# infidelity-older-couples



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

An interesting story about rising infidelity among older couples.



> .....He said that this new woman, who is the same age as his wife lest you think that’s where this is going, excites him in a way he had never felt — or at least could no longer remember. He said the quandary was that he also deeply valued my friend and the life they had built together.
> 
> And so he had a proposal: He wanted an open marriage, one where he would spend half the week with his wife doing the regular things they always had, and then he would spend the balance of his time with this new woman, getting to know her better and seeing if she was, in fact, the person he was meant to spend the rest of his life with.
> 
> ...










https://www.considerable.com/life/marriage/infidelity-older-couples/?fbclid=IwAR0xOidDbZPbIiQYfPEu8euFJWWAg6vCikNaclL1uExaGKdHftr11_wX9Is


----------



## AandM (Jan 30, 2019)

Young at Heart said:


> An interesting story about rising infidelity among older couples.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Boomer's gonna Boom.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

I can't even imagine the audacity of that sob to suggest what he did. A grade AAA ass hole. Good on his wife for going straight to divorce.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

I'm not surprised. Gray Divorces (55+) are on the rise. Their rates have doubled since 1976. To put it in perspective, the rates for younger couples have halved. I'm sure infidelity plays a role in many of those divorces.


----------



## jlg07 (Feb 24, 2017)

Honestly there are just WAY too many ME ME ME entitled people in this world, and it seems to be getting worse. What ever happened to loyalty, keeping your word?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Boomers are the Baucus generation. No wonder Gen X, Y, Z all have 2 therapists on call.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Phew! Good thing we established that our relationship is open when we first met! 

As for gray divorce, perhaps by retirement age you realize that you can't get away from your nemesis for 8 hours or more a day any longer (and may actually have to spend time with them!), so you decide to get away permanently. Some relationships are marginal to begin with, so take away the structure and demands of kids and jobs, and there is little left.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> I'm not surprised. Gray Divorces (55+) are on the rise. Their rates have doubled since 1976. To put it in perspective, the rates for younger couples have halved. I'm sure infidelity plays a role in many of those divorces.


A lot of it has to do with the era as well. Rates are dropping for the younger generations because they are waiting longer to get married. I think the younger generations are also looking at compatibly as well as love in choosing long term mates, as should be the case.



Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

jlg07 said:


> Honestly there are just WAY too many ME ME ME entitled people in this world, and it seems to be getting worse. What ever happened to loyalty, keeping your word?


And which word is that? Keep in mind that not all used the stereotypical wedding vows, thus you may be assuming vows never given.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Married but Happy said:


> Phew! Good thing we established that our relationship is open when we first met!
> 
> 
> 
> As for gray divorce, perhaps by retirement age you realize that you can't get away from your nemesis for 8 hours or more a day any longer (and may actually have to spend time with them!), so you decide to get away permanently. Some relationships are marginal to begin with, so take away the structure and demands of kids and jobs, and there is little left.


You and me both. 

As for retirement, you do have to make alone time as well as time to be with your spouse(s). Further, I know there are couples who have done better in their marriage by having separate bedrooms. Open/poly only works for some people. This particular guy I confirm, based upon the article's portrayal at least, because of talking about waiting to see if the other is a long term relationship or not. If you aren't planning to stay with your wife then straight up leave. Don't stay for now unless that is something she wants as well.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

That little blue bill has changed a lot of things for some.


----------



## Holdingontoit (Mar 7, 2012)

Lots of reasons for the rise in grey divorce:
If the couple was staying together "for the kids", then by age 55 that becomes a much weaker motivation.
If the married couple's parents have died, they don't have to explain the divorce to their parents.
After retirement, additional time spent together may be more than one or both can tolerate.
If one or both expect an inheritance, they may not want to share that windfall with their spouse.
If one or both have already received an inheritance, they may finally be able to financially "afford" a divorce.
People are living long enough for all these factors to be in play for enough time that it seems unbearable to just suck it up and wait for one spouse to die.


----------



## jlg07 (Feb 24, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> And which word is that? Keep in mind that not all used the stereotypical wedding vows, thus you may be assuming vows never given.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


I mean your word IN GENERAL, although that does include wedding vows. IF you never told your wife/husband that you wouldn't cheat, then I guess if you want to parse the hell out of it, you didn't break your word.

Seems like we are heading (VERY QUICKLY) to where people are just out for themselves these days and don't really care at all about anyone else.


----------



## Luminous (Jan 14, 2018)

maquiscat said:


> A lot of it has to do with the era as well. Rates are dropping for the younger generations because they are waiting longer to get married. I think the younger generations are also looking at compatibly as well as love in choosing long term mates, as should be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


Rates are also dropping because younger people are looking at marriage as being redundant, and young men are beginning to wonder how marriage would benefit them, as well as the risks associated with it. 

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Luminous said:


> Rates are also dropping because younger people are looking at marriage as being redundant, and young men are beginning to wonder how marriage would benefit them, as well as the risks associated with it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk


I think if young men really wanted to avoid risks, they'd go out and get vasectomies as child support is typically the biggest cost associated with separation from a significant other, whether that be due to divorce or a break up...or a one night stand.


----------



## Luminous (Jan 14, 2018)

Lila said:


> I think if young men really wanted to avoid risks, they'd go out and get vasectomies as child support is typically the biggest cost associated with separation from a significant other, whether that be due to divorce or a break up...or a one night stand.


You forgot Alimony.

And yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the rates for vasectomies have risen in recent years. 

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Lila said:


> I think if young men really wanted to avoid risks, they'd go out and get vasectomies as child support is typically the biggest cost associated with separation from a significant other, whether that be due to divorce or a break up...or a one night stand.


Actually I am not sure that is true. 

You could argue about where the biggest cost are while child support can def be huge. But Splitting the assets, buying them out of your retirement, home equity and stuff like that is a huge cost. Esp if the other party never worked and did not pull their weight in the marriage. 

