# Obligation



## Ynot

I keep seeing obligation being mentioned as a reason for couples to stay together in a marriage. Usually, it seems to me that those saying a couple should stay together out of obligation are the ones who have been left. As some one who has been left I have decided that I would rather have someone be with me because they want to be with me (ie love, attraction) than due to some obligation (ie oath, vow, or other commitment). What do you say? Why?


----------



## Bobby5000

Agreed. Usually I see obligation mentioned in connection with children and possible disruption.


----------



## SecondTime'Round

Bobby5000 said:


> Agreed. Usually I see obligation mentioned in connection with children and possible disruption.


To me it's just about one's integrity level with regard to vows they made. Why make a vow at all if it's not important for you to keep it?


----------



## Ynot

SecondTime'Round said:


> To me it's just about one's integrity level with regard to vows they made. Why make a vow at all if it's not important for you to keep it?


It was important at the time it was made. But people, their motivations, reasons and priorities change. Are you saying that once you make a promise, take a vow or make a commitment that you can never change your mind? Do you really want to be with someone out of mere obligation? 
Perhaps it does speak of their integrity. Does it change what they did? Wouldn't you rather know the truth, than live a lie based on obligation?
Then again, maybe they really did try to keep the promise and honor the vow. But over time that commitment took a lower priority than others commitments, such as the commitment each of us should make to ourselves to live our lives the best we can.
I understand the hurt of rejection, but I don't understand the thinking that anyone else should make me happy at the expense of their own happiness because of a promise they made years ago.


----------



## Ynot

Please understand - I am not arguing to be argumentative, I am really trying to understand the idea people have that obligation should trump happiness. To me that idea is an irrationally selfish, greedy idea that leads to continued pain and misery.


----------



## SecondTime'Round

Ynot said:


> I don't understand the thinking that anyone else should make me happy at the expense of their own happiness because of a promise they made years ago.


Definitely a lot of food for thought. (And I didn't think you were being argumentative).


----------



## Hoosier

I took my vows very seriously. In fact, I really didn't care what the courts said about when I became divorced, I became divorced the day I asked to be released from my vow and she said.. "Go for it Hoosier!" (Took grief on here for giving her the "power" but even tho she was the one that had the affair, I sought and received her "release" even with the get out of jail free card that comes with affairs.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Happiness is fleeting and depends upon others and circumstances. What makes us happy changes over time(fleeting). 

Joy comes from internal sources and is not dependent on others or circumstances. The source does not easily change.

Staying or leaving, I suspect, has less to do with our happiness and more to do with the joy we've found in the relationship. Basically, if we find joy in our decision to be in a specific relationship, we will find things that make us happy. We will be doing things that bring joy and happiness will seem to fall from the sky.

Sometimes, I think we don't truly know what we want, and over time, discover what we already have is not it. Though, we convinced ourselves at the time, it was what we wanted. 

I don't know. Just some thoughts to explore.


----------



## Wazza

I actually think this is quite a complex question. 

For me, marriage is about more than romantic love. It's about providing a safe haven for children (which is why I stayed after my wife's affair). It's about companionship and support in old age (not there yet but give me time). It's a financial partnership, like it or not. And, it's a master class in commitment and working at a relationship. 

When the kids were involved, I was committed. It was obligation and I don't regret it.

It's not the same now they are off our hands. if we found that all we had was obligation, then maybe that's not enough. But if obligation carries you through a dry spell with someone who really isn't good match, I see nothing unhealthy about that.


----------



## Trickster

Ynot said:


> I keep seeing obligation being mentioned as a reason for couples to stay together in a marriage. Usually, it seems to me that those saying a couple should stay together out of obligation are the ones who have been left. As some one who has been left I have decided that I would rather have someone be with me because they want to be with me (ie love, attraction) than due to some obligation (ie oath, vow, or other commitment). What do you say? Why?



When I met my wife 24 some years ago, she was the college educated one. I had lots of baggage and she accepted me and never made any real demands from me. Over the years, I worked hard and became the main provider with hard work, while she never maintained a long term career or a job. Motherhood became the perfect excuse to not have a career. The many years leading up to that, I accepted her and her lack of being responsible. I think part of me actually like that somebody trusted and depended on me. I felt validated in some weird way. Most of the marriage was sexless. I accepted that as well. I didn't think I deserved more and never believed I could have it all.

Now, all these years later, wife still doesn't desire to have a real career and she was a SAHM way longer than we agreed. She spent about 9 years out of the workforce. I tried so hard to encourage her to do something. She never did. Now she earns about what she earned 20 years ago.

I feel obligated because she "saved" me early on. I was a mess. I knew she was lazy with every aspect of her life. I chose to marry her knowing all that I know. She hasn't changed at all in 24 years. I have! How can I expect her to change?

So yes, I feel obligated to continue to support her. I feel she is doing her best. There is no way in the world she will manage on her own. I found many other areas of my life to focus on. I have many hobbys and interest and I get to spend time with my daughter daily.

I hope my daughter sees that I am happy, even though she doesn't see her mom and dad being affectionate. I have found my happy place.

Even when we divorce, I will still feel obligated for her well being. I wish her no harm. How can I not after all these years?


----------



## kingsfan

SecondTime'Round said:


> To me it's just about one's integrity level with regard to vows they made. Why make a vow at all if it's not important for you to keep it?


Maybe the person left because they vow wasn't important to their spouse? If your spouse cheats, or becomes an alcoholic, or refuses to get a job, or is abusive, does leaving the marriage mean the vow wasn't important to you?


----------



## Vinnydee

Amen. I am in a non monogamous marriage for over 40 years. You are absolutely correct. My wife has the freedom to date anyone she wants to, as do I. She has been with other guys and girls and yet, she chooses to be with me. If you love someone, let them free. If they come back they are yours, if not, they were never yours to begin with.

Having been in both monogamous and non monogamous relationships, I know that there is a difference in knowing that your spouse is with you because she wants to be rather than out of obligation, societal expectations, religious beliefs or morals. Obviously with 70% of men and 50-60% of women cheating plus a 50% divorce rate, monogamy does not work and the reason it is still in our DNA, no longer exist. 

Take sexual fidelity out of the marriage vows and 90% or more of the posts here and on lots of other forums dealing with relationships and marriage, would go away. I know for a fact that just as others can love a mother, father and siblings all at the same time without affecting their love for any one of them, I can love two or three women at the same time and still put my marriage first. Humans do not share well and insecurity, a fear of losing someone, drives jealousy. I have traits and accomplishments in life that enable me to not fear losing my wife too anyone, man or woman. I think that I am not better than any other man but also that no man is better than me. If my wife wants to leave me, so be it but after 40 years she has not even considered it. 

I have had a fantastic life both personally and sexually. I have had over 5000 threesomes and engaged in all sorts of group sex and fetishes. We lived as a poly triad and for some strange twist of fate, as three we were complete. I never like to feel obligated which is why my friends are those who ask nothing or little of me. I would not like it at all if I felt that my wife was not cheating out of marital obligation or duty.


----------



## SecondTime'Round

kingsfan said:


> Maybe the person left because they vow wasn't important to their spouse? If your spouse cheats, or becomes an alcoholic, or refuses to get a job, or is abusive, does leaving the marriage mean the vow wasn't important to you?


Not at all. I mean the vow wasn't important to the cheater, the alcoholic, the abuser....


----------



## kingsfan

SecondTime'Round said:


> Not at all. I mean the vow wasn't important to the cheater, the alcoholic, the abuser....


But often they aren't the ones leaving. The OP was referring to the obligation to stay. I wager its completely fine to leave if someone is doing things that are totally unacceptable, not have to stick them out "til death do you part"


----------



## Ynot

Trickster said:


> When I met my wife 24 some years ago, she was the college educated one. I had lots of baggage and she accepted me and never made any real demands from me. Over the years, I worked hard and became the main provider with hard work, while she never maintained a long term career or a job. Motherhood became the perfect excuse to not have a career. The many years leading up to that, I accepted her and her lack of being responsible. I think part of me actually like that somebody trusted and depended on me. I felt validated in some weird way. Most of the marriage was sexless. I accepted that as well. I didn't think I deserved more and never believed I could have it all.
> 
> Now, all these years later, wife still doesn't desire to have a real career and she was a SAHM way longer than we agreed. She spent about 9 years out of the workforce. I tried so hard to encourage her to do something. She never did. Now she earns about what she earned 20 years ago.
> 
> I feel obligated because she "saved" me early on. I was a mess. I knew she was lazy with every aspect of her life. I chose to marry her knowing all that I know. She hasn't changed at all in 24 years. I have! How can I expect her to change?
> 
> So yes, I feel obligated to continue to support her. I feel she is doing her best. There is no way in the world she will manage on her own. I found many other areas of my life to focus on. I have many hobbys and interest and I get to spend time with my daughter daily.
> 
> I hope my daughter sees that I am happy, even though she doesn't see her mom and dad being affectionate. I have found my happy place.
> 
> Even when we divorce, I will still feel obligated for her well being. I wish her no harm. How can I not after all these years?


Codependency


----------



## happy as a clam

Ynot said:


> I would rather have someone be with me because they want to be with me (ie love, attraction) than due to some obligation (ie oath, vow, or other commitment). What do you say? Why?


