes me...feel icky...I think about how *I* would feel if I were repalced that way.

 

And the other problem I have is....and with prodding from this board I realized this is where the disgusted feeling came from....is the way the whole story is displayed as 'beautiful.'

 

Further, those who of you who keep saying 'walk a mile.'.....is there NOTHING that you know for absolute certainty you will NEVER do? I'm 46 years old....I know 20 year olds spout off comments and then grow up and see the world for what it is...but at 46 I've thought through/lived through/watched friends in situations and I THINK about what I believe is the RIGHT thing to do- and when there is a clear right/vs. wrong---granted there is not always a 'right' choce--I want to be ready ahead of time to make the right choice.

 

I don't make promises lightly. Just the other day my dear mother said (after a visit to a nursing home), 'Promise me you will never put me in a nursing home!' I couldn't promise that. I did promise I would do everything in my power to avoid that. That wasn't easy. It would have been easy to promise her, reassure her, 'oh never!'

 

So when I say to my dh, 'Until the day you die, regardless of how sick you get, I will never divorce you so that I can marry another man', I mean that.

[Jenny in Florida]

I'll add my voice with Scarlett's!

 

That article is disgusting to me too. I admire women who stay with their disabled husbands to the end. The movie, A Beautiful Mind, comes to mind, as well as Christopher and Dana Reeve. That is doing the right thing, even when it is hard. That is keeping your marriage covenant. Life isn't always easy, it doesn't always turn out how you want it to, it's never fair, and it isn't all about YOU and your comfort. That's the way I see it anyway. :D

 

Well, movies aren't real life.

 

As it turns out, Nash's wife DID divorce him. They were apart for a number of years, until he won the Nobel Prize. At that point, she allowed him to live with her as a border.

 

Also, he fathered a child by another woman, then abandoning her when he found out she was pregnant.

 

So, yep, I definitely see them as a model for marriage.

 

The Reeves' situation was different, for me, because Christopher was still in there. His mind and personality were intact, although he was physically disabled.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Jenny in Florida

[shalom22]

I have read all 48 pages and I only have one comment to bring to this discussion.

 

Didn't he technically die on the dining room floor?

 

From the article:

 

The children started screaming. Page called 911. Robert was barely breathing — then stopped. Page tried CPR. Neighbors came. Power crews in the area came in and tried to help. Page remembers a big burly man holding her 18-month-old. Still no ambulance. A sheriff's deputy came in and tried to revive Robert.

"He was gone," Page says.

 

It is by our modern day medicine that they basically brought him back to life, which shows up with the brain damage possibly due to lack of oxygen to the brain. I realize he was not 'pronounced' dead, but in all practical purposes he was. The CPR kept his blood flowing and air in his lungs until he could be put on life support.

 

So technically, the marriage contract was broken that evening. Technically.

[Scarlett]

So technically, the marriage contract was broken that evening. Technically.

 

Oh well, in that case....:glare:

[mirth]

The thing I can't get my head around is WHY this is a story that had to be written (read: authorized by Robert's guardian, that would be Page). Robert is incapable of providing his consent to the disclosure of his various medical conditions and illnesses. From Wapo, "At 6-foot-5, Robert was an imposing presence, both supremely self-contained and reserved. He listened more than he talked, and he didn’t mind that he intimidated people." Does this sound like the kind of guy who would like the world to know he now gets giddy over toilet paper??

 

Also stuff like this: "Allan acknowledges that there’s some awkwardness in their unorthodox family. He wonders how much Robert truly comprehends, since he still sometimes refers to Page as his wife."

 

I get all that's necessary for a divorce is that one party chooses not to be married anymore. I get that a human interest story is supposed to shine a light and that Page is a journalist. But something about this whole piece I found rather undignified -- Not their lives, but the memorialization (and now yahoo! syndication) of Robert's fall from a former graceful and intellectual life.

 

Not sure if this makes any sense, or if I conveyed very well at all ...

[Jennifer3141]

Well, movies aren't real life.

 

As it turns out, Nash's wife DID divorce him. They were apart for a number of year, until he won the Nobel Prize. At that point, she allowed him to live with her as a border.

 

Also, he fathered a child by another woman, then abandoning her when he found out she was pregnant.