That is what happened to me, married to a drug addict that was a SAHM... Of course she kept that little fact hidden, and I was stupid, but never the less...


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Luminous said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I think if young men really wanted to avoid risks, they'd go out and get vasectomies as child support is typically the biggest cost associated with separation from a significant other, whether that be due to divorce or a break up...or a one night stand.
> ...


Alimony is only awarded if there is a large discrepancy in salaries or one partner does not work. There are some ways to avoid having to pay alimony in the event of divorce and the first is don't have a stay at home spouse. Second is to make sure you marry someone who's capable of making as much money or more than you.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

BluesPower said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I think if young men really wanted to avoid risks, they'd go out and get vasectomies as child support is typically the biggest cost associated with separation from a significant other, whether that be due to divorce or a break up...or a one night stand.
> ...


I agree that splitting assets sucks but there's all sorts of arguments for why that's fair. There's a price to pay to have the SAHM experience but then again there are many, many benefits, especially for children. 

My ex husband made out well after the divorce even after we split assets. I was never interested in being a SAHM and I have a lucrative career. But yeah, raising a child, being a homemaker, and a career woman was not easy....on any of us.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Lila said:


> Luminous said:
> 
> 
> > Lila said:
> ...


Men typically don't pick their spouses for their earning ability. Maybe we are the stupid ones.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Men typically don't pick their spouses for their earning ability. Maybe we are the stupid ones.


I would never say that. I will only say that there are pros and cons to all of our decisions....and they have consequences.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Lila said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > Men typically don't pick their spouses for their earning ability. Maybe we are the stupid ones.
> ...


That's sad that marriage is a financial decision instead of a holy union. If it's that shallow to some, they have no business marrying. It's just going to end in disaster. That's also why marriage rates are at all time lows, it's too easy to get screwed. And usually it's more than the couple themselves that pay for it. The collateral damage is awful.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> That's sad that marriage is a financial decision instead of a holy union. If it's that shallow to some, they have no business marrying. It's just going to end in disaster. That's also why marriage rates are at all time lows, it's too easy to get screwed. And usually it's more than the couple themselves that pay for it. The collateral damage is awful.


But marriage has for the better part of history been a financial decision. Only in recent history (the last couple of centuries) have we made marriages about "lurv". 

And if I am being completely honest, as a woman who is lacking in the beauty department but makes up for it in every other way..... I don't see it as doom and gloom.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

jlg07 said:


> I mean your word IN GENERAL, although that does include wedding vows. IF you never told your wife/husband that you wouldn't cheat, then I guess if you want to parse the hell out of it, you didn't break your word.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like we are heading (VERY QUICKLY) to where people are just out for themselves these days and don't really care at all about anyone else.


Well it's not cheating if the spouse approves. But some would try to claim that such is still a violation of "forsake all others".

We also have the problem that what you might see as "out for themselves" may not jive with how others see it. Seems that every generation see later.ones as lazier, and more selfish and only out for themselves.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> That's sad that marriage is a financial decision instead of a holy union. If it's that shallow to some, they have no business marrying. It's just going to end in disaster. That's also why marriage rates are at all time lows, it's too easy to get screwed. And usually it's more than the couple themselves that pay for it. The collateral damage is awful.


The problem is that only legal marriage is tracked, not religious marriage. There are people entering into religious marriages either without the legal marriage or getting the legal one later when it becomes necessary or advantageous. Sad is expecting a civil institution to be held to the same level of reverence as a similar religious institution.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## jlg07 (Feb 24, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> Well it's not cheating if the spouse approves. But some would try to claim that such is still a violation of "forsake all others".
> 
> We also have the problem that what you might see as "out for themselves" may not jive with how others see it. Seems that every generation see later.ones as lazier, and more selfish and only out for themselves.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


Nope, what that guy in the article did is 100% selfish. He devastated his wife -- WHY -- because HE WANTED to be with another woman and wanted his wife to just sit there and be ok with it. HE WAS out for himself -- he didn't care what it would do to his wife.

I'm not sure if "others" see what he did differently than that, but I sure don't.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

jlg07 said:


> Nope, what that guy in the article did is 100% selfish. He devastated his wife -- WHY -- because HE WANTED to be with another woman and wanted his wife to just sit there and be ok with it. HE WAS out for himself -- he didn't care what it would do to his wife.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if "others" see what he did differently than that, but I sure don't.


I'm guessing you did not see this:




maquiscat said:


> This particular guy I (condemn), based upon the article's portrayal at least, because of talking about waiting to see if the other is a long term relationship or not. If you aren't planning to stay with your wife then straight up leave. Don't stay for now unless that is something she wants as well.


The one word is where I missed an auto correct to the wrong word.

I agree with your assessment of this one man, but your statements seemed to encompass more than just him, and it is the generalizations that I am making points against.


Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> ...


What? How is that a sad idea?

Of course living with someone-- and therefore marriage-- is a financial decision. Heck, even dating is a financial decision. Who pays for dates, food, outings? That's life. Living takes $$. Just because someone might believe marriage is a "holy union" doesn't change the fact that LIFE takes money. Being thoughtful around your lifetime financial decisions isn't shallow it's plain old reality and doesn't make anyone shallow. Or "sad". Or disastrous. 

It's shallow, sad, and disastrous not to consider the effects of life, and therefore financial, decisions. Is it's so easy to get screwed, then think about what you are doing and who you are doing it with. 

Someone who screws you in a divorce wasn't really a good pick for a holy union, after all.


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

If $ enters into it in your head when considering your paramour then it's not love. Then it's merely a prostitutional transaction.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

syhoybenden said:


> If $ enters into it in your head when considering your paramour then it's not love. Then it's merely a prostitutional transaction.


This is the sort of thinking that has gotten many a person bent over a barrel when things don't turn out as expected. 