Completely agree. I finally bailed on my husband after 20 years of CRYSTAL CLEAR signals that he no longer (nor ever did) desired me as an intimate partner. I was merely a business partner in the affairs of running our household.

Vows, oaths, swearing-ins are completely irrelevant when ONE PARTNER CHOOSES TO IGNORE THE OTHER ONE ALTOGETHER.

Did I sign on to be an asexual roommate? Did I sign on to be his mother? Did I sign on to coddle him, nurse his apron strings, help him feel like a man-child?

HELL NO!!

Oaths, vows, and promises are WORTHLESS unless BOTH people are sincere when they take them.

Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Ynot

happy as a clam said:


> Completely agree. I finally bailed on my husband after 20 years of CRYSTAL CLEAR signals that he no longer (nor ever did) desired me as an intimate partner. I was merely a business partner in the affairs of running our household.
> 
> Vows, oaths, swearing-ins are completely irrelevant when ONE PARTNER CHOOSES TO IGNORE THE OTHER ONE ALTOGETHER.
> 
> Did I sign on to be an asexual roommate? Did I sign on to be his mother? Did I sign on to coddle him, nurse his apron strings, help him feel like a man-child?
> 
> HELL NO!!
> 
> Oaths, vows, and promises are WORTHLESS unless BOTH people are sincere when they take them.
> 
> Just my 2 cents...


I agree and when the other doesn't abide any longer, what choice do you have but to move on with your life, as they have given you their answer.


----------



## OpenWindows

I don't think of maritals vows as an obligation to stay. I think of them as a promise to go all in, and really try to build a life together. You're still allowed to fail sometimes. We're only human... sometimes we change, and sometimes we promise things we just can't deliver, even though we really thought we could.

I would never want a person to stay with me only because they promised to 30 years ago... how awful for both of us!


----------



## Evinrude58

One is obligated to do everything in their power to try to love one another, when the take marriage vows. If a spouse puts alcohol, drugs, other people, jobs, or themselves ahead of their marriage-- it is my opinion that the vows were broken. At that point, there is no obligation and a person shouldn't feel guilty about choosing not to be used.

But one should make darn sure they have made every effort to communicate that there is a problem with the marriage being put second before leaving, or you are nothing but a person with weak character and no loyalty. Your word is worthless. Whining about little things and the other spouse not doing this or that-- inconsequential stuff, is just discontent and is wrong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ynot

Evinrude58 said:


> But one should make darn sure they have made every effort to communicate that there is a problem with the marriage being put second before leaving, or you are nothing but a person with weak character and no loyalty. Your word is worthless. Whining about little things and the other spouse not doing this or that-- inconsequential stuff, is just discontent and is wrong.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That maybe so, but they are who they are and all we can do is accept them for who they are. But their "every effort" might not be the same as yours.


----------



## MJJEAN

Ynot said:


> Are you saying that once you make a promise, take a vow or make a commitment that you can never change your mind?


This is an interesting question all by itself. The idea behind vows since forever is that they are permanent, unless you are released from your vow by the person you made the vow to.

If you're religious, a vow is not just made to another person or oneself, but also to God. This includes all vows, not just the marital ones. And, to the religious, one cannot be released from a promise to God by anyone but God Himself.

Now, the Catholic Church has spent a couple thousand years looking at this issue for various reasons. They have come to the conclusion that there ARE out clauses. 

If the person making the vow lacked understanding of the vow, how could a merciful God hold him to that vow? If the person making the vow was under duress, mentally ill, tricked, under the influence of a drug...well, how could a merciful God hold them to that vow?

But, generally, it is expected that a sane, sober, person with clear understanding and who is not under duress keep vows he or she freely makes.

On vows in general, I tend to take the Church's beliefs to heart. I'm not holding myself or anyone else to promises they made while not clear headed, who were under duress, or who were lacking crucial information.
Everybody else, I expect to keep their word.

And that is why, when I married DH and meant it, I only made those vows because I was certain to my bones I could keep them. I was rock solid in my belief that DH and I are completely compatible and will remain so for life.



Wazza said:


> But if obligation carries you through a dry spell with someone who really isn't good match, I see nothing unhealthy about that.


There is a big difference between going through a dry spell or rough patch and being carried through that time by obligation to the vows you made and letting that same obligation keep you bound to someone you aren't a good match with.

Dry spells and rough patches are to be expected, but they pass. People who are incompatible (mismatches) will always be incompatible.



kingsfan said:


> Maybe the person left because they vow wasn't important to their spouse?


This is another thing that makes a difference to me. When the vow was spoken, did the person sincerely mean it?

In the case of my first marriage, no. I married my ex because I got pregnant and was doing the right thing. For me, the ceremony was more or less an impersonal speaking of words required to be considered legally married. It wasn't personal or sincere. Which is why I was comfortable breaking those vows. They weren't vows to me, they were just the words the law required to enter into a social and legal contract I believed necessary for my child.


----------



## Ynot

MJJEAN said:


> This is an interesting question all by itself. The idea behind vows since forever is that they are permanent, unless you are released from your vow by the person you made the vow to.
> Yes, permanence is the idea behind a vow but this is often abused as a means of control by man, by the church and by governments
> If you're religious, a vow is not just made to another person or oneself, but also to God. This includes all vows, not just the marital ones. And, to the religious, one cannot be released from a promise to God by anyone but God Himself.
> I am not religious so this idea makes no sense to me
> Now, the Catholic Church has spent a couple thousand years looking at this issue for various reasons. They have come to the conclusion that there ARE out clauses.
> 
> If the person making the vow lacked understanding of the vow, how could a merciful God hold him to that vow? If the person making the vow was under duress, mentally ill, tricked, under the influence of a drug...well, how could a merciful God hold them to that vow?
> Lacking understanding...this is a big one for me. Because our understanding of who we are, our place in the world, our expectations from life etc, all evolve over time. Who is to say that you "should have" understood what marriage was about before you have even experienced it? This speaks to the gist of why I say people change.
> But, generally, it is expected that a sane, sober, person with clear understanding and who is not under duress keep vows he or she freely makes.
> Unfortunately, this is the assumption that many of us make in regards to marital vows, especially in regards to understanding.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Ynot said:


> I keep seeing obligation being mentioned as a reason for couples to stay together in a marriage. Usually, it seems to me that those saying a couple should stay together out of obligation are the ones who have been left. As some one who has been left I have decided that I would rather have someone be with me because they want to be with me (ie love, attraction) than due to some obligation (ie oath, vow, or other commitment). What do you say? Why?


Absolutely.


----------



## NobodySpecial

MJJEAN said:


> This is an interesting question all by itself. The idea behind vows since forever is that they are permanent, unless you are released from your vow by the person you made the vow to.
> 
> If you're religious, a vow is not just made to another person or oneself, but also to God. This includes all vows, not just the marital ones. And, to the religious, one cannot be released from a promise to God by anyone but God Himself.
> 
> Now, the Catholic Church has spent a couple thousand years looking at this issue for various reasons. They have come to the conclusion that there ARE out clauses.
> 
> If the person making the vow lacked understanding of the vow, how could a merciful God hold him to that vow? If the person making the vow was under duress, mentally ill, tricked, under the influence of a drug...well, how could a merciful God hold them to that vow?


A merciful god would not require someone to remain in a miserable life because they said some words on a day in the past.


----------



## Evinrude58

NobodySpecial said:


> A merciful god would not require someone to remain in a mise*rable life because they said some words on a day in the past.*


Some words on a day in the past....

That says it all how you feel about marriage vows. I'm sure you're not alone. I ask again, why would YOU ever take such a vow?
And if you don't believe in God, why get married?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Evinrude58 said:


> Some words on a day in the past....
> 
> That says it all how you feel about marriage vows. I'm sure you're not alone. I ask again, why would YOU ever take such a vow?
> And if you don't believe in God, why get married?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


At the time I made the vows, I believed in them. Now I don't. I believe in my marriage. Why get married? In a word or two, my husband.


----------



## Evinrude58

NobodySpecial said:


> At the time I made the vows, I believed in them. Now I don't. I believe in my marriage. Why get married? In a word or two, my husband.


Why? He may evolve or his feelings may change and kick you to the curb. You may change or he may stop meeting the bar... Why promise you will always love him, or did you? Does he know that you consider vows just "words spoken on a day in the past"?????
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Evinrude58 said:


> Why? He may evolve or his feelings may change and kick you to the curb.


Yup. 


> You may change or he may stop meeting the bar... Why promise you will always love him, or did you?


I did. Now I promise to put him first. I don't promise to always love him. Nor he me.


> Does he know that you consider vows just "words spoken on a day in the past"?????
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes. He was the one who put the thought in my mind.


----------



## MJJEAN

NobodySpecial said:


> A merciful god would not require someone to remain in a miserable life because they said some words on a day in the past.


Ahh, but that's where free will comes in. None of us are required to make vows. But those who are religious are required to keep their vows or they endanger their immortal souls. The idea being, don't make a promise you can't keep.


----------



## NobodySpecial

MJJEAN said:


> Ahh, but that's where free will comes in. None of us are required to make vows. But those who are religious are required to keep their vows or they endanger their immortal souls. The idea being, don't make a promise you can't keep.