 

So, yep, I definitely see them as a model for marriage.

 

The Reeves' situation was different, for me, because Christopher was still in there. His mind and personality were intact, although he was physically disabled.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

I have to admit, I read that last night and I was too tired to respond to it civilly and I knew someone else here would. But THAT WAS A MOVIE!!!

 

In real life, Nash was actually quite the %$#%$

 

Christopher Reeve had a SPINAL CORD injury. His intellect wasn't damaged.

 

Comparing those stories to this particular woman in this particular article is akin to comparing her to Snow White or Cinderella.

[Jenny in Florida]

It is by our modern day medicine that they basically brought him back to life, which shows up with the brain damage possibly due to lack of oxygen to the brain. I realize he was not 'pronounced' dead, but in all practical purposes he was. The CPR kept his blood flowing and air in his lungs until he could be put on life support.

 

So technically, the marriage contract was broken that evening. Technically.

 

I was thinking about that, too.

 

The Biblical laws were conceived in a very different time and were not designed to address the kinds of things that medicine can and does do now. In the time of Jesus, this woman's first husand would be dead, and none of this would be a question.

[Jennifer3141]

The thing I can't get my head around is WHY this is a story that had to be written (read: authorized by Robert's guardian, that would be Page). Robert is incapable of providing his consent to the disclosure of his various medical conditions and illnesses. From Wapo, "At 6-foot-5, Robert was an imposing presence, both supremely self-contained and reserved. He listened more than he talked, and he didn’t mind that he intimidated people." Does this sound like the kind of guy who would like the world to know he now gets giddy over toilet paper??

 

Also stuff like this: "Allan acknowledges that there’s some awkwardness in their unorthodox family. He wonders how much Robert truly comprehends, since he still sometimes refers to Page as his wife."

 

I get all that's necessary for a divorce is that one party chooses not to be married anymore. I get that a human interest story is supposed to shine a light and that Page is a journalist. But something about this whole piece I found rather undignified -- Not their lives, but the memorialization (and now yahoo! syndication) of Robert's fall from a former graceful and intellectual life.

 

Not sure if this makes any sense, or if I conveyed very well at all ...

 

I'd like to believe that this is a story precisely because we have gotten to almost 50 pages dialoging about it. As our technology develops, our ethics need to as well. And as you can see, there's a ginormous spectrum relating to the ethics of it.

 

We may have saved this man from death but a what cost? To him? To his wife? To the family? To all of us?

 

I'm hoping the story comes from that and not the entire, "Look at me!" phenomena that has developed in our culture.

[edelweiss]

I am not sure how we got off on the abuse issue, but just ftr, I do understand abuse in marriage and hope no one ever continues to take that.

 

I think the woman in the story is caring for him. I don't have an issue with her putting him in an assisted living home. I have an issue with her divorcing him so that she could marry another man. He isn't even in a vegetative state (and even then *I* wouldn't divorce my husband to marry another)...he has the mind/personality of an 11 year old. An 11 year old knows and feels emotional pain. That makes me...feel icky...I think about how *I* would feel if I were repalced that way.

 

And the other problem I have is....and with prodding from this board I realized this is where the disgusted feeling came from....is the way the whole story is displayed as 'beautiful.'

 

Further, those who of you who keep saying 'walk a mile.'.....is there NOTHING that you know for absolute certainty you will NEVER do? I'm 46 years old....I know 20 year olds spout off comments and then grow up and see the world for what it is...but at 46 I've thought through/lived through/watched friends in situations and I THINK about what I believe is the RIGHT thing to do- and when there is a clear right/vs. wrong---granted there is not always a 'right' choce--I want to be ready ahead of time to make the right choice.

 

I don't make promises lightly. Just the other day my dear mother said (after a visit to a nursing home), 'Promise me you will never put me in a nursing home!' I couldn't promise that. I did promise I would do everything in my power to avoid that. That wasn't easy. It would have been easy to promise her, reassure her, 'oh never!'

 

So when I say to my dh, 'Until the day you die, regardless of how sick you get, I will never divorce you so that I can marry another man', I mean that.

