"conscious uncoupling"

[Moxie]

Leave it to Gweneth Paltrow to come up with a pretentious way to say "we're getting divorced".

 

Ugg, why can't I link???  Guess you'll need to Google if you have no idea what I'm talking about.

[umsami]

I saw that. It's not her, but it's this physician and his wife whose advice she follows.  He says (apparently) that people are meant to stay together for 3, 4, or 5 decades or more (wonder how his wife feels about that???

 

I'm not a fan of Gwyneth, but I always find it sad when couples with young children divorce.  I hope they can truly parent together.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589523/What-unconscious-coupling-Dont-call-divorce-expanding-family-The-teachings-Gwyneth-Paltrows-New-Age-separation-Chris-Martin.html

[Chris in VA]

If it were so great and exciting as the Drs seem to put it, then GP and her husband wouldn't be saying how sad they were.

[Heather in Neverland]

What self-indulgent nonsense.

[PrincessMommy]

I saw that and thought... "What a flake." 

 

Not that that should be surprising, coming from Hollywood elite... but many people seem to think Hollywoodites are sages.  :rolleyes:

 

 

[KungFuPanda]

Because everyone else is unconscious when they divorce???

[Caroline]

Because everyone else is unconscious when they divorce???

 

I think Charlie Sheen was.

[KungFuPanda]

I also LOVE that they use a longer human lifespan to explain away this divorce. They were only married ten years!

[NoseInABook]

Seriously? If there's an actual reason for the divorce then own up to it. Or don't, it's none of our business. But to follow this doctor, who happens to be married himself, and says people shouldn't be together for four, five, or six decades? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I know plenty of people who have been married for 40+ years and are still ridiculously happy with each other. I look forward to celebrating 50 or 60 years of marriage with my husband. 

[Annie G]

I think Charlie Sheen was.

 

I think Charlie's ex-wives were surely unconscious when they MARRIED him. 

[Jeannie in NJ]

so they can't work on their marriage (or maybe they have) for the sake of their children

[Stacia]

I think Charlie Sheen was.

 

:smilielol5: :smilielol5: :smilielol5:

[Moxie]

Because everyone else is unconscious when they divorce???

Of course! Gweneth is so much more enlightened than the rest of us, we may as well be unconscious!!

[Joanne]

I can understand not agreeing with the idea that we are not supposed to couple for lengths of time.

 

But I think that the reaction here is more about reacting to the *idea* of Gwenyth, new age, or GOOP.

 

What is actually reported in the linked article is intentional and productive and responsible. Stuff people here insist should be done before the painful decision to divorce.

 

She said:

 

"We have been working hard for well over a year, some of it together, some of it separated, to see what might have been possible between us, and we have come to the conclusion that while we love each other very much, we will remain separate." and

"We are, however, and always will be a family, and in many ways, we are closer than we have ever been," they said. "We are parents first and foremost, to two incredibly wonderful children and we ask for their and our space and privacy to be respected at this difficult time.

"We have always conducted our relationship privately, and we hope that as we consciously uncouple and co-parent, we will be able to continue in the same manner."

 

 

 

When I read here about adults who experienced pain as a result of their parents divorce, a *significant* percentage of those parents divorced poorly, during and after the divorce. Gwyneth states an intention to do the opposite - after a year of trying to work things out - and gets lambasted. She honored the relationship, was respectful in communicating the divorce, stated an intention to continue to work together as a unit to parent.

 

 

 

 

[Hikin' Mama]

Unconscious coupling=Taking a valium and knocking back a couple drinks when your spouse is driving you bat crap crazy. :)

[umsami]

This was good too http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/stop-laughing-at-gwyneth-paltrow-chris-martin?utm_source=vicetwitteruk

 

" Falling out with the person with whom you created children is a heartbreak that I can’t even describe. You can’t drink it away or find someone else so that it doesn’t matter any more. It will always matter. It’s a feeling you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy, although you don’t even have to, because the person you loved has already slipped into that role. Your very own angry ghost. So if those cheery blonde quinoa-munching celebrities Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin can consciously uncouple, and teach the rest of us how to do it, then please go ahead. I for one will listen. The angry silences can burn a hole in your heart otherwise."

[SKL]

Every time I see the thread title, I think, "is that what they used to call the pull-out method?"

[Ottakee]

I hated to see the part on TV today where they were talking about how couples were just not meant to be together in the same relationship for 3, 4, or 5 decades but rather we were "designed" to have several significant relationships over our lifetime.

[Chris in VA]

I don't take issue with GP or the divorce thing. I know sometimes people need to divorce.