I contend that NO ONE can keep a promise to love someone forever. And that religion sets us up for failure in this regard.


----------



## MJJEAN

Evinrude58 said:


> Some words on a day in the past....
> 
> That says it all how you feel about marriage vows. I'm sure you're not alone. I ask again, why would YOU ever take such a vow?
> And if you don't believe in God, why get married?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's not always that simple. 

DH was raised Catholic. His whole family is very big on keeping vows. In his immediate family, (4 siblings, parents, aunts and uncles, cousins, too..big family) I think there have been 3 divorces in the last 40 years. And not a whiff of infidelity, either. And they tend to be very picky about who they marry. Probably because they really believe it to be for life.

Now, the majority of his family are "cultural catholics", meaning they were raised in the traditions and still observe a few of those traditions out of habit, but they don't really believe. Most could be best described as Agnostics.

Why get married if they don't believe? Why keep their vows if they don't believe? For them it's how they were raised. You meet, you love, you discern compatibility, you get married, and you keep your vows. The End. It's just what they do.


----------



## Ynot

Evinrude58 said:


> Some words on a day in the past....
> 
> That says it all how you feel about marriage vows. I'm sure you're not alone. I ask again, why would YOU ever take such a vow?
> And if you don't believe in God, why get married?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I didn't know that belief in God was required to get married. Maybe people get married because it provides a legal structure for the raising of children? Or perhaps they actually did love each other, oh so many years ago. Maybe because of familial or societal pressure or perhaps government rules and regulations.
I still do not understand how one cannot understand that people change, especially when they have been on the receiving end of that change.
I also don't understand how one can assume that at some point we reach a point of perfect knowledge, whereby we are so all knowing of all things, that our minds can never be changed because new facts, experiences and ideas are irrelevant to who we are as human beings. 
I truly doubt that many people take vows thinking they will break them (especially at the time they are made) otherwise they wouldn't take them. But human history, despite all the denials in the world, has proved that people change and are changed by life. 
Do you truly imagine that millions of Germans truly and always hated the Jews so much that they swore allegiance to one man and his ideas to destroy them? Or do you think that possibly they were swept up in the hysteria or mesmerized or seduced by his words in order to do? IOW they were changed by the times and experiences of their lives.


----------



## Evinrude58

I guess we all see things from our own perspective.
I still love my dad and we are still best friends.
I still love my best friend (besides my dad), and we still do things when we can after 32 years of friendship.
I still love my old girlfriends and wish well to them although it didn't work out that we could be married.
I still enjoy fishing and hunting and dogs and sports. I still enjoy spending time with my kids. Were I able to without being it being used against me and be forced to think more about the infidelity, I would have still loved my ex. She forced it out of me.
I still love God, and try to do things I think would make Him happy.
I don't think I've changed much at all. Gotten older and wiser, maybe. Maybe not in a lot of areas.

So I don't think people fundamentally change unless a traumatic event occurs.

I guess we are different on that. 
I still enjoy learning about other people's perspectives that are different from my own.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ynot

Ok, here is my take on the whole matter:
I am a divorced. My ex left me. We were married for 24 years. We had two kids together. I don't know where or why, but something happened along the way that made her not feel the way she had when we started off. She changed. At the same time I realize that I had changed. I was not happy with the state of my marriage. But I did not realize it at the time. I just knew I was not happy. Could it have been because my expectations had changed after 24 years and two kids? Perhaps, because my expectations did change. Could it have been because her expectations had changed after 24 years and two kids? Perhaps because her's had as well. Could it have been a combination? Perhaps, I will probably never know. 
I do not think she fooled me for 24 years. I do not think, she lied to me 24 years ago. I do not think she is an evil person who set out to rip my heart out. I think that she changed. 
I look around me and I see that 50% of marriages fail. Could it be because half of those men and women were evil, lying, conniving or cheating people? I guess it is possible although it is highly improbable, especially given that of the 50% of the marriages that do survive a majority of those people are unhappy as well.
It saddens me to no end to think this is even possible. What kind of odds does that leave one with, as 55 year old divorced man? Considering the assumption that they just weren't loyal enough, lacked conviction in their vows, arbitrarily broke their vows etc, excluding half the women my aged who are married, at least half of the remaining women are evil, conniving lying wenches who just walked out on their husbands and of the remaining 50% most of them are damaged, resentful and fearful of any future commitment because their exes were the conniving, lying cheating bastards.
If human nature is really that wretched, what is the point of it all?
Which is exactly why I reject this idea of permanence, as in people do not change and any vows they take and break can only be a result of a flawed personality that leads them to weakness, lying and cheating. 
People do change, I know I have. There can logically be no other explanation for the numbers of divorces and unhappy marriages. We can argue as to the cause of why people change, but I can not accept that people do not change. We as a society are changing and we can lament the loss of "old fashioned values" but it still does not change the fact that we are changing, as a society and as people. 
In the end, the one and only person over whom we have control is ourselves. Our spouses, exes and SOs are going to change as well. We have no control over what ever reaction they may have to developments in society, technology and institutions. We can mourn that they "could have" or "should have" reacted differently based on our own expectations and experiences, but once again, in the end we have no control over it.
We can accept change as inevitable, which IMO it is and change along with it. Or we can cling to the idea of permanence, as in vows and obligations and remain mired in situations giving us no satisfaction as remaining bitter and angry after a divorce or in empty marriages. 
I choose to accept change, as it is the only way forward for me.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> Ok, here is my take on the whole matter:
> I am a divorced. My ex left me. We were married for 24 years. We had two kids together. I don't know where or why, but something happened along the way that made her not feel the way she had when we started off. She changed. At the same time I realize that I had changed. I was not happy with the state of my marriage. But I did not realize it at the time. I just knew I was not happy. Could it have been because my expectations had changed after 24 years and two kids? Perhaps, because my expectations did change. Could it have been because her expectations had changed after 24 years and two kids? Perhaps because her's had as well. Could it have been a combination? Perhaps, I will probably never know.
> I do not think she fooled me for 24 years. I do not think, she lied to me 24 years ago. I do not think she is an evil person who set out to rip my heart out. I think that she changed.
> I look around me and I see that 50% of marriages fail. Could it be because half of those men and women were evil, lying, conniving or cheating people? I guess it is possible although it is highly improbable, especially given that of the 50% of the marriages that do survive a majority of those people are unhappy as well.
> It saddens me to no end to think this is even possible. What kind of odds does that leave one with, as 55 year old divorced man? Considering the assumption that they just weren't loyal enough, lacked conviction in their vows, arbitrarily broke their vows etc, excluding half the women my aged who are married, at least half of the remaining women are evil, conniving lying wenches who just walked out on their husbands and of the remaining 50% most of them are damaged, resentful and fearful of any future commitment because their exes were the conniving, lying cheating bastards.
> If human nature is really that wretched, what is the point of it all?
> Which is exactly why I reject this idea of permanence, as in people do not change and any vows they take and break can only be a result of a flawed personality that leads them to weakness, lying and cheating.


The truth is, those things do happen. They usually don't all happen in one marriage, but they do happen. Human nature is wretched. We learn how to be better men and women every day, if we are trying. And, there are those marriages where the couple just change in different directions and lose that love. Mostly, it happens to one of them, but it does sometimes happen to both at the same time. You changed because she changed and hurt you.

I see you looking for hope. Hope that there is something better out there, but accepting that there likely isn't. So, you are adapting. At 55, life is tougher because we all have so many things we experienced subjectively as individuals. 

Maybe, for example, a bird poops on your shoulder while you are walking from your car into work. You look up and cuss under your breath and laugh it off. You grab a tissue out of your pocket and wipe it off. Get into work and wash it off a little with some soap and water, maybe. You laugh your butt off.

Your coworker has the same happen. As soon as it does, they feel nauseated. They smell it and immediately turn to go back to their car and drive away, calling off as they drive. They go home and change, shower again and throw their dirty shirt into the laundry. Their day is ruined. They have to go and lift some weights or something, just to work off their thoughts and emotions. 

What if you were there with them when it happened? What if you consoled them and told them you'd help them clean up? What if you encouraged them and made them laugh with some humorous quip? I'm guessing all but the most traumatized from their past would feel better. 




> People do change, I know I have. There can logically be no other explanation for the numbers of divorces and unhappy marriages. We can argue as to the cause of why people change, but I can not accept that people do not change. We as a society are changing and we can lament the loss of "old fashioned values" but it still does not change the fact that we are changing, as a society and as people.
> In the end, the one and only person over whom we have control is ourselves. Our spouses, exes and SOs are going to change as well. We have no control over what ever reaction they may have to developments in society, technology and institutions. We can mourn that they "could have" or "should have" reacted differently based on our own expectations and experiences, but once again, in the end we have no control over it.
> We can accept change as inevitable, which IMO it is and change along with it. Or we can cling to the idea of permanence, as in vows and obligations and remain mired in situations giving us no satisfaction as remaining bitter and angry after a divorce or in empty marriages.
> I choose to accept change, as it is the only way forward for me.