 

Once again, I agree with you. :001_smile:

[Aelwydd]

IHe isn't even in a vegetative state (and even then *I* wouldn't divorce my husband to marry another)...he has the mind/personality of an 11 year old. An 11 year old knows and feels emotional pain. That makes me...feel icky...I think about how *I* would feel if I were repalced that way.

 

Oddly enough, what makes me feel icky is being an adult married to an 11 year old. And trying to relate to that 11 year old, as if they could be a spouse.

 

I know you disagree, and it's been hashed and re-hashed on this thread. But, the marriage between two consenting adults ended the day he died. Had he not been brought back by medical technology, he'd be in his grave. However, technology's not perfect, and it didn't bring back the adult. His brain was permanently changed. He ain't comin' back.

 

Furthermore, what I don't get is the level of contempt aimed at this woman, who has cared for him all these years. You know, Christians get divorced every. ****. day for reasons far more spurious than this woman's, but somehow, those folks aren't the topic of this thread.

 

This woman is. So, what, she hasn't suffered enough? She dares to snatch some happiness for herself out of life, like a bajillion other Christianese people do, but she's a terrible, vow-breaking, selfish person? Oh, she's breaking her vow. A vow to a person who doesn't comprehend it, and frankly, is incapable of upholding his own to her. Can he care for her? Provide conjugal relations? Protect or provide for her? Care for her when she's ill or having bad times? No? I guess she's just supposed to do without, because he beat her in the race to who gets to be the dependent, cared-for, entitled spouse.

 

(This is just the most ridiculous, surreal discussion, btw. :rolleyes: )

 

Well, in my book, that woman's earned some selfishness. I hope she has a long and happy marriage, with lots of loving and good sex. I hope she dies fulfilled and at peace. A well-lived life--it's the perfect revenge for all those people criticizing and singling her out for contempt.

[Scarlett]

Furthermore, what I don't get is the level of contempt aimed at this woman, who has cared for him all these years. You know, Christians get divorced every. ****. day for reasons far more spurious than this woman's, but somehow, those folks aren't the topic of this thread. .

Level of contempt? Wow, I would say the overwhelming majority of the people who posted on this thread agree with you---the contempt on this thread has mostly been for me I think.

 

 

As for the other Christians of the world divorcing for frivilous reasons or to marry someone else (vs. this non frivilous reason) all I can say to that is they generally don't write a human interest story about their beautiful solution to a tragic situation.

 

 

 

 

(This is just the most ridiculous, surreal discussion, btw. :rolleyes: )

 

.

 

I agree with you on that!

[Jennifer3141]

Oddly enough, what makes me feel icky is being an adult married to an 11 year old. And trying to relate to that 11 year old, as if they could be a spouse.

 

I know you disagree, and it's been hashed and re-hashed on this thread. But, the marriage between two consenting adults ended the day he died. Had he not been brought back by medical technology, he'd be in his grave. However, technology's not perfect, and it didn't bring back the adult. His brain was permanently changed. He ain't comin' back.

 

Furthermore, what I don't get is the level of contempt aimed at this woman, who has cared for him all these years. You know, Christians get divorced every. ****. day for reasons far more spurious than this woman's, but somehow, those folks aren't the topic of this thread.

 

This woman is. So, what, she hasn't suffered enough? She dares to snatch some happiness for herself out of life, like a bajillion other Christianese people do, but she's a terrible, vow-breaking, selfish person? Oh, she's breaking her vow. A vow to a person who doesn't comprehend it, and frankly, is incapable of upholding his own to her. Can he care for her? Provide conjugal relations? Protect or provide for her? Care for her when she's ill or having bad times? No? I guess she's just supposed to do without, because he beat her in the race to who gets to be the dependent, cared-for, entitled spouse.

 

(This is just the most ridiculous, surreal discussion, btw. :rolleyes: )

 

Well, in my book, that woman's earned some selfishness. I hope she has a long and happy marriage, with lots of loving and good sex. I hope she dies fulfilled and at peace. A well-lived life--it's the perfect revenge for all those people criticizing and singling her out for contempt.

 

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

Rebekah, you're awesome!

 

And looking at it from this perspective, it's a "vow" now made by an 11 year old child. No offense to 11 year olds - I think they are wonderful little critters but let's get real. That's not marriage material.