Financial compatibility is as important as any of the other compatibility markers for a relationship. Ignore it at your own risk.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Livvie said:


> What? How is that a sad idea?
> 
> Of course living with someone-- and therefore marriage-- is a financial decision. Heck, even dating is a financial decision. Who pays for dates, food, outings? That's life. Living takes $$. Just because someone might believe marriage is a "holy union" doesn't change the fact that LIFE takes money. Being thoughtful around your lifetime financial decisions isn't shallow it's plain old reality and doesn't make anyone shallow. Or "sad". Or disastrous.
> 
> ...


I guess you can walk through life planning for your next divorce. Ditching potential partners simply because they didn't measure up, but that's a shallow life. Here is a novel idea - don't get married. Save everyone the heartache of being in it for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## syhoybenden (Feb 21, 2013)

Lila said:


> This is the sort of thinking that has gotten many a person bent over a barrel when things don't turn out as expected.
> 
> Financial compatibility is as important as any of the other compatibility markers for a relationship. Ignore it at your own risk.


How materialistic.

So sad for you.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I guess you can walk through life planning for your next divorce. *Ditching potential partners simply because they didn't measure up,* but that's a shallow life. Here is a novel idea - don't get married. Save everyone the heartache of being in it for all the wrong reasons.


That is the purpose of dating, is it not? How is it shallow? Here's a novel idea: instead of sending a check to the electric company, draw a bunch of hearts and kissy faces on the bill and send it in. See how long it will be before your electricity gets shut off.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Blondilocks said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you can walk through life planning for your next divorce. *Ditching potential partners simply because they didn't measure up,* but that's a shallow life. Here is a novel idea - don't get married. Save everyone the heartache of being in it for all the wrong reasons.
> ...


Yes!

Interesting that some men are reacting negatively to the idea that perhaps a man should consider different factors when choosing a partner, and also when making financial decisions in a marriage....yet it's also the MEN who complain and cry they they are shafted financially in a divorce in which the wife didn't work for 30 years.

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

syhoybenden said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > This is the sort of thinking that has gotten many a person bent over a barrel when things don't turn out as expected.
> ...


Uhhhh huhhh. Should that be the stock phrase given out to men who complain that they don't want to split assets and future income in the event of a divorce then? How materialistic and sad!!! Too bad.


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

Livvie said:


> Yes!
> 
> Interesting that some men are reacting negatively to the idea that perhaps a man should consider different factors when choosing a partner, and also when making financial decisions in a marriage....yet it's also the MEN who complain and cry they they are shafted financially in a divorce in which the wife didn't work for 30 years.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


It's the old "I want my cake and eat it, too" crying tale.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Financial compatibility can mean a lot of different things, but ultimately it absolutely is essential in a ltr. It was one of the major criteria on my list, in large part because of the lack of such compatibility in my first marriage!


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

syhoybenden said:


> How materialistic.
> 
> So sad for you.


Dude.

Ever watch a couple go through bankruptcy because one or both of them had no financial acumen?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

syhoybenden said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > This is the sort of thinking that has gotten many a person bent over a barrel when things don't turn out as expected.
> ...


Please don't feel bad for me oh, I'm doing pretty good. Save your pity for all of those people who made the mistake of not being materialistic enough and are now paying the price literally.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I guess you can walk through life planning for your next divorce. Ditching potential partners simply because they didn't measure up, but that's a shallow life. Here is a novel idea - don't get married. Save everyone the heartache of being in it for all the wrong reasons.


How is wanting someone who is financially compatible any more shallow than say wanting someone who is sexually compatible or physically fit or mentally healthy or shares the same political views or religious beliefs?


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Livvie said:


> Yes!
> 
> Interesting that some men are reacting negatively to the idea that perhaps a man should consider different factors when choosing a partner, and also when making financial decisions in a marriage....yet it's also the MEN who complain and cry they they are shafted financially in a divorce in which the wife didn't work for 30 years.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


No that is not it at all. I honestly don't think that you are being fair. 

Lets look at some examples. 

Wife is SAHM, kids get older, she starts banging every Tom, **** (No pun intended) and Harry around. He finds out, and divorces her. 

He gets screwed over in the divorce. Is that fair. 

It would not be fair if we reversed the genders. 

I could use my example which is almost as bad, but you get the idea. 

The divorce laws are tilted towards women in almost every case. 

And that is why LOTS of people don't want to get married, or married again.


----------



## alte Dame (Aug 7, 2012)

jlg07 said:


> Nope, what that guy in the article did is 100% selfish. He devastated his wife -- WHY -- because HE WANTED to be with another woman and wanted his wife to just sit there and be ok with it. HE WAS out for himself -- he didn't care what it would do to his wife.
> 
> I'm not sure if "others" see what he did differently than that, but I sure don't.


I agree on the bottom line, but can see his rationale a bit differently. The possibility that crossed my mind immediately (being one of those famous aging boomers) is that, after so many years with the same person, he thought she would be devastated to have him leave her for his new squeeze. He therefore offered her crumbs, out of the goodness of his heart, of course. In his mind, he was a decent man who wouldn't desert the wife who had stayed committed to him for so long. What a gent!

Good on her that she called an attorney. I would have changed the locks the same day and done a happy dance to be rid of such a lying cheat.


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

Why do people feel the need to put down the preferences of others? No preferences are shallow.

On Amazon, I watched a series called, 'Till Debt Do Us Part', and it's amazing how many adults are completely clueless about their finances. It's astonishing really.

The thought of debt is so, super stressful to me. I don't know how people do it. And none of the folks on these episodes were in debt because of medical bills or something beyond their control. They were simply immature and sloppy.

I would never, ever marry a man who thought that owing someone else tons of money was just how life is.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Lila said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you can walk through life planning for your next divorce. Ditching potential partners simply because they didn't measure up, but that's a shallow life. Here is a novel idea - don't get married. Save everyone the heartache of being in it for all the wrong reasons.
> ...


What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

minimalME said:


> Why do people feel the need to put down the preferences of others? No preferences are shallow.
> 
> On Amazon, I watched a series called, 'Till Debt Do Us Part', and it's amazing how many adults are completely clueless about their finances. It's astonishing really.
> 
> ...