It's easy to divorce. Many are out there giving up every day. The grass always looks greener when we don't like what is going on in our lives and someone else is happy. It's not that they are single, though. Sometimes, they don't want you to know how lonely they really feel. They don't want to admit that it isn't all that fun at Christmas when families are whole and getting together to share the joy of the season. They do't want you to know they feel like they were invited to someone's place for the holidays and it felt odd. They felt patronized.

Sometimes, those folks are truly happy. It isn't that they are single. It's that they are just able to be grateful for what they have, no matter what that is. It's sometimes that they just are the type of folks who make the best of everything and can find joy in anything they do, practically anything they do. 


Some believe that their word is worth more than gold. It happens in differing degrees in most. When it's an oath or a promise to something that they hold in the highest regard, they refuse to go back on their word unless they are forced somehow. 

Some have been lied to so much, or realize how much others lie, that they don't care about what they tell someone. If they decide to change their mind, even about something as serious as an oath, they do so with no regret. 

Right or wrong, is up to the individual. Doesn't mean they aren't going to repay a loan, or be there on Friday to help you move. It does mean something. It usually means they might not be there on Friday, if that friend calls they haven't seen in a while. It means you might have to find someone else to help you move, when you can't do it yourself and Friday is the last day to be out and you're in a bind. You don't run late all the time, but this is a special circumstance. You couldn't help it for some reason.

It means they don't want to change with you or share their life with you. It means they want to go in a different direction. They may still think you are okay, they just don't want to go where they think you want to go. 

But, that's what I thought marriage was all about. Growing, learning and experiencing life and all it's changes, surprises, setbacks, late life degrees, new hobbies, graduations, and anything else you experience, together. That is what those vows are all about. 

Yes, everyone, or practically everyone that I know has a right to divorce. They do divorce. 

At 55, I think you'd be looking for hope, that all you believed in is not gone, that all you worked for all your life is not gone, that all you desired is not wrong, that all you believe in and love is not and was not for nothing. 

When what gave you joy leaves, it's a hell of a traumatic shock to the system. That's when happiness leaves. You have to find something else that gives you joy, and then the happiness will come. What will give you joy? I wish I could tell you. I wish I knew what is going to replace the joy I felt in my second marriage. I don't. I wish you good luck, joy and happiness. And, if you figure it out, please let us in on the secret of how to find something new that gives you joy. 

Again, not a lecture, it's just my humble, probably faulty opinion.



Edit: You don't know why she is gone, because she doesn't want you to know. Why? Man, she only knows. It could be shame, guilt, she doesn't want to think about all the things that upset her again, she just wanted to do something different and figured you'd be okay with that, she knows it's a silly reason or she thinks you won't understand and there's no use in telling you, etc., etc., etc.

In the end, all you can do is find something else that gives you joy and the happiness will come. And it's freakin' tough when you are 55 to find something new. It seems so difficult. You can, though. It is harder, but you can. You just have to try harder.

Now, that's a different issue. Who the hell wants to try hard to find joy when they think they tried as hard as they could and lost? Is it worth it? That's for each of us to decide on our own. Sometimes, life just sucks. Sometimes, it's great. You make what you can out of it with the tools, circumstances and people in it. 

Remember, wherever I go, there I am. You are the one person that is always there. You are the one common denominator in your life, just as I am in mine. Find your new joy in life. 

If it's the single life, great! If it's something else, great! I wish you the very best.


----------



## Ynot

@2ntnuf
I am not looking for hope. I have found hope. I have found it in the realization that people do change. While, absolutely, I wish that my ex and I had changed together along the same paths, the simple fact is that we did not.
But when I see these posts about how someone's ex should have stuck it out, could have stuck it out etc etc, all I can think of is how limiting their thinking is. How mired in the past they are. 
Reality tells me that people change, there is simply no way to avoid that fact. That is, unless we are willing to believe that a large percentage of humanity is simply lying, cheating or conniving.
I would rather believe, that most of us are doing the best that we can, the best we know how to act and that things just didn't work out. That is the hope that I feel I have found. Because to me the alternative is pretty damn depressing.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> @2ntnuf
> I am not looking for hope. I have found hope. I have found it in the realization that people do change. While, absolutely, I wish that my ex and I had changed together along the same paths, the simple fact is that we did not.
> But when I see these posts about how someone's ex should have stuck it out, could have stuck it out etc etc, all I can think of is how limiting their thinking is. How mired in the past they are.
> Reality tells me that people change, there is simply no way to avoid that fact. That is, unless we are willing to believe that a large percentage of humanity is simply lying, cheating or conniving.
> I would rather believe, that most of us are doing the best that we can, the best we know how to act and that things just didn't work out. That is the hope that I feel I have found. Because to me the alternative is pretty damn depressing.


I don't really understand how you say you find hope in the realization that others change? Maybe you are trying to say that, "even at it's worst, life will change and it might just be much better because of that change"? That, I can understand. 

Somehow, I thought you were trying to convince us all to be like you? I don't think we are all the same, either in our beliefs in our word, what makes us happy, or anything.

One thing that did make us the same was the vows with spoke and the belief in our commitment to each other through any and all changes in our lives...together.

Yes, most folks are liars, cheaters, and connivers, to one degree or another. Most are selfish. We have to be, to one degree or another.


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> I don't really understand how you say you find hope in the realization that others change? Maybe you are trying to say that, "even at it's worst, life will change and it might just be much better because of that change"? That, I can understand.
> 
> Somehow, I thought you were trying to convince us all to be like you? I don't think we are all the same, either in our beliefs in our word, what makes us happy, or anything.
> 
> One thing that did make us the same was the vows with spoke and the belief in our commitment to each other through any and all changes in our lives...together.
> 
> Yes, most folks are liars, cheaters, and connivers, to one degree or another. Most are selfish. We have to be, to one degree or another.


I found hope in the fact that I can still believe in myself and others because I understand that people do change.
Because I have changed I do not have to feel guilty because I am not married. I do not have to feel as though I some how failed my ex and that is why she left. 
Because I know others change I do not have to believe that my future is limited by the evil ways of other people, because I now believe that most people are doing the best that they know how.
We are all selfish. Selfishness is the highest form of love. My ex was selfish enough to leave me, but in doing so she gave me the freedom to find someone who will love me the way I want to be loved. In some way I admire her for being that selfish, because I wasn't selfish enough. I gave of myself to my own detriment, which is a lesson that has changed me.
Relying on obligation and vows and oaths is no way to live. If I couldn't make my ex happy and she couldn't make me happy, we both deserve to be free to find whatever it is that will make up happy.
I am not trying to change anyone else, I just hate to see anyone throw away their life on the basis of an oath or vow they took on the basis of some imperfect understanding (and all human understanding is imperfect and subject to change based on our experiences). My only expectation from this thread was to gain some understanding into the mind set of those who feel that they or others have some duty that supersedes their own happiness. So far, I have not gained any.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> I found hope in the fact that I can still believe in myself and others because I understand that people do change.
> Because I have changed I do not have to feel guilty because I am not married. I do not have to feel as though I some how failed my ex and that is why she left.
> Because I know others change I do not have to believe that my future is limited by the evil ways of other people, because I now believe that most people are doing the best that they know how.


Honestly, some are doing the best they know how and some aren't. Below, you seem to explain what drives many who aren't.



> We are all selfish. Selfishness is the highest form of love. My ex was selfish enough to leave me, but in doing so she gave me the freedom to find someone who will love me the way I want to be loved. In some way I admire her for being that selfish, because I wasn't selfish enough. I gave of myself to my own detriment, which is a lesson that has changed me.


So, you are saying that you were wrong to believe in what you did? Or was it that you gave to someone who was not on the same page, but maybe didn't know it or was so selfish that she thought it would get her what she wanted and when it didn't, she was selfish enough to not care about her very own dignity for something tangible? 



> Relying on obligation and vows and oaths is no way to live.


See that's where I think most folks differ in opinions. It's misunderstanding. When someone understands those vows are meant as I wrote above, they don't rely on the oath or any words. They are relying on what they think they know about that person. So, it isn't the vows that failed the individual(s), it's the individual(s) that failed the vows. The vows only mean as much as the convictions of those who state them. 

We can't know what changes will come. We can trust that above all, our spouse is the only person we know, to that point in our lives, that is worthy of the promises within those vows. Yes, we change. We vowed to change together.

I'm not saying a couple should stay together and be unhappy because of their vows. I'm saying that they are not unhappy because of their vows. They are unhappy because they made a mistake ever uttering those vows. Maybe just to that person, but most likely they were just in denial about what they truly wanted out of their life. 

It's not those who file, because in some cases, they might have to file because the other won't. Wait...that doesn't make any logical sense. Does it?(excluding some pretty no brainer abusive marriages and the like)




> If I couldn't make my ex happy and she couldn't make me happy, we both deserve to be free to find whatever it is that will make up happy.
> I am not trying to change anyone else, I just hate to see anyone throw away their life on the basis of an oath or vow they took on the basis of some imperfect understanding (and all human understanding is imperfect and subject to change based on our experiences). My only expectation from this thread was to gain some understanding into the mind set of those who feel that they or others have some duty that supersedes their own happiness. So far, I have not gained any.


So, you are trying to enlighten us. Okay. 

Yes, the vows state that life will change, we will change, things will never be the same as they were from moment to moment. It's like, duh, I guess they didn't think about what those words meant? Hmm...denial? 

