Down with Divorce

[bobhikes]

I've heard of the 'pawn' scenario... it disgusts me. Divorce if you must, but don't bring the kids into your issues.

I had a 'whoopsies' pregnancy when I was 20, with my then boyfriend. We stayed together a few years, but I ultimately left. He'd become abusive; I ended up 'sneaking out'(with our son, whom he wasn't capable of raising on his own at that time).

After the dust settled, I tried to befriend him. It completely baffled everyone. Why didn't I want to 'pay him back'? I figured I was stuck dealing with this man on some level, as we would be raising this child together, even if in different houses. Though there was some feistiness when I married(he'd thought I'd come back eventually), he eventually settled to realize he oughta be nice to this new guy who was doing so much for his son, and they became friends, too!

My son is going to be 18 next year... being kind went such a long way. It helped my son to know we were a united front, too.

Sounds like you had it right, there are definitely times when a divorce is needed, and abuse is a valid reason. Even one parent (you) making a priority of son is better than an abusive relationship and by getting you ex to eventually prioritize your son it is impressive. I wish you all well in the future.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here's a few links on handfasting I found interesting, ...

It seems that the couple generally lived together after the handfasting, and if a child resulted, it was usually made permanent.

Thanks, but I guess I was hoping for something a bit more scholarly than The Wedding Blog Spot. I'll see what I can find.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

From what I remember, handfastings were common in Celtic culture, in which both partners would take on a trial year and a day. After that time, they could join permanently, or separate with no hard feelings.

We did a handfasting...but we'd already done the year and a day (and a bit more), so no worries.

 

[JustGeorge]

Thanks, but I guess I was hoping for something a bit more scholarly than The Wedding Blog Spot. I'll see what I can find.

I found this, too, which equates it more to a modern engagement:

Historical Handfasting

medievalscotland.org

(Came from this link: BBC - Scotland - Tying the knot: handfasting through the ages )

 

[JustGeorge]

We did a handfasting...but we'd already done the year and a day (and a bit more), so no worries.

I had a friend that did one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@JustGeorge

If you have access, Handfasting - Northern Notes & Queries, Vol. 4, No. 15 (1890) is interesting.

3- Handfasting.?Jamieson's Dictionary states that this word signifies a temporary contract between a man and a woman who lived together as man and wife, but who could separate by mutual consent. The Duke of Argyle, in Scotland as it Was and as it Ls,\). 171, speaks of it as ' an old Celtic barbarous custom,' which prevailed in the Highlands. In 'an account of the Clan Maclean,' by 'a Seneachie,' p. 105, it is spoken of as 'a certain remarkable custom which till then (circa 1600) prevailed, namely, that of taking a wife on approbation, or in plain intelligible terms, on trial.' It may be perfectly correct to state that such a custom existed in some of the wilder parts of Scotland, it was also not un known in England, and even in late years existed among the miners of Cornwall, but the origin of Handfasting has to be sought in the history of the Law of Marriage as it existed in the Roman Empire, and as it was enforced by the Church before the Reformation. The essence of marriage was the contract made by the man and the woman. This contract was of a formal and binding nature. The marriage service in church followed, but not as a rule immediately, nor was it deemed necessary to defer cohabitation till after this had taken place. Shakespeare thus speaks of espousals, handfasting, or the true contract:​

​

'Upon a true contract I got possession of Julietta's bed :​

You know the lady : she is fast my wife,​

Save that we do the denunciation lack​

Of outward orders : this we came not to.'​

Measure for Measure, i. 2​

Again, thanks.

 

[Wu Wei]

?? Huh? Are you outside the US?

Nope

 

[Stevicus]

You are assuming that unhappy marriages, or marriages that are merely a facade are in the best interest of the children. I didn't intend to get this serious in this thread, but since you bring up the topic of children -- The scientific consensus on the effects of unhappy marriages on children highlights several significant impacts. Children in homes with constant conflict or stress may develop issues such as chronic depression or behavioral problems. They often internalize their parents' conflicts, which can lead to low self-esteem and self-doubt. These children might blame themselves for their family's unhappiness and question their actions and worth.