 

The 11 year old I know right now smells badly because he doesn't "like" showers anymore. He lives on pepperoni pizza and he dreams of building a city on Mars for unwanted cats because he has a Nintendo game that does that. :tongue_smilie:

 

And he thinks girls are "gross."

 

He will probably be a marvelous husband someday - in 20-40 YEARS.

[elegantlion]

Oddly enough, what makes me feel icky is being an adult married to an 11 year old. And trying to relate to that 11 year old, as if they could be a spouse.

 

 

 

I thought of this last night as well.

 

It reminded me of Twilight and the furor over Edward and Bella. Edward may BE 17, he may look and act 17, but he's really what, over 100? Which, when you think about it, makes the age difference seem icky.

 

I know that's a story and this is real life, but would she (Page) be chastised for trying to force her husband to live as a spouse? Would people think it is unfair to obligate him to fulfill the duties of a spouse when he has the capacity of a child?

[Aelwydd]

Level of contempt? Wow, I would say the overwhelming majority of the people who posted on this thread agree with you---the contempt on this thread has mostly been for me I think.

 

I've read the entire 40-something pages of this thread. The contempt came from your OP, with words like "disgusting," which I'm glad to see you later recanted. Then, later with the "Wow, do your husbands know this about you?" question, like people who feel positively about this story are somehow all hiding deep, terrible, character flaws.

 

On the other side, I've seen a few posters come at you with what I thought to be too-personal questions or remarks about your own marital history. But, IMO, if you are going to criticize someone about marriage and divorce, especially with that kind of provocative phrasing, you're going to get some heat back.

 

 

As for the other Christians of the world divorcing for frivilous reasons or to marry someone else (vs. this non frivilous reason) all I can say to that is they generally don't write a human interest story about their beautiful solution to a tragic situation.

And what difference does that make? It's not like you need a written article to identify them. They're ubiquitous. Find a church pew, and probably half are divorced/remarried, and openly so.

 

It doesn't change the fact that she's getting such a nasty reaction for her divorce and remarriage, despite the fact that she spent 9 years caring for him, and still cares for him. That's a hell of a lot more than most divorced and remarried Christians do. And again, they're not getting the third degree.

 

So, maybe I should start a spin off thread, and those of us who are Christians and who have never been divorced and remarried, can express our superior ethics, judgment, and morality. I mean, even if someone was divorced because they were abused, I guess I can still claim superiority, right? Because I had the spiritual wisdom, and godly judgment to avoid marrying an abusive person? Or, hey, for those who remarried because they were cheated on--guess, I still have the better judgment, right? Cuz I totally was tuned into the spirit and knew which guy would remain faithful to me.

 

Find that attitude repulsive? Yeah, I do, too. That's why I find the whole, "I totally wouldn't do that! I have a greater devotion to commitment and Christian values!" to be one big peeing contest. And exactly 180 degrees opposite of anything Jesus would say or do.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Aelwydd

[Aelwydd]

:iagree::iagree:

 

Rebekah, you're awesome!

 

 

No, you're the awesome one! I'm totally crushing on your patriarchal co-worker post! (Though now, I want to start a s/o about that. Hmm...)

[Aelwydd]

I thought of this last night as well.

 

It reminded me of Twilight and the furor over Edward and Bella. Edward may BE 17, he may look and act 17, but he's really what, over 100? Which, when you think about it, makes the age difference seem icky.

 

I know, it's creepy! The #1 reason I can't get into the Twilight thing is all the understated pedophilia-type themes. Edward and Bella, Jacob and Renesmee...

 

Blech.

 

I know that's a story and this is real life, but would she (Page) be chastised for trying to force her husband to live as a spouse? Would people think it is unfair to obligate him to fulfill the duties of a spouse when he has the capacity of a child?

 

Oh, but he made a vow to her. He has no choice but to fulfill his promises to her, even as an 11 year old. Disturbing, but still godlier than the alternative.

[leeannpal]

I think this story is a good time to remember this quote: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." John Bradford

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

So who gets to determine when it is acceptable to divorce a disabled spouse?

 

The two people involved and that's it!

 

Who else could possibly have a say in when it's acceptable to get divorced?