It isn't a duty. It's what they truly believed would bring them joy. In our free or reasonably free society(USA), we don't usually marry out of obligation to anything, but our own selfish needs and our pride. Yes, and religion is a selfish need that makes folks proud to be a part of it. Those who are not religious, have a selfish need not to be and are usually proud of it. 

Anyway, I hope you have enlightened some. Who said, "Life is a journey"?


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> Honestly, some are doing the best they know how and some aren't. Below, you seem to explain what drives many who aren't.
> 
> But most are doing the best that they can.
> 
> So, you are saying that you were wrong to believe in what you did?
> No, I am saying that I believed what I believed knowing what I knew at the time, as does EVERYBODY.
> Or was it that you gave to someone who was not on the same page, but maybe didn't know it or was so selfish that she thought it would get her what she wanted and when it didn't, she was selfish enough to not care about her very own dignity for something tangible?
> You've lost me here. How does one not care about their own dignity by being interested in their own happiness. None of us owes our happiness to anybody else. To behave differently is the very act of not caring about own dignity
> 
> 
> See that's where I think most folks differ in opinions. It's misunderstanding. When someone understands those vows are meant as I wrote above, they don't rely on the oath or any words. They are relying on what they think they know about that person.
> as well as what they know about themselves, when they gain a better understanding of their own needs, the vows they took before may not be as important
> So, it isn't the vows that failed the individual(s), it's the individual(s) that failed the vows. The vows only mean as much as the convictions of those who state them.
> And here we come to the point of my inability to understand this mind set. Who among us has been born into this world with their convictions fully formed? The answer is NONE of us has.
> We can't know what changes will come. We can trust that above all, our spouse is the only person we know, to that point in our lives, that is worthy of the promises within those vows. Yes, we change. We vowed to change together.
> Yes but reality is a harsh master and this is not aways the case. I choose to respond to any experience I have and no one can change that, just as I cannot change how another may react to that same experience. We may try to change together, but the fact is that when we change in ways that are against our own best interests we become unhappy
> I'm not saying a couple should stay together and be unhappy because of their vows. I'm saying that they are not unhappy because of their vows. They are unhappy because they made a mistake ever uttering those vows. Maybe just to that person, but most likely they were just in denial about what they truly wanted out of their life.
> And again the idea that we all have some perfect knowledge of what we want 20-30-40 years out. Perhaps they did have no idea or more likely their idea changed as new opportunities, new experiences and new ideas changed their expectations of life
> It's not those who file, because in some cases, they might have to file because the other won't. Wait...that doesn't make any logical sense. Does it?(excluding some pretty no brainer abusive marriages and the like)
> 
> Actually that makes perfectly logical sense, as why would you want to be with someone who is not happy with you and vice versa?
> 
> 
> So, you are trying to enlighten us. Okay.
> 
> No actually I am not, as I have said, I am trying to gain understanding.
> Yes, the vows state that life will change, we will change, things will never be the same as they were from moment to moment. It's like, duh, I guess they didn't think about what those words meant? Hmm...denial?
> Perhaps so, or perhaps they came to understand exactly what those words meant and decided to opt out?
> It isn't a duty. It's what they truly believed would bring them joy.
> I think most did believe it would bring them joy, but as their understanding of themselves and the world evolved, so did what would bring them joy
> In our free or reasonably free society(USA), we don't usually marry out of obligation to anything, but our own selfish needs and our pride. Yes, and religion is a selfish need that makes folks proud to be a part of it. Those who are not religious, have a selfish need not to be and are usually proud of it.
> Yep, and there are quite a few who refuse to understand that those needs change as we gain understanding about ourselves.
> Anyway, I hope you have enlightened some. Who said, "Life is a journey"?


The only person I am trying to enlighten is myself. So far all I have gotten is a denial of reality (change) in favor of a fantasy (permanence aka obligation)


----------



## 2ntnuf

I'm sorry, man. This thing I'm posting with is so slow and unresponsive, it's unbelievable. I have to keep refreshing the page. I'll try to respond. Sorry. 



> But most are doing the best that they can.
> 
> 
> No, I am saying that I believed what I believed knowing what I knew at the time, as does EVERYBODY.
> 
> You've lost me here. How does one not care about their own dignity by being interested in their own happiness. None of us owes our happiness to anybody else. To behave differently is the very act of not caring about own dignity
> 
> 
> 
> And here we come to the point of my inability to understand this mind set. Who among us has been born into this world with their convictions fully formed? The answer is NONE of us has.
> 
> Yes but reality is a harsh master and this is not aways the case. I choose to respond to any experience I have and no one can change that, just as I cannot change how another may react to that same experience. We may try to change together, but the fact is that when we change in ways that are against our own best interests we become unhappy
> 
> And again the idea that we all have some perfect knowledge of what we want 20-30-40 years out. Perhaps they did have no idea or more likely their idea changed as new opportunities, new experiences and new ideas changed their expectations of life
> 
> Actually that makes perfectly logical sense, as why would you want to be with someone who is not happy with you and vice versa?
> 
> No actually I am not, as I have said, I am trying to gain understanding.
> 
> Perhaps so, or perhaps they came to understand exactly what those words meant and decided to opt out?
> 
> I think most did believe it would bring them joy, but as their understanding of themselves and the world evolved, so did what would bring them joy
> 
> Yep, and there are quite a few who refuse to understand that those needs change as we gain understanding about ourselves.
> 
> The only person I am trying to enlighten is myself. So far all I have gotten is a denial of reality (change) in favor of a fantasy (permanence aka obligation)


All or almost all of the answers to these are in my posts above. You aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. That's okay. I don't expect you to understand me, just as I don't really understand you. We can't. It's a communication problem. We can't know what the other is really thinking. That's why so many get into marriages they should not be in.

They take vows they don't understand. You stated that here.

The vows actually state there will be changes. Are you all in or do you want to think about it? (in so many words)

No one wants to be in an unhappy marriage. Why is it unhappy? You thought you wanted to live through all the changes of life with that one person, but you realized you changed your mind? Huh? Don't take the vows. I guess that person's word is only as good as their knowledge? Well, okay, then don't ever accept their word. They will change their mind. Why? Change is inevitable. 

If folks don't understand that things change from moment to moment, like I posted above in a previous entry, what business do they have taking vows of marriage? 

No one has perfect knowledge. We don't state that. We state that we don't have perfect knowledge, but we want to learn and grow with each other. I know we can't go to university together. This isn't about those things. 

You either aren't reading what I've posted or don't respect me enough to think about it. That's fine. I don't want to waste my time talking about this with someone who doesn't have enough respect to at least read it and think. 

I'm not right or the only intelligent one in the universe. I've just got an opinion that isn't the same as others and you want to understand it. If you don't want to take it seriously, and that doesn't mean conform to or believe in my ideas, then we can stop now.


----------



## Evinrude58

Your premise is that since people change, vows are pointless?

I'm not sure what you mean by all this "people change" thing.

Your ex wife didn't keep her vows and left you. Somehow it's not her fault? Maybe not, you may have been a lousy husband. You may have never shown her you loved her the way she needed. But, you are acting like some of the people who have stayed married and happy for 50 years are just lucky. They aren't. They had bad spots in their marriage just like everyone else from what I hear. I think those people should be applauded because they always chose to keep their vows rather than give up. They chose to love, rather than to become resentful and bitter. They chose to work at their marriage, instead of working their way out of it.

You make it sound like you think divorce is just as respectable as staying married and having to work at your "obligation".

I wish I had a wife that respected their vows as much as I did. That was willing to do whatever it took to make the other happy. I wish I had a wife that had self-respect and honesty. One that Appreciated loyalty. 

The fact that she didn't and I did doesn't mean taking vows is wrong.
It just means she wasn't capable of performing up to the level of commitment that I wanted. 

I might forgive it, but I will never do like you and say it's ok to be that way. It's not. It's wrong to claim "I changed my mind" for just any reason at all. That's my philosophy and I'm sticking to it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ynot

Good for both of you, but neither of you has expressed anything that anger and bitterness at what happened to you. If you can't understand that people change, then you will always be bound by your anger. I have been liberated by understanding that life is all about changes. I accept change as constant, but you are confusing that acceptance with my being happy about. I am not happy about what happened to me, but I also understand that I cannot change it. 
And again Evinrude you keep coming back with the whole dismissive "for any reason at all". Just because you disagree with the reason does not make any less real to other person. Keep pretending there was no valid, apparent or legitimate reason all you want. But I guarantee that to the person choosing to break those vows, they were as real as the nose on your face. Keep choosing to be bitter and hang on to your anger. I am moving past it. She chose to leave - good bye. As I have said a million times, I would rather be with someone who wants to be with me, than with someone sticking around out of obligation. Claim you are over it as well, but your angry posts say otherwise.
I am not saying anything that happened to me was right, for me it wasn't. But I realize I can't control what anyone else thinks is right for them. As I said, I don't have to be happy about something to accept it. You would be wise to do the same.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> Good for both of you, but neither of you has expressed anything that anger and bitterness at what happened to you. If you can't understand that people change, then you will always be bound by your anger.


I think I've expressed very well, that I understand people change. That's why I asked you to read and think about what I posted. 