I agree but its basically the same thing. Being a prisoner of debt is still putting money before your partner. Accumulating wealth or debt is not a good reason to marry. That can all change very quickly. What then? Walk away because things didn't go as expected?


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?


I'm going to reply by asking what happens when a spouse loses their sexual desirability? What happens if they lose sexual interest? What happens if they develop mental health issues? What happens if they get fat? What happens if they stop practicing the religion that both shared? What happens....( Insert attribute)? Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?

All we can do is hedge our bets with those people with whom we are compatible in the areas that are important to us. **** happens but why enter into a relationship with someone who is obviously not on the same page financially?


----------



## BluesPower (Mar 27, 2018)

Some of this stuff is just lack of responsibility. 

So, if someone is financially irresponsible, I don't want to be with them, I sure don't want to marry them. 

If someone drinks too much, or smokes pot all day, I don't want to be with them. And I like to drink. 

If someone does not take care of their health, I don't want to be with them. 

There are all kinds of examples of responsibility and lack of. I want to be with someone that has their **** together. 

The guy in the story is a jerk buy the way... Just saying...


----------



## minimalME (Jan 3, 2012)

What's basically the same thing?

People put x,y and z before their partner all the time. If everyone was dying to themselves daily and considering their spouse, marriage would be a completely different landscape.

I didn't write that accumating wealth or debt was a good reason to marry?

And, yes - you're right. It can change very quickly. 

But we all have our premarital starting point, where ideally these topics are discussed and flushed out.

And, even then, context matters. 

I could handle monetary debt caused by my spouse getting cancer. But there's a huge difference between that and immature and sloppy.



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I agree but its basically the same thing. Being a prisoner of debt is still putting money before your partner. Accumulating wealth or debt is not a good reason to marry. That can all change very quickly. What then? Walk away because things didn't go as expected?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Lila said:


> UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> 
> 
> > What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?
> ...


We help them through it. Everyones physical attractiveness degrades over time, even your own. 

I get people change, but so do their circumstances. If its tilted too heavily towards something ephemeral or superficial like earning power, it just not going to work.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > UpsideDownWorld11 said:
> ...


I can see why your username is what it is. It's totally appropriate!


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> We help them through it. Everyones physical attractiveness degrades over time, even your own.
> 
> I get people change, but so do their circumstances. If its tilted too heavily towards something ephemeral or superficial like earning power, it just not going to work.


I feel like you are moving the goal posts. 
Would I help my partner through a tough job loss situation? Yes. Would i choose to be with someone who thinks job loss is "no big deal"? No way. 

Think about it like this. Would you hitch yourself up with a woman who was out of shape and had no desire to stay healthy?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> If its tilted too heavily towards something ephemeral or superficial like earning power, it just not going to work.


Earning power is not the same as financial compatibility, nor is it the same as financial responsibility.


----------



## Cletus (Apr 27, 2012)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> We help them through it. Everyones physical attractiveness degrades over time, even your own.
> 
> I get people change, but so do their circumstances. If its tilted too heavily towards something ephemeral or superficial like earning power, it just not going to work.


So what is acceptable criteria? Remember that you are answering an atheist, if it matters.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

maquiscat said:


> The problem is that only legal marriage is tracked, not religious marriage.


There is a reason for that. Legally a religious only ceremony is meaningless. Socially, outside of the religious sect that recognized the "marriage", the couple are no different than any other couple who chose to cohabit. Basically, there's not much need to track people who are playing house.



syhoybenden said:


> If $ enters into it in your head when considering your paramour then it's not love. Then it's merely a prostitutional transaction.


Love is not, and never has been, enough. Just because you love someone doesn't mean they are marriage material. Money is the 2nd place cause for divorce. It would be incredibly foolish NOT to take finances into account when thinking about marrying and building a life with someone. Especially if there is a desire for children. 

Also, nothing kills love as certainly and swiftly as watching your child shiver through a cold winter night, hungry, because your electric has been disconnected, there is no food in the house, and it's because the person you married can't or won't get their financial shyte straight.



syhoybenden said:


> How materialistic.
> 
> So sad for you.


Nothing materialistic in wanting to make sure your life-mate and future parent of your children can, ya know, actually afford to feed, clothe, and shelter the family.



BluesPower said:


> No that is not it at all. I honestly don't think that you are being fair.
> 
> Lets look at some examples.
> 
> ...


It's really not a gender thing. The perception of this being a gender thing stems from men traditionally making more money than women and women being more likely to SAH altogether, especially if the cost of childcare is close to their working income. It's really an income disparity thing. The SAH is basically getting financially compensated for their sacrifice of earning, retirement, etc. and the breadwinner is basically paying for services rendered in the past. 

The only solution is to either A) accept if the marriage ends in divorce, for any reason, financial compensation will be required or B) only marry someone who has a roughly equal income.



UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?


My honest answer is "Depends." 

If my DH lost his job because he was laid-off through no fault of his own or had to medically retire, I'll be there doing whatever I can. 

If my DH lost his job because he's an alcoholic who'd been told to get help before this kind of thing happened, I'd be a LOT less inclined to stick around.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

syhoybenden said:


> If $ enters into it in your head when considering your paramour then it's not love. Then it's merely a prostitutional transaction.


You might want to reconsider your word choice.

paramour noun

par·​amour | \ ˈper-ə-ˌmu̇r , ˈpa-rə- \
Definition of paramour
: LOVER
specifically : an illicit or secret lover

That said, love is not and never has been enough for the basis of a marriage, save in the movies.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Blondilocks said:


> It's the old "I want my cake and eat it, too" crying tale.


Wait! How is wanting love and financial compatibility in the person you marry wanting to have your cake and eat it too? Sounds like a rather cynical way of looking at marriage and life.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> What happens if the lose their job. Or suffer an injury that makes them no longer financially attractive. Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?