When people say think of the children, what they are really saying is think of the idealistic and unrealistic attitudes of tradition.

4 Reasons Why a Bad Marriage Is Worse for Children Than Divorce

Staying in a toxic marriage can cause more damage than good. Here's how:

www.psychologytoday.com

How Staying in an Unhappy Marriage Can Affect Your Children | Weiss-Kunz & Oliver, LLC

What are some ways staying in an unhappy marriage can affect your children? Contact an Elmhurst divorce attorney for details and assistance.

www.wkofamilylaw.com

I am a child of divorce. I don't know if it would have been any different on my psychological well-being if my parents had stayed together, but they were both alcoholics with mental health issues. Being raised by ****ed-up human beings will definitely have harmful effects, no matter if they stay together as a couple or separate.

However, I also would consider that materially, financially, and socially, I probably would have been far better off if they stayed together. Plus, the idea of stability, being able to go home to the same place - rather than be bounced back and forth between mother, father, and grandparents in different states, moving every few years, changing schools frequently. Having to go to school to explain to teachers and classmates why my parents don't live together in a time and place where such things were rare and considered shameful. Having people come to the door and asking "Is your mother home?" when she's 2000 miles away. Being shunned by neighbors, whose kids I'm not allowed to play with because reasons.

Granted, it would be better if children had parents who acted like mature human beings, who weren't so egotistical and full of hubris that they can't get over a little snit, suck it up, and bite their ****ing tongues for a little while. That would be better than a house full of conflict. Now that I'm adult, I've come to understand concepts like conflict resolution and parental abuse, things I could not understand nor process at a young age. But now I know that every conflict, every disagreement, every argument is resolvable, as long as both parties act in good faith and act like adults, not children.

 

[ppp]

Legally...no, not good grounds at all.

Every state in the US permits no fault divorce petitions. No longer wanting to be married are legally speaking 'good grounds'. In several states they are the only grounds accepted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Every state in the US permits no fault divorce petitions.

Divorce Practices Among Some North American Indian Tribes is an interesting read.

 

[Stevicus]

We did a handfasting...but we'd already done the year and a day (and a bit more), so no worries.

I'm intrigued by the name "handfasting." I wonder why they call it that. I can imagine a few possible reasons, although I don't want to go into that just now.

 

[ppp]

I am a child of divorce. I don't know if it would have been any different on my psychological well-being if my parents had stayed together, but they were both alcoholics with mental health issues. Being raised by ****ed-up human beings will definitely have harmful effects, no matter if they stay together as a couple or separate.

I am honestly sorry that you had to go through that.

However, I also would consider that materially, financially, and socially, I probably would have been far better off if they stayed together. Plus, the idea of stability, being able to go home to the same place - rather than be bounced back and forth between mother, father, and grandparents in different states, moving every few years, changing schools frequently. Having to go to school to explain to teachers and classmates why my parents don't live together in a time and place where such things were rare and considered shameful. Having people come to the door and asking "Is your mother home?" when she's 2000 miles away. Being shunned by neighbors, whose kids I'm not allowed to play with because reasons.

I would like to set those statements into two different categories. The first sentences deal with the practical hardships of splitting households - finances, care, quality time, and stability. The later sentences deal with the subject of social stigma and the corrosive attitudes that some people have towards divorce and the people involved - adults and children. The first is the poor social structure and support mechanisms that are available to us. The second are the (yet to be justified) attitudes that support divorce-hostile social structure. IMHO, that is not an indictment on divorce, but in those who assume and perpetuation the notion that divorce is the result of infidelity, or brutality, or inadequacy, or laziness.