> I have been liberated by understanding that life is all about changes. I accept change as constant, but you are confusing that acceptance with my being happy about. I am not happy about what happened to me, but I also understand that I cannot change it.


See, now that's where you lost me. I don't think you are happy that your ex hurt you. Then, you think I don't know that I can't change it? If I could have changed it by whatever acceptable means available, don't you think I would have? You seem to misunderstand quite often. 



> But I guarantee that to the person choosing to break those vows, they were as real as the nose on your face.


Ynot, I didn't know you could read minds? How do you know? Maybe they changed their mind? Maybe people change and they no longer wanted to keep their word? That seems more likely, doesn't it? People change. Why do you sugar coat it? 



> Keep choosing to be bitter and hang on to your anger.


Is truth anger? Are lies contentment?



> I am moving past it. She chose to leave - good bye. As I have said a million times, I would rather be with someone who wants to be with me, than with someone sticking around out of obligation.


Glad you are moving past it. You must have plenty of opportunities, or you realize you never really loved her. You just found her to be the best distraction available, and if she performed well enough, you would have kept her, but if she didn't, you would have divorced her in the end? Is that what you are saying? 

Who wants to be with someone who doesn't want to be with them? And, how do you know what anyone wants? You didn't know what your wife wanted and you don't know why she left. How could you have a clue of anything anyone is thinking? You psychic? Bend this spoon I'm holding. What's today's powerball numbers?

Anyone who really wants that and attempts to achieve that seems a bit crazy. It's why I never tried to reconcile. Yes, I wanted, really needed an explanation. Never got that either. 

Seems pretty obvious that she didn't care enough about me or her word.to take an oath of vows in front of God and man. So, she lied to herself and was in denial from the beginning, in my circumstances, anyway.

So, why in the world would I want that woman back? Those who want the woman they married back, are wanting an illusion. She never existed. If it was natural for her, she wouldn't have been so easily persuaded into all sorts of things married folks do not do.

So, what is the litmus test to determine healthy or unhealthy? 



> Claim you are over it as well, but your angry posts say otherwise.


I'd like you to point me to a post where I claimed I was over it. I don't remember posting that. Some severe traumas you just don't get over. They don't go away...ever. We change permanently because of them. 



> I am not saying anything that happened to me was right, for me it wasn't.


But...you want to defend her, now that it's over. So, what she did was right? 

You are glad it happened, right? It seems so. Change, by your definition, would have to be the cause of your happiness.

So, you were a man who loved being married not long ago. Now, you are a man who loves dating and being single? You never really wanted to be intimate with one person in the first place? You just didn't realize you were a single guy at heart and not the kind to marry? In denial much? 

See a few previous posts I wrote stating something about denial.




> But I realize I can't control what anyone else thinks is right for them. As I said, I don't have to be happy about something to accept it. You would be wise to do the same.


If someone murders your child after torturing them for a few days, would you accept that and never speak of it again? Would you forget the name of the murderer if caught and imprisoned? 

Or, would you live with the trauma it caused and do what you can to understand it and deal with it? 

Again, I ask, what do you believe are the outward signs, or tangible proof, that one/all has/have found acceptance? Is it the same sign(s)for each of us or are we all individuals? 

All you seem to be spewing is a bunch of rhetoric you were told to get you two to separate and divorce so someone else could have your wife. Most women don't move on without first having someone else in their life. Some do. Usually, they are the ones being left behind.


----------



## Ynot

Perhaps I should have separated my responses 


2ntnuf said:


> I think I've expressed very well, that I understand people change. That's why I asked you to read and think about what I posted.
> 
> See, now that's where you lost me. I don't think you are happy that your ex hurt you. Then, you think I don't know that I can't change it? If I could have changed it by whatever acceptable means available, don't you think I would have? You seem to misunderstand quite often.
> You would be correct, I am not happy about what happened, but some vow or oath to make her stay was not the answer either. As for understanding, I understand THAT quite well
> 
> 
> Ynot, I didn't know you could read minds? How do you know? Maybe they changed their mind? Maybe people change and they no longer wanted to keep their word? That seems more likely, doesn't it? People change. Why do you sugar coat it?
> You keep talking about keeping their word, but what about the unspoken oath we all take for ourselves. I have no right to expect her to act against what she considers to be her own best interests. I am not sugar coating anything, I am simply recognizing that every one - me, you and anyone else operate from the position of our own primary directive
> 
> 
> Is truth anger? Are lies contentment?
> No truth isn't anger, and lies aren't contentment, but playing the blame game and lamenting about all the "could'ves" and "should'ves" on the basis of an oath an ex made in a different time in a different place is all about anger and bitterness. For me the truth is that people change - history screams this truth
> 
> 
> Glad you are moving past it. You must have plenty of opportunities, or you realize you never really loved her. You just found her to be the best distraction available, and if she performed well enough, you would have kept her, but if she didn't, you would have divorced her in the end? Is that what you are saying?
> I did really love her, but it doesn't matter. If she doesn't want to be with me, what are my choices? To sit around whining about that she should have honored her oath or could have followed her vows? Or accept it and make a better life for myself?
> Who wants to be with someone who doesn't want to be with them? And, how do you know what anyone wants? You didn't know what your wife wanted and you don't know why she left. How could you have a clue of anything anyone is thinking? You psychic? Bend this spoon I'm holding. What's today's powerball numbers?
> You see, that is just it - I don't need to know why, I just need to know that she doesn't want to be with me, how is that trying to be a psychic?
> Anyone who really wants that and attempts to achieve that seems a bit crazy. It's why I never tried to reconcile. Yes, I wanted, really needed an explanation. Never got that either.
> The paragraph you are quoting from here was directed towards Evinrude, so don't take it too personally
> Seems pretty obvious that she didn't care enough about me or her word.to take an oath of vows in front of God and man. So, she lied to herself and was in denial from the beginning, in my circumstances, anyway.
> And here is where we part ways. Here you are playing psychic yourself and basing it all on an assumption of permanence that has been proven untrue throughout all of history
> So, why in the world would I want that woman back? Those who want the woman they married back, are wanting an illusion. She never existed. If it was natural for her, she wouldn't have been so easily persuaded into all sorts of things married folks do not do.
> I agree, why would you want your ex back? Why would I want my ex back? They each did us a favor by letting us go, regardless of how they did it or why they did it. Each of us is now free, liberated to find another who will treat us as we want and need to be treated
> So, what is the litmus test to determine healthy or unhealthy?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like you to point me to a post where I claimed I was over it. I don't remember posting that. Some severe traumas you just don't get over. They don't go away...ever. We change permanently because of them.
> Again at this point you are quoting a part of the post directed towards someone else, who did make that claim, despite the obvious anger and bitterness in almost every post.
> 
> 
> But...you want to defend her, now that it's over. So, what she did was right?
> How is it defending someone, to acknowledge someone's right to act in what they consider to be their own best interest?
> You are glad it happened, right? It seems so. Change, by your definition, would have to be the cause of your happiness.
> I have said countless times, that I am not happy about what happened. But here I am left to make the best of it, so that is what I am trying to do.
> So, you were a man who loved being married not long ago. Now, you are a man who loves dating and being single? You never really wanted to be intimate with one person in the first place? You just didn't realize you were a single guy at heart and not the kind to marry? In denial much?
> No I am a man who was content being married not long ago and now I am a man unwillingly, but without choice dating again. I am not happy about where I am at this point in my life, but I am where I am. The only way to change it is by moving forward, not by clinging to the anger and bitterness of "if only", "she should have" or "she could have" honored some oath
> See a few previous posts I wrote stating something about denial.
> 
> And again, I don't see where accepting something is anything like denying it. Choosing not to be limited or defined by the acts of someone else is not denial. But allowing it to continue to control your future but saying it doesn't is denial
> 
> 
> If someone murders your child after torturing them for a few days, would you accept that and never speak of it again? Would you forget the name of the murderer if caught and imprisoned?
> 
> Or, would you live with the trauma it caused and do what you can to understand it and deal with it?
> WTH does this have to do anything, other than be some absurd argument?
> Again, I ask, what do you believe are the outward signs, or tangible proof, that one/all has/have found acceptance? Is it the same sign(s)for each of us or are we all individuals?
> Well for one, they start accepting reality and dealing with it as opposed to continuing to engage in the blame game.
> All you seem to be spewing is a bunch of rhetoric you were told to get you two to separate and divorce so someone else could have your wife. Most women don't move on without first having someone else in their life. Some do. Usually, they are the ones being left behind.


Actually, I was told nothing. So my thoughts are my own. And again, here you are playing psychic and reading minds yourself. As for my ex, I have no clue why she did what she did. Perhaps there was another man, perhaps she wanted something better. It doesn't matter to me. The only thing that matters to me is that she doesn't want to be with me. What is so difficult to understand about that? Now I am free. I can choose to remain mired in the past trying to figure out why, I guess so I can blame her. Or I can accept that it happened, take stock of where I am and begin moving in the direction of my own happiness. Seems an easy choice for me. I chose ME. I chose my happiness. And that my friend is not denial that is the truth.