Financial compatibility isn't about the income you/they have or the situations you encounter together. It's the ability to work together on these situations, and to have common goals and views on such. My first wife thought that buying what she wanted and eating out were more important goals than paying the rent. I sadly didn't learn this until almost 10 of marriage when I left the Navy to go over the road trucking. Before, I handled the bills. 

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> Wait! How is wanting love and financial compatibility in the person you marry wanting to have your cake and eat it too? Sounds like a rather cynical way of looking at marriage and life.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


It's the wanting a SAHW and the benefits derived from such arrangement and not wanting to pay for those benefits that is cake-eating behavior.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

MJJEAN said:


> There is a reason for that. Legally a religious only ceremony is meaningless. Socially, outside of the religious sect that recognized the "marriage", the couple are no different than any other couple who chose to cohabit. Basically, there's not much need to track people who are playing house.


The meaningfulness or meaninglessness is a subjective value that has no objective measurements. It is true that anything other than a legal marriage holds no weight for legal purposes now, but such was not always the case. While there were laws dealing with those who were married, there were no laws defining marriage. In fact, the couple getting married often did so by the expediant of the woman moving in with the man.

Marriage basically comes in three forms; legal, religious and social. All three forms are independent of each other, but can exist simultaneously. Furthermore, the recognition of one type in one area does not guarantee recognition of that same type in other areas, nor of recognition between types.

The lack of legal recognition does not make a marriage any less of such, especially since marriage was established long before there were ever laws about such. Somehow I doubt that if the US were to suddenly stop recognizing marriage on a legal basis, you would think all those couples were suddenly "playing house".

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Blondilocks said:


> It's the wanting a SAHW and the benefits derived from such arrangement and not wanting to pay for those benefits that is cake-eating behavior.


Quite honestly I want to be the SAHH. However, I don't think that having a stay at home anything is usually a consideration in and of itself, unless the person is trying to be one. Then that, to me, seems more the cake and eat situation.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> Quite honestly I want to be the SAHH. However, I don't think that having a stay at home anything is usually a consideration in and of itself, unless the person is trying to be one. Then that, to me, seems more the cake and eat situation.
> 
> Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


Obviously, you don't value what a stay at home parent/partner provides in a relationship. Given your lifestyle, it isn't surprising.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Blondilocks said:


> Obviously, you don't value what a stay at home parent/partner provides in a relationship. Given your lifestyle, it isn't surprising.


Quite the opposite. I highly value my one wife for what she can do at home. Having medical issues, however limits her, which is one reason, but not the only, I would rather be a SAHH. But when it comes to my partners, I am not looking at whether they are going to be a SAH or not. My view is that if you are looking to be or not be SAH for specific reasons, and not willing to be the other, that is the cake and eat it situation. IOW, SAH is not the issue, but the reasons behind it.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Accidental double post.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Lila said:


> I'm going to reply by asking what happens when a spouse loses their sexual desirability? What happens if they lose sexual interest? What happens if they develop mental health issues? What happens if they get fat? What happens if they stop practicing the religion that both shared? What happens....( Insert attribute)? Will you still love them or simply divorce them as they are no longer 'compatible'. If they answer is no or you are not sure, why get married at all?
> 
> All we can do is hedge our bets with those people with whom we are compatible in the areas that are important to us. **** happens but why enter into a relationship with someone who is obviously not on the same page financially?


What if a spouse becomes abusive? Why get married at all, given the many things that can go wrong. Everyone needs an out for intolerable circumstances. But, sure, no one NEEDS to get married, so why bother?

If you know before marrying that there is a real or potential problem, then don't. After the fact, people and circumstances change, so the relationship may have to change as well - even if that means ending it.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Married but Happy said:


> What if a spouse becomes abusive? Why get married at all, given the many things that can go wrong. Everyone needs an out for intolerable circumstances. But, sure, no one NEEDS to get married, so why bother?
> 
> If you know before marrying that there is a real or potential problem, then don't. After the fact, people and circumstances change, so the relationship may have to change as well - even if that means ending it.


I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Notice I said "relationship" and not marriage. **** can still happen in non-marriage relationships which brings me back to the original post that brought this entire thread jack about which I shamefully participate. If people want to reduce the financial fall-out after a break-up from a marriage, long term dating, casual dating, or even a one night stand, it is best to get permanently sterilized. Children and the associated child support and lifetime of responsibility is a huge financial burden, moreso than splitting assets.


----------



## Yeswecan (Jul 25, 2014)

Blondilocks said:


> Obviously, you don't value what a stay at home parent/partner provides in a relationship. Given your lifestyle, it isn't surprising.


Oh my gosh, my W staying at home is priceless.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

maquiscat said:


> The meaningfulness or meaninglessness is a subjective value that has no objective measurements. It is true that anything other than a legal marriage holds no weight for legal purposes now, but such was not always the case. While there were laws dealing with those who were married, there were no laws defining marriage. In fact, the couple getting married often did so by the expediant of the woman moving in with the man.
> 
> Marriage basically comes in three forms; legal, religious and social. All three forms are independent of each other, but can exist simultaneously. Furthermore, the recognition of one type in one area does not guarantee recognition of that same type in other areas, nor of recognition between types.
> 
> ...


We live in the present, not some distant past before laws governing marriage were a thing. And considering laws governing marriage existed before the founding of Ancient Rome, that's a very distant past, indeed.

In modern times, religious marriage isn't actually recognized as marriage. As far as law and greater society are concerned, a religious only marriage isn't a thing. At least, not in the US. For all intents and purposes, the people involved are single with no legal or even any real social obligation to each other, free to walk away with no repercussions other than, perhaps, child related. Just like all the other non-married people.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 23, 2017)

Out here in Cal there's Sun City. It's for senior citizens, and they call it Sin City for a reason. And there are a couple of places in the Palm Springs area they call "meat markets." I have seen them (but didn't participate)
and the average age has to be North of 65. Also, I have been told that there are party sites for oldsters who want to fool around minus the spouse, or simply beside the latter.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

Lila said:


> I'm not surprised. Gray Divorces (55+) are on the rise. Their rates have doubled since 1976. To put it in perspective, the rates for younger couples have halved. I'm sure infidelity plays a role in many of those divorces.