 

Ooh, page 10 already... off to read past page 2 :o

Edited January 30, 2012 by Jumping In Puddles

[Jennifer3141]

The two people involved and that's it!

 

Who else could possibly have a say in when it's acceptable to get divorced?

 

Ooh, page 10 already... off to read past page 2 :o

 

Page TEN?? Oh boy. We'll talk to you in three hours... :lol:

[PiCO]

Judge not lest you be judged.

 

Where is your compassion?

 

My dh & I actually discussed this type of scenario. We both would have wanted the other to be in a completely fulfilling relationship.

 

It is what it is, this woman has been through hell. I can't even imagine. And now she's being harshly judged for finally having a life for herself and her daughters.

 

This thread reminds me of people who tell widows and widowers they shouldn't date "too soon" after their spouse dies. It's not "respectful". It's always people whose spouses are still alive who say this. (Or young people who are not even married.) You really can't know what's respectful enough until you've been there. (FWIW- I was widowed 6.5 years ago, and I am still not dating. It's not out of respect for dh- he wanted me married again ASAP. It's just what's right for me.)

[Scarlett]

 

So, maybe I should start a spin off thread, and those of us who are Christians and who have never been divorced and remarried, can express our superior ethics, judgment, and morality. I mean, even if someone was divorced because they were abused, I guess I can still claim superiority, right? Because I had the spiritual wisdom, and godly judgment to avoid marrying an abusive person? Or, hey, for those who remarried because they were cheated on--guess, I still have the better judgment, right? Cuz I totally was tuned into the spirit and knew which guy would remain faithful to me.

 

Find that attitude repulsive? Yeah, I do, too. That's why I find the whole, "I totally wouldn't do that! I have a greater devotion to commitment and Christian values!" to be one big peeing contest. And exactly 180 degrees opposite of anything Jesus would say or do.

 

I didn't bring my religion or anyone else's in to it. As usual, anything I ever post has to spin back around to religion.

 

And you can be proud for choosing a good mate that hasn't abused you and/or cheated on you. I freely admit I chose unwisely and I hope discussing it will help other 18 year olds not make a similar decision. So yeah, if you think you have something to offer in that area, feel free. I also realize that sometimes there is no possible way to know ahead of time what your mate will do TO you....but of course this poor man did nothing TO his wife. He became ill through no fault of anyone.

 

I of course haven't lived through having a mate with a disabling mental illness so I can't even say 'look how great I am' (like you with your intact first marriage) which is not what I was after anyway. I would hope that people will stop and think about real situations and what they would do in those. Because all the compassion in the world for this woman will not convince me that what she did is the right thing to do. I can't even say 'well, for her it is ok'....because I don't even believe that. And hopefully I am still free to have my opinion as you have yours.

[Scarlett]

Judge not lest you be judged.

 

Where is your compassion?

 

My dh & I actually discussed this type of scenario. We both would have wanted the other to be in a completely fulfilling relationship.

 

It is what it is, this woman has been through hell. I can't even imagine. And now she's being harshly judged for finally having a life for herself and her daughters.

 

This thread reminds me of people who tell widows and widowers they shouldn't date "too soon" after their spouse dies. It's not "respectful". It's always people whose spouses are still alive who say this. (Or young people who are not even married.) You really can't know what's respectful enough until you've been there. (FWIW- I was widowed 6.5 years ago, and I am still not dating. It's not out of respect for dh- he wanted me married again ASAP. It's just what's right for me.)

 

I have compassion. (and truly I get that I don't come across that way) But compassion does not extend to condoning a wrong action. And I think divorcing him to marry another man is wrong. You are free to think it is not wrong of course.

[Scarlett]

On the other side, I've seen a few posters come at you with what I thought to be too-personal questions or remarks about your own marital history. But, IMO, if you are going to criticize someone about marriage and divorce, especially with that kind of provocative phrasing, you're going to get some heat back.

 

I don't consider questions about my marital history to be personal...I've been an open book about that whole issue I think. There are some on here who think it is wrong for me to be remarried now. I am not jumping up and down saying 'stop judging me!'

[AuntieM]

I have resisted the urge to post stating my very strong feelings about this thread. But now there's something I just have to say.

 

 

I'm counting this thread as my Book of the Week. :D

 

(three hours, indeed)