----------



## aine

There is no easy answer, to my mind marriage is hard work, it cannot be based entirely on emotions and feelings. That is why there are so many divorces, people want to be comfortable and because as humans we are naturally selfish, our own needs always come first, hence the issues. To my mind marriage is a serious commitment and the couple have to know in their minds whether this is for keeps and they will do everything in their power to ensure that or they will walk away when it suits them


----------



## just got it 55

NobodySpecial said:


> A merciful god would not require someone to remain in a miserable life because they said some words on a day in the past.


The Majority of voters voted for Nixon I bet a large percentage of them would re think that now.

55


----------



## 2ntnuf

> Perhaps I should have separated my responses


Perhaps.


Ynot, get some help. Sorry you are here.


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> 
> Ynot, get some help. Sorry you are here.


Please tell, what do I need help with? That I have chosen an internal focus as opposed to the external focus you seem to be pushing? My one and only obligation is to my own happiness. I am sorry. I refuse to waste my time worrying about things I have no control over.


----------



## jb02157

Without vows and obligations to each other, why get married? What need would there be for marriage?


----------



## Ynot

jb02157 said:


> Without vows and obligations to each other, why get married? What need would there be for marriage?


I dunno, maybe love? Love, an emotion, which contrary to popular belief around here ebbs and flows and sometimes peters out altogether. But what the heck! As long an an oath is spoken or vow is made you are forever bound by it (or at least your cheating, lying conniving, two timing, POS ex should be!)
Otherwise it would be to provide a legal structure and stable foundation for the raising of children.


----------



## Wolf1974

I am definetly the vow and commitment guy. I think divorce should be considered in very few circumstance. When I think of the word commitment what it means to me is the relationship and spouse comes first. So instead of disconnecting you communicate, instead of cheating you come together with your spouse and so on. As we age and change you learn and grow with your spouse instead of waging war with them. Is this possible 100% of the time ??? course not. But I do also believe that many marriages are given up way to early for the next shinny thing, no matter what that is, instead of remembering that a commitment to work on the issues was made. I would be very Leary of entering into a marriage with anyone who felt commitment was only needed so long as it was convienant. As another poster said why get married at all. Maybe those people are best to stay single?


----------



## Ynot

Wolf1974 said:


> I am definetly the vow and commitment guy. I think divorce should be considered in very few circumstance. When I think of the word commitment what it means to me is the relationship and spouse comes first. So instead of disconnecting you communicate, instead of cheating you come together with your spouse and so on. As we age and change you learn and grow with your spouse instead of waging war with them. Is this possible 100% of the time ??? course not. But I do also believe that many marriages are given up way to early for the next shinny thing, no matter what that is, instead of remembering that a commitment to work on the issues was made. I would be very Leary of entering into a marriage with anyone who felt commitment was only needed so long as it was convienant. As another poster said why get married at all. Maybe those people are best to stay single?


I don't disagree with any of this at all. BUT you can only control one side of said commitment. You can remain angry and bitter that the other side didn't/couldn't or you can just accept that they didn't and move on with your life. This discussion has meandered a bit, but my OP was originally aimed at those who feel OTHERS, specifically their SO, should have felt the same way. As I have said several times, each of us is only responsible for our selves. We have no control over anyone else and to engage in the blame game is a waste of energy. I would rather have someone who wants to be with me, than someone who is with me out of obligation. I also doubt that most people feel a commitment is just for convenience, but that they are doing the best that they can do and are acting in what they consider to be their best interest. I have no control over what they consider to be their best interests. What they think and what I think may be in perfect opposition to each other. But who am I to demand they give up their pursuit of happiness just to make me happy?
In fact, I would say this reliance on obligation has probably ended more marriages than it has saved. Because it fosters laziness and contentment rather than promoting the hard work required to make a marriage work.


----------



## arbitrator

Ynot said:


> I keep seeing obligation being mentioned as a reason for couples to stay together in a marriage. Usually, it seems to me that those saying a couple should stay together out of obligation are the ones who have been left. As some one who has been left I have decided that I would rather have someone be with me because they want to be with me (ie love, attraction) than due to some obligation (ie oath, vow, or other commitment). What do you say? Why?


*I guess that I just believe in adhering to the age-old Judeo-Christian belief, inasfar as marital vows and obligations go ~ knowing that they can be justifiably circumvented by the acts of marital betrayal, infidelity, abandonment, or mental/physical abuse of a spouse or child!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jorgegene

we need to dispel this myth that 50% of marriages fail. it is based on very tenuous pseudoscience that for some reason spread by the news media about 30 years ago and just stuck.


""First-time marriages: probably 20 to 25 percent have ended in divorce on average," Feldhahn revealed. "Now, okay, that's still too high, but it's a whole lot better than what people think it is."

Shaunti and Jeff point out the 50 percent figure came from projections of what researchers thought the divorce rate would become as they watched the divorce numbers rising in the 1970s and early 1980s when states around the nation were passing no-fault divorce laws.

"But the divorce rate has been dropping," Feldhahn said. "We've never hit those numbers. We've never gotten close." CBN NEWS


"The 50 percent statistic is very misleading, if not completely wrong. "The demographics of divorce are routinely reported wrong, calculated wrong or misinterpreted," says Robert Hughes, a former professor in the Department of Human & Family Services, College of Human Environmental Science, University of Missouri-Columbia. Hughes says that for every two marriages that occurred in the 1990s there was one divorce. "This does not mean the divorce rate is 50 percent [because] the people getting married in a single year are not the same ones getting divorced," he says. "

The refined divorce rate - the number of divorces per 1,000 married woman - includes only those people at risk of divorce, so social scientists and demographers see it as preferable to the crude rate. Using this routine, the divorce rate ranged from a low of 14.3 in North Dakota to a high of 34.5 in Washington, D.C., for a national average of 19.4, according to National Center for Family and Marriage Research. Using this regime, in 2008, divorce fell from a rate of 17 divorces per 1,000 married women in 2007 to 16.9 per 1,000 married women" DIVORCESCOURSE.com

according to the source, the national average is about 20%; NOT 50%


----------



## jorgegene

""No serious demographer ever looked at the approximately 2.4 million marriages a year and the 1.2 million divorces a year to arrive at the 50 percent number. That is a misunderstanding that began early in the debate about what the divorce rate reality - a misunderstanding that is, unfortunately, widely perpetuated," Stanley says."

Scott M. Stanley of the University of Denver


----------



## froggy7777

Ynot--Absolutely agree with you


----------



## Ynot

jorgegene said:


> ""No serious demographer ever looked at the approximately 2.4 million marriages a year and the 1.2 million divorces a year to arrive at the 50 percent number. That is a misunderstanding that began early in the debate about what the divorce rate reality - a misunderstanding that is, unfortunately, widely perpetuated," Stanley says."
> 
> Scott M. Stanley of the University of Denver


Yep it all depends on how you look at it, and twist the numbers to make your case. Let's see 1.2 (divorces)/2.4(marriages) = 50%
But in year two there were 1.2 (divorces)/3.6(2.4 marriage+1.2 previous intact marriages) = 33%
Year 3 - 1.2(divorces)/4.8(2.4 marriages+2.4 previous)=25%. Etc, etc.
I don't believe anyone has said that 1/2 of all marriages in any given year result in divorces. But if there are 1.2m divorces and 2.4m marriages that still equals 50%
And of course none of those statistics include LTR that fail either, now do they?
Haggle over the statistics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact (according to your own statistics) that for every 2.4 new marriages there are 1.2 divorces.


----------



## jorgegene

Ynot said:


> Yep it all depends on how you look at it, and twist the numbers to make your case. Let's see 1.2 (divorces)/2.4(marriages) = 50%
> But in year two there were 1.2 (divorces)/3.6(2.4 marriage+1.2 previous intact marriages) = 33%
> Year 3 - 1.2(divorces)/4.8(2.4 marriages+2.4 previous)=25%. Etc, etc.
> I don't believe anyone has said that 1/2 of all marriages in any given year result in divorces. But if there are 1.2m divorces and 2.4m marriages that still equals 50%
> And of course none of those statistics include LTR that fail either, now do they?
> Haggle over the statistics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact (according to your own statistics) that for every 2.4 new marriages there are 1.2 divorces.


i don't think you're getting the point they are trying to make.

raw data by itself does not make ANY case. you've got to analyze the data and your simple arithmetic proves nothing. 
that was how the urban myth of 50% happened in the first place.
'journalists' and magazine types saw the raw data unfiltered and came to the same conclusions you are and 'presto', we have a myth.

the point these studies are are trying to make is that until the data is rigorously analysed using statistical methods it's meaningless.

by the way, it doesn't really matter whether it's 50%, 20% or 100% as far as your viewpoints. i may disagree with your viewpoint (and i do), but this sub-discussion about divorce rates does not prop up your view or mine. I only added it because i generally see this 50%
thing bandied about so often in these type of discussions, that i wanted to show that it is probably not the case at all.

end of tj.


----------



## Ynot

jorgegene said:


> i don't think you're getting the point they are trying to make.
> 
> raw data by itself does not make ANY case. you've got to analyze the data and your simple arithmetic proves nothing.
> that was how the urban myth of 50% happened in the first place.
> 'journalists' and magazine types saw the raw data unfiltered and came to the same conclusions you are and 'presto', we have a myth.
> 
> the point these studies are are trying to make is that until the data is rigorously analysed using statistical methods it's meaningless.
> 
> by the way, it doesn't really matter whether it's 50%, 20% or 100% as far as your viewpoints. i may disagree with your viewpoint (and i do), but this sub-discussion about divorce rates does not prop up your view or mine. I only added it because i generally see this 50%
> thing bandied about so often in these type of discussions, that i wanted to show that it is probably not the case at all.
> 
> end of tj.