*Which gives rise to the argument that, even in themselves, "gray" relationships and marriages are getting even farther from being trustworthy and secure institutions!*


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

Yeswecan said:


> Oh my gosh, my W staying at home is priceless.


Same. We both work now that the kids are grown but Mrs. C only took part time work occasionally while we were raising them.


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

maquiscat said:


> The meaningfulness or meaninglessness is a subjective value that has no objective measurements. It is true that anything other than a legal marriage holds no weight for legal purposes now, but such was not always the case. While there were laws dealing with those who were married, there were no laws defining marriage. In fact, the couple getting married often did so by the expediant of the woman moving in with the man.
> 
> Marriage basically comes in three forms; legal, religious and social. All three forms are independent of each other, but can exist simultaneously. Furthermore, the recognition of one type in one area does not guarantee recognition of that same type in other areas, nor of recognition between types.
> 
> ...


It is interesting that you and I are on far different sides of the spectrum where it concerns monogamous marriage but we see eye to eye on this.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

ConanHub said:


> It is interesting that you and I are on far different sides of the spectrum where it concerns monogamous marriage but we see eye to eye on this.


I'm glad we have a point of commonality, but could you expand a little on the being on far different sides of the spectrum with regards to monogamy? I have a feeling we might not be as far apart as you might think.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

arbitrator said:


> *Which gives rise to the argument that, even in themselves, "gray" relationships and marriages are getting even farther from being trustworthy and secure institutions!*


I think ALL relationships (society) in general is being even father from being trustworthy and secure.


----------



## JoshuaDickens (Sep 14, 2021)

Infidelity is problematic for many reasons. It can destroy a marriage or create new ones. And the damage it can do to a child is profound. According to law, infidelity is defined as any sexual intimacy other than marriage between an active spouse and another partner within the same wedding. Affairs aren't always necessarily physically abusive, but emotional, financial, and legal relationships can be. The reasons why people cheat are diverse and complex. If you feel unsafe, you can contact the guys from private-service.best. They will determine if your love cheats on you.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

jlg07 said:


> I mean your word IN GENERAL, although that does include wedding vows. IF you never told your wife/husband that you wouldn't cheat, then I guess if you want to parse the hell out of it, you didn't break your word.
> 
> Seems like we are heading (VERY QUICKLY) to where people are just out for themselves these days and don't really care at all about anyone else.


Absolutely. Faithfulness and commitment to your husband or wife are rarer sadly. 
People out for what they want regardless of how many get hurt.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Zombie thread. 

Still interesting topic though


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

Lila said:


> I'm not surprised. Gray Divorces (55+) are on the rise. Their rates have doubled since 1976. To put it in perspective, the rates for younger couples have halved. I'm sure infidelity plays a role in many of those divorces.


hmmmm. one factor has to be the frequency of sex and how eager both partners are to sex.

One HD and one LD...after decades of marriage....it can get pretty exhausting for the HD spouse. one day they just might say "f*** it, i ain't getting any younger....i am going out to get laid! and they do. then the divorce happens in a fair percentage of these cases, since monogamy is all we knew from back in the 1960's on. 

i know one mature couple, where the guy simply could not get his wife to put out or do any sex. well he found a kinky divorce' at a church group, and almost overnight they were shacking up as his divorce went thru. well, he quickly learned that kinky sex is NOT enough for a mature couple's relationship, and soon he and the affair partner were living apart, then he came back to his original wife, and begged to be let back.

there simply has to be a sexual outlet for an HD partner. even in a 55+ spouse, those raging sex hormones have to be sated!


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Since, I started this post over a year ago, I thought I might add a little bit to the original article that quoted from and linked to. 

Well, we have seen the Covid-19 quarantining of people, huddling in their living space without much freedom from each other. There has been a lot of discussion on people having to face who their spouse really is or has really grown into, since most have not been able to get some escape time by going to work or going shopping, like pre-Covid.

Covid has also put incredible financial strain on marriages with job loss and work hour reductions for some. For others it has destroyed plans for retirement and travel. In short there are a lot of stressed unhappy people.

We have also seen people with seemingly endless resources and long term marriages divorce: Bill and Melinda Gates or Jeff Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie Bezos. You would have thought that spending a few hundred thousand dollars on marriage counselors would have been a lot less traumatic than those high profile divorces and their attorney costs.

I would also point out that there as 60 becomes the new 40, people expect an active sex life. There are lots of jokes about grandma and grandpa still having sex? Perhaps more telling is the rising STD infection rate in nursing and assisted living homes.

There are probably as many reasons as they are couples, but it does appear to be a trend. A trend that my wife and I were lucky to dodge, even if we can close.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Young at Heart said:


> Since, I started this post over a year ago, I thought I might add a little bit to the original article that quoted
> 
> 
> We have also seen people with seemingly endless resources and long term marriages divorce: Bill and Melinda Gates or Jeff Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie Bezos. You would have thought that spending a few hundred thousand dollars on marriage counselors would have been a lot less traumatic than those high profile divorces and their attorney costs.


Since the OP has come back to thread and added to it, I will consider this thread open and fair game. 

As I am closer to 60 than I am to 50 I can relate to the topic in a number of ways.

I think a big part of the gray divorce saga is after a certain age and reaching a certain station in life, you simply don’t give a crap what other people think and you realize that if other people are urging you to do something, it’s usually for their own agenda. 

As far as the billionaires divorcing, two trains of thought on this - it’s usually the wives that initiate the divorce. In the case of the Gates and the Bezos, those women didn’t have anything to lose and they had billions to gain so in that sense I’m surprised it took them as long as it did to do it. 

Now they are some of the richest women in the world and they can do whatever they want with the money. 

In other cases you can look at it as MC being cheaper than divorce, but MC is not a panacea of marital content and it certainly is not a character transplant on a spouse with bad character. 