 

What I do have a problem with is a doctor telling people that we were "designed" to have several relationships over the course of a lifetime. I guess I'm confused. Is he saying that we shouldn't "feel bad" if we divorce? That it shouldn't be painful? That just seems so cold to me. Of course it's painful! And sad. And hard. It just sounds so, I don't know, callous and cavalier, maybe, and seems to poo-poo the difficulty of divorce, as if , were we more enlightened, we wouldn't suffer so.

 

That's just so harsh and cruel, even if he doesn't mean to be.

 

But maybe that's not what he's saying and I've got it wrong.

[nmoira]

Well it must be difficult to have one's painful private life issues aired for all to pick apart.

 

I dunno. Gwynnie is well known for keeping private stuff private, and look how much detail she revealed in her post. Still it's so comforting that Paltrow even does divorce better than us mere mortals.  :tongue_smilie:

[Snickerdoodle]

I've already had several relationships with the man I married 33 years ago.  It's not like we stay stagnant or something.  Am I the same person my dh married?  No.  He's already had several wives.  :0)  Me. 

 

I know what you meant, but this came out all wrong.  LOL  <<teasing>>  Is your name Sybil?

 

[Scarlett]

I have always admired how she keeps her private life private. But on this stuff....I lean toward self indulgent nonsense like heather said.

[redsquirrel]

The phrase doesn't bother me at all. I don't know anything about the doctor some of you have mentioned, but the phrase makes sense to me. A really good therapist can help a couple stay together, he or she can also help a couple pull apart with some grace. They have kids and are looking to pull apart in a way that allows them to co-parent. I have a number of friends who have worked very hard to do the same. They didn't call it that, and it has nothing to do with some doctor, but a conscious decision to put the kids first and find away to part as friends. It makes everything so much easier in the long run.

 

Is it always possible? Of course not. Sometimes it isn't even safe to stay in contact with an ex spouse. But if it is an option then why not try?

 

Would you all feel better if they had an ugly public divorce with lots of mud slinging in the tabloids, and trauma for their kids? They have to release some sort of public statement if only because they are already hounded by the press every time they step out of their door. Why not make it a positive one?

 

I wish more people tried to make their divorce amicable. If two people have kids then they are going to be in each others lives for a long time after they stop being married. I think striving to part on good terms and should be encouraged, not snickered at.

[WishboneDawn]

I can understand not agreeing with the idea that we are not supposed to couple for lengths of time.

 

But I think that the reaction here is more about reacting to the *idea* of Gwenyth, new age, or GOOP.

 

What is actually reported in the linked article is intentional and productive and responsible. Stuff people here insist should be done before the painful decision to divorce.

 

She said:

 

 

 

When I read here about adults who experienced pain as a result of their parents divorce, a *significant* percentage of those parents divorced poorly, during and after the divorce. Gwyneth states an intention to do the opposite - after a year of trying to work things out - and gets lambasted. She honored the relationship, was respectful in communicating the divorce, stated an intention to continue to work together as a unit to parent.

I think this a much more thoughtful response. I think people are often to quick to jump to the Hollywood flake stereotype.

[Catwoman]

This "conscious uncoupling" thing is totally different from "unconscious coupling," where drunken fools end up in bed together, right? ;)

 

I'm not up on all the latest psychobabble, but apparently Gwyneth Paltrow knows all the buzzwords. :D

[Word Nerd]

I think it's sad.

[Trish]

Maybe she's angling for a new checkbox on the official forms. Instead of "divorced" she can check "other" or "consciously uncoupled." Let's face it, once you're no longer single you end up with some societal label that may or may not give you a warm fuzzy. And even the "single" checkbox gets old once you do too...  :biggrinjester:

[Garga]

I don't see getting upset over a phrase. Some phrases are annoying, but just let it go. It's a new phrase which is trying to convey that they are doing their best to part amicably in order to be good parents to their kids. That way instead of saying, "We're splitting up and trying to do it amicably in order to be good parents to the kids," they can say we're "consiously uncoupling." It's just easier to say 2 words than an entire paragraph every time you have to talk about it. Not a big deal.

 

And I wonder how much of the doctor's ideas are taken out of context. And even if not, I can somewhat see where he's coming from. It goes against my Christian beliefs, but I can see his point. We have long lifespans now and it would be logical to presume that we have a chance to change more over our 80 year lifespans than in the past when people died of old age at 40. Not everyone feels love for a person for an entire 50 or 60 years. Some people are blessed beyong belief to find a love that sustains that long. For others, they stay married because it's "the right thing to do" but not because they still feel love. Again, it goes against my Christian beliefs, but I somewhat believe what the doctor postulates.