Granted, it would be better if children had parents who acted like mature human beings, who weren't so egotistical and full of hubris that they can't get over a little snit, suck it up, and bite their ****ing tongues for a little while. That would be better than a house full of conflict. Now that I'm adult, I've come to understand concepts like conflict resolution and parental abuse, things I could not understand nor process at a young age. But now I know that every conflict, every disagreement, every argument is resolvable, as long as both parties act in good faith and act like adults, not children.

So true. There is is very little in the way of teaching people how to go about disagreeing. That is is okay to disagree. That resolutions do not hev to be immediate. And that failing to resolve is not necessarily a moral failing. We get people who have learned tradition and ideals, who have no training how to question those things and determine which work and which do not. How to be a responsible partner. Or a respectful partner. Or how to advocate for the other's interest in midst of conflict.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm intrigued by the name "handfasting." I wonder why they call it that. I can imagine a few possible reasons, although I don't want to go into that just now.

you put your hands together and wrapped a ribbon around them to hold them in place for the duration of the ceremony

 

[ppp]

Divorce Practices Among Some North American Indian Tribes is an interesting read.

Thanks! I will take a look at that.

Though..pre-80s anthropology...yikes.

 

[Stevicus]

I am honestly sorry that you had to go through that.

Thanks, I've been able to work through much of it.

I would like to set those statements into two different categories. The first sentences deal with the practical hardships of splitting households - finances, care, quality time, and stability. The later sentences deal with the subject of social stigma and the corrosive attitudes that some people have towards divorce and the people involved - adults and children. The first is the poor social structure and support mechanisms that are available to us. The second are the (yet to be justified) attitudes that support divorce-hostile social structure. IMHO, that is not an indictment on divorce, but in those who assume and perpetuation the notion that divorce is the result of infidelity, or brutality, or inadequacy, or laziness.

This is all correct. There is a poor social structure and support mechanism in place, and it was even worse in the past. Societal attitudes have also changed somewhat from what they used to be. In more recent times, I've also encountered those who were raised by a single parent all their lives, not ever knowing their other parent or having extremely limited contact. This is more common than it once was, so perhaps it may be more accepted nowadays.

In any case, the children are not responsible for the behavior of their parents, yet they still end up having to pay for it in other ways. I just think that the homespun wisdom that "it's better to come from a broken home than to live in one" ignores a lot of other factors and circumstances which may be existent. I'm not saying it's wrong, although every situation is different and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

So true. There is is very little in the way of teaching people how to go about disagreeing. That is is okay to disagree. That resolutions do not hev to be immediate. And that failing to resolve is not necessarily a moral failing. We get people who have learned tradition and ideals, who have no training how to question those things and determine which work and which do not. How to be a responsible partner. Or a respectful partner. Or how to advocate for the other's interest in midst of conflict.

It may not necessarily be a moral failing, in and of itself. Sometimes it's more a matter of how it's handled, and again, if we're dealing with mature adults who have the capacity for compassion and empathy for their children, then that might be better. But if the parents are no more mature than squabbling children themselves, then it will go badly for the actual children.

 

[Left Coast]

It would change peoples mindset to be aware of reality. Too many still think dream of marriage to be forever when in reality it often isn't. If marriage would be temporary, people would think about financial entanglements earlier and they would prepare for bad feelings.
I have found that bonds that are not imposed by necessity, laws or authority are more stable and healthier because all parties know that they continue on their own free choice.

I don't know anyone who doesn't know that marriage can be ended. I don't know anyone who doesn't think marriage is a free choice. This seems like it's just a way to make marriage more like some kind of business contract. But we all understand marriage means more than that. Particularly if kids are involved. You don't just cut and run on family.

 

[Left Coast]

Nope.
the number one cause of divorce is marriage.
Without the marriage, there is no need for divorce.

And the number one cause of death is life.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China, though.

 

[JustGeorge]

And the number one cause of death is life.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China, though.

Maybe living, married people buy more tea?

 

[ppp]

You don't just cut and run on family.

Cut and run expresses your priorly conceived judgments about people who get divorced. Not what has actually happened in any given occurrence.

 

[Heyo]

And the number one cause of death is life.

Yep. Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.