In younger days with young children and and a mortgage, one may have sucked it up and tolerated a cheating spouse or an alcoholic or a dead bedroom. 

But at 55 when the kids are grown and there is enough money in the pot to divvy out and at least be able to have a roof and food in the belly once the lawyers are paid? Some will consider it money well spent.


----------



## ElwoodPDowd (Aug 25, 2021)

Lila said:


> I'm not surprised. Gray Divorces (55+) are on the rise. Their rates have doubled since 1976. To put it in perspective, the rates for younger couples have halved. I'm sure infidelity plays a role in many of those divorces.


More likely due to younger men no longer getting married much.
If no young men got married, there would be no young couples getting divorced.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Here is something I am curious about - what will gray divorce look like in 30-40-50 years from now? Will it still be a thing?

I’m 57. In my generation, it was simply a cultural and societal expectation that you would marry your high school or college sweetheart (with family approval), hold down a 9-5, get a house, have a few kids and that is just what you did. 

Now at 57, my parents are gone, the kids are grown, I don’t give a crap what the neighbors think or what Oprah says or what my nosey 85 year old Aunt Berniece will blurt out at the annual family picnic. 

So I get why a lot of people of my generation are divorcing in their 50-60s as a lot of people married on auto-pilot in the first place and are now at a point in life where they have the resources and the means to do their own thing and are no longer under the constraints or raising minor children. 

So what’s going to happen in 30-40 years now that people do have more options and more flexibility in pursuing their own path? 

What’s going to happen now that there isn’t the same degree of societal pressure to marry young or even marry at all? 

Now that people have more options and flexibility and free choice, will there be less gray divorce or will the social fabric be so loose and free flowing that people simply flow into and out of relationships like the tides and no one even notices or cares anymore?


----------



## ElwoodPDowd (Aug 25, 2021)

Young at Heart said:


> Covid has also put incredible financial strain on marriages with job loss and work hour reductions for some. For others it has destroyed plans for retirement and travel. In short there are a lot of stressed unhappy people.


COVID has saved me lots of money, I'm no longer having 4 holidays a year (borders closed), haven't taken my wife out since March 2020 (restaurants/entertainment/sports all closed), and no school expenses as my kid's at home. The government are even discounting my electricity and water bills (last month $14 and $10) I've paid for a house extension, bought myself a new m/c and still haven't managed to match my pre-COVID spending.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

ElwoodPDowd said:


> More likely due to younger men no longer getting married much.
> If no young men got married, there would be no young couples getting divorced.


I’m not sure the declining marriage rates are are entirely on the men. Are the young women even marryable even if the guys did want to marry? 

With all the party girls and Instagram and only fans models and the fat, angry, purple-haired, man-hating feminists with multiple kids from different baby daddies, can you really blame guys for not wanting to get married?? 

But I’m not really meaning to point fingers at women either. 

A lot of neither young men or young women are even marryable let alone marriage ready by the standards of previous generations. 

Back in my day, a woman wouldn’t have given these fat, video-gaming, mom’s basement dwelling, failure to launch males the time of day.

And the guys of my generation would have considered the party girls and Instagram and Only Fans models as prostitutes and the fat, purple haired, man hating feminists are simply scary.


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> I’m not sure the declining marriage rates are are entirely on the men. Are the young women even marryable even if the guys did want to marry?
> 
> With all the party girls and Instagram and only fans models and the fat, angry, purple-haired, man-hating feminists with multiple kids from different baby daddies, can you really blame guys for not wanting to get married??
> 
> ...


there is a very real possibility that a lot of women and men, who WOULD have gotten married in the 50's and 60's....those same people find out they are gay, and since society no longer shuns that choice, come out and do NOT have a traditional marriage. 









Less Than 50% of Teens Identify as Straight, Says New Study


The next generation is much more queer and much less defined by gender than millennials.




www.out.com





if 1 in 6, or 1 in 2 (depending on whose junky stats you trust), that is a LOT of people not getting a traditional marriage.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Talker67 said:


> there is a very real possibility that a lot of women and men, who WOULD have gotten married in the 50's and 60's....those same people find out they are gay, and since society no longer shuns that choice, come out and do NOT have a traditional marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes which is why I wonder if gray divorce will be as much of thing 40 years from now since young people have more choices and options now (including not marrying at all) that really weren’t in place 40 years ago.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Talker67 said:


> there is a very real possibility that a lot of women and men, who WOULD have gotten married in the 50's and 60's....those same people find out they are gay, and since society no longer shuns that choice, come out and do NOT have a traditional marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, brainwashing is much more powerful than even I realized!


----------



## 352525 (Dec 4, 2021)

Blondilocks said:


> I can't even imagine the audacity of that sob to suggest what he did. A grade AAA ass hole. Good on his wife for going straight to divorce.


Gotta agree. Good decision


----------



## 346745 (Oct 7, 2020)

People do grow apart. My wife and I - in early 60s, married 27 - think sex is glue of a marriage. When people stop sleeping together, special bond is damaged. Boring? But we schedule once a week, and usually sneak in another. It works for us.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Talker67 said:


> hmmmm. one factor has to be the frequency of sex and how eager both partners are to sex.
> 
> One HD and one LD...after decades of marriage....it can get pretty exhausting for the HD spouse. one day they just might say "f*** it, i ain't getting any younger....i am going out to get laid! and they do. then the divorce happens in a fair percentage of these cases, since monogamy is all we knew from back in the 1960's on.
> 
> ...


Clearly the kinky lady didn't believe what she learnt at her church group. Nor he. 

Did his ex take him back?


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> Clearly the kinky lady didn't believe what she learnt at her church group. Nor he.
> 
> Did his ex take him back?


yes, it turned out to be a happy story in the end. she did not date the year or so they were apart. he eventually moved back (he was living in another state). they lived together for about another year, and then remarried. 

it was a little weird because they had done the whole divorce thing, splitting up the property and all. 

One factor for him, after the AP left him, his kids basically disowned him too for having abandoned their wholly innocent mom. So there he was, living alone in another state, no friends anywhere.....

they seem to be happy now. go figure.

and yeah, i spotted that too....way to find an AP: at the high levels of the church you work/volunteer at! don't get me started on religion

not an excuse, but it does bring up the importance of sex, even at a mature age. If one partner needs sex, and the other downplays it, or even refuses it totally...well biology is working on the HD partner's mind, and a mole hill becomes a mountain. all that pressure has to somehow be released. so...if i were the LD partner, i would not ignore the requests!


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Talker67 said:


> yes, it turned out to be a happy story in the end. she did not date the year or so they were apart. he eventually moved back (he was living in another state). they lived together for about another year, and then remarried.
> 
> it was a little weird because they had done the whole divorce thing, splitting up the property and all.
> 
> ...


She was brave to take him back. 
Most Christians don't act that way believe me. Hopefully she was ousted from the church after that. Not everyone who goes to church is there for genuine reasons.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> Hopefully she was ousted from the church after that.


Yeah, we certainly don't want any sinners going to church now do we.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Yeah, we certainly don't want any sinners going to church now do we.


So you are happy with someone going to church to have affairs with married men?


----------



## Casual Observer (Sep 13, 2012)

Talker67 said:


> hmmmm. one factor has to be the frequency of sex and how eager both partners are to sex.
> ....
> One HD and one LD...after decades of marriage....it can get pretty exhausting for the HD spouse. one day they just might say "f*** it, i ain't getting any younger....i am going out to get laid! and they do. then the divorce happens in a fair percentage of these cases, since monogamy is all we knew from back in the 1960's on.
> ...
> ...





Talker67 said:


> One factor for him, after the AP left him, his kids basically disowned him too for *having abandoned their wholly innocent mom.*
> ...
> not an excuse, but it does bring up the importance of sex, even at a mature age. If one partner needs sex, and the other downplays it, or even refuses it totally...well biology is working on the HD partner's mind, and a mole hill becomes a mountain. all that pressure has to somehow be released. *so...if i were the LD partner, i would not ignore the requests!*


There's an inconsistency here; you talk about the "*wholly innocent mom" *but give reasons for why the guy stepped outside the marriage, that related to his wife. Don't get me wrong; it was the wrong way for him to go about it. It's virtually impossible to justify an affair in anything but a marriage that for all intents and purposes, viewed from every possible perspective, is not in fact a marriage.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> So you are happy with someone going to church to have affairs with married men?


Without even bringing up the topic of priests and clergy members molesting kids, lets keep in mind that wherever men and women (or gay men and men and gay women and women) come into contact with each other, there is potential for shenanigans. 

But the bigger question here is whether churches are hospitals for sinners or shrines for saints. 

Should hospitals start kicking out patients because they don't want any sick and injured people there?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

oldshirt said:


> Without even bringing up the topic of priests and clergy members molesting kids, lets keep in mind that wherever men and women (or gay men and men and gay women and women) come into contact with each other, there is potential for shenanigans.
> 
> But the bigger question here is whether churches are hospitals for sinners or shrines for saints.
> 
> Should hospitals start kicking out patients because they don't want any sick and injured people there?


If the OW was completely repentant and recognised how damaging her actions were and apologised, then yes of course stay. 
If this has happened before or if she won't recognise her part in this mess then to protect others she should be asked to leave.


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

Casual Observer said:


> There's an inconsistency here; you talk about the "*wholly innocent mom" *but give reasons for why the guy stepped outside the marriage, that related to his wife. Don't get me wrong; it was the wrong way for him to go about it. It's virtually impossible to justify an affair in anything but a marriage that for all intents and purposes, viewed from every possible perspective, is not in fact a marriage.


good point. i could kind of see the train wreck coming....he would playfully joke with me about things like us hiring French maids to clean our houses, and she would shut him down in a disrespectful way publicly. so it was not a huge surprise when i heard he was leaving her. 

still, i just assumed they were kidding around and that the sex was OK enough for him to not leave. i was wrong....it really bothered him.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

Diana7 said:


> So you are happy with someone going to church to have affairs with married men?


The well man does not need the physician.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

maquiscat said:


> The well man does not need the physician.


A better analogy is the physician that will only accept the healthy, will soon be unemployed.


----------



## maquiscat (Aug 20, 2019)

oldshirt said:


> A better analogy is the physician that will only accept the healthy, will soon be unemployed.


It was specifically intended as a slight paraphrase of Matthew 9:12, Mark 2:17 and Luke 5:31


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

It have been fun to see how this thread has twisted and turned.

I hope that if and when we all feel like Covid has ended, we as a society can focus more on our spouses.

I also hope that marriage as an institution becomes more important to society. While I think it is, I think that it has gotten less emphasis. Gray marriage may be a statement that marriage is about creating and raising children and after one reaches their 60's, the kids have usually left home and are starting their own families, so its no longer quite as important to society that we stayed married.

I on the other hand, see "golden year marriage" as a way of spending quality time rebuilding the relationship that was stressed with paying off mortgages and raising kids.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

maquiscat said:


> The well man does not need the physician.


A family needs to protect it's members from wolves in sheep's clothing.


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

Married but Happy said:


> As for gray divorce, perhaps by retirement age you realize that you can't get away from your nemesis for 8 hours or more a day any longer (and may actually have to spend time with them!),


this is not far from the truth.
a lot of marriages are even more distant, as one of the spouses travels for work 4 days a week, so you end up with a LOT of personal space. Tolerating each other just for the weekend is possible.

but suddenly you both are retired, and the shock of not having something to do 8 hours a day laid out for you all by itself is hard to get used to.
but then seeing each other just wandering the house in their pajamas, or whatever....some people just can not make the conversion.

It does seem that high energy people need something new to take up some of their time...volunteering, maybe doing projects for your town, joining a gym and really going often....
busting up the time you two are alone together is a good thing.


----------