I do get the point you are trying to make. And that is the danger of statistical analysis - because you can make a statistic support whatever argument you are trying to make.
As for my viewpoint (which you disagree with) feel free to chime in. I still don't see how worrying about the things you can't control makes one a healthy individual.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ynot said:


> I don't disagree with any of this at all. BUT you can only control one side of said commitment. You can remain angry and bitter that the other side didn't/couldn't or you can just accept that they didn't and move on with your life. This discussion has meandered a bit, but my OP was originally aimed at those who feel *OTHERS, specifically their SO, should have felt the same way. *As I have said several times, each of us is only responsible for our selves. We have no control over anyone else and to engage in the blame game is a waste of energy. I would rather have someone who wants to be with me, than someone who is with me out of obligation. I also doubt that most people feel a commitment is just for convenience, but that they are doing the best that they can do and are acting in what they consider to be their best interest. I have no control over what they consider to be their best interests. What they think and what I think may be in perfect opposition to each other. But who am I to demand they give up their pursuit of happiness just to make me happy?
> In fact, I would say this reliance on obligation has probably ended more marriages than it has saved. Because it fosters laziness and contentment rather than promoting the hard work required to make a marriage work.



Ohh absolutely I believe she should have felt the same way. She made the same vows and commitments I made. I kept them she didn't. 

I think you and I are looking at it differently. You look at it as the commitment to keep the thing going even though it's not working. The wheel fell off so I will just drag the cart on the ground type thing. . I get that and also reserve those cases for pulling the plug.

I look at commitment as working on the marriage first and putting that as a priority over just getting bored and saying I want out. That is what I mean when I say commitment. That to me is what marriage is, a commitment to work on it not just throw it away when it's not 100% just right. That's what I meant when I took my vows and absolutely expected my X to do the same. Not for her to be trapped is something that would never ever work. That wasn't what happend in most divorces I know of.


----------



## Ynot

Wolf1974 said:


> Ohh absolutely I believe she should have felt the same way. She made the same vows and commitments I made. I kept them she didn't.
> 
> I think you and I are looking at it differently. You look at it as the commitment to keep the thing going even though it's not working. The wheel fell off so I will just drag the cart on the ground type thing. . I get that and also reserve those cases for pulling the plug.
> 
> I look at commitment as working on the marriage first and putting that as a priority over just getting bored and saying I want out. That is what I mean when I say commitment. That to me is what marriage is, a commitment to work on it not just throw it away when it's not 100% just right. That's what I meant when I took my vows and absolutely expected my X to do the same. Not for her to be trapped is something that would never ever work. That wasn't what happend in most divorces I know of.


But that is just it, you can believe all you want. You can wish all you want. But in the end you have NO control over what someone else will do.
So you can sit around and say "she/he should have taken the vows more serious" or "he/she never should have taken the vows in the first place". As if your happiness should override whatever reasons (and they all have reasons) for your spouse to leave. OR you can accept that they left. They did you a favor. I have decided that I will not be bitter, I will not be angry. I will just move on with my life because I KNOW that I am better off with someone who wants to be with me than someone sticking around out of commitment.
The difference is that it doesn't matter why, all that matters is that it happened. When I see people say "he/she left for no apparent reason" All I can think of is someone who is in denial, because there were always reason, you may never know the reason. But in the end the reason doesn't matter, All that matters is that you now KNOW (no belief required) it happened.
I have chosen to focus on the things I can control and I am not going to waste brain waves on the things I can't. People saying that someone should have greater commitment or taken their vows more seriously are simply engaged in the blame game and will never fully heal.


----------



## Evinrude58

Ynot said:


> But that is just it, you can believe all you want. You can wish all you want.* But in the end you have NO control over what someone else will do.*[/B]
> So you can sit around and say "she/he should have taken the vows more serious" or "he/she never should have taken the vows in the first place". As if your happiness should override whatever reasons (and they all have reasons) for your spouse to leave. OR you can accept that they left. They did you a favor. I have decided that I will not be bitter, I will not be angry. I will just move on with my life because I KNOW that I am better off with someone who wants to be with me than someone sticking around out of commitment.
> The difference is that it doesn't matter why, all that matters is that it happened. When I see people say "he/she left for no apparent reason" All I can think of is someone who is in denial, because there were always reason, you may never know the reason. But in the end the reason doesn't matter, All that matters is that you now KNOW (no belief required) it happened.
> I have chosen to focus on the things I can control and I am not going to waste brain waves on the things I can't. *People saying that someone should have greater commitment or taken their vows more seriously are simply engaged in the blame game and will never fully heal.*


#1--Are you so obtuse that you don't understand that what people are trying to tell you is that they WANT a spouse to have been committed? You act like commitment is a totally unimportant trait. You seem to think that nobody SHOULD be committed. When they want out, they should just take off. If so, marriage to you or that kind of person is a farce.
Being committed to a marriage is a good thing. If the other person is not, that's a bad thing on them. 

#2 It's a result of someone having BAD BEHAVIOR for them to receive some BLAME for their actions. Someone BLAMING a spouse who commits infidelity, has a midlife crisis and takes off, leaves because they wanted a spouse with more money is TOTALLY HEALTHY. A person can heal from divorce without doing some kind of psychological rug-sweeping and denying that the divorce was just "something that happens". 
A normal person goes through anger as a result of mistreatment. After a while, they reach the point where they don't give a damn what the reason was, they are just glad to get on with their own life and are indifferent to the guilt or innocence of the ex-spouse.

I personally feel that I want a person to marry that feels OBLIGATED to maintain their relationship with their spouse. They accepted the obligation of their own free will. Each spouse gave up some freedom for this. For one spouse to just unilaterally decide they aren't into things and just run for the hills is wrong. They owe it to the other person (who also sacrificed a part of themselves to the other) to at least make an effort to work on the relationship. As long as an honest effort is given, I have no problem with someone divorcing.
Sure, what determines an honest effort is relative, but since it's my life, I think I'll decide what's reasonable. 

There's obviously no changing your mind. You've decided that nobody is ever at fault for a divorce and nobody should have any anger toward their partner. 

I say it's often both spouse's faults----- and that is where loyalty (sense of obligation) is a factor that can play the important role in salvaging a marriage that can in the future be happy or happier for both partners involved--rather than harming spouses and children with divorce.

If you don't value loyalty, so be it. I do.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ynot said:


> But that is just it, you can believe all you want. You can wish all you want. But in the end you have NO control over what someone else will do.
> So you can sit around and say "she/he should have taken the vows more serious" or "he/she never should have taken the vows in the first place". As if your happiness should override whatever reasons (and they all have reasons) for your spouse to leave. OR you can accept that they left. They did you a favor. I have decided that I will not be bitter, I will not be angry. I will just move on with my life because I KNOW that I am better off with someone who wants to be with me than someone sticking around out of commitment.
> The difference is that it doesn't matter why, all that matters is that it happened. When I see people say "he/she left for no apparent reason" All I can think of is someone who is in denial, because there were always reason, you may never know the reason. But in the end the reason doesn't matter, All that matters is that you now KNOW (no belief required) it happened.
> I have chosen to focus on the things I can control and I am not going to waste brain waves on the things I can't. People saying that someone should have greater commitment or taken their vows more seriously are simply engaged in the blame game and will never fully heal.


It's fine and again your opinion which you're of course entitled to. I don't agree and see if very differently 

Has nothing to do with control except that which we exercise
Over ourselves. Commitments have meaning and shouldn't be made unless you mean them and follow through to the best of your ability


And to be clear I am not angry. I am disappointed I didn't pick a better spouse but I have moved on and in a great relationship. I just don't see marriage and commitment as transient 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ynot

Evinrude58 said:


> #1--Are you so obtuse that you don't understand that what people are trying to tell you is that they WANT a spouse to have been committed? You act like commitment is a totally unimportant trait. You seem to think that nobody SHOULD be committed. When they want out, they should just take off. If so, marriage to you or that kind of person is a farce.
> Being committed to a marriage is a good thing. If the other person is not, that's a bad thing on them.
> 
> #2 It's a result of someone having BAD BEHAVIOR for them to receive some BLAME for their actions. Someone BLAMING a spouse who commits infidelity, has a midlife crisis and takes off, leaves because they wanted a spouse with more money is TOTALLY HEALTHY. A person can heal from divorce without doing some kind of psychological rug-sweeping and denying that the divorce was just "something that happens".
> A normal person goes through anger as a result of mistreatment. After a while, they reach the point where they don't give a damn what the reason was, they are just glad to get on with their own life and are indifferent to the guilt or innocence of the ex-spouse.
> 
> I personally feel that I want a person to marry that feels OBLIGATED to maintain their relationship with their spouse. They accepted the obligation of their own free will. Each spouse gave up some freedom for this. For one spouse to just unilaterally decide they aren't into things and just run for the hills is wrong. They owe it to the other person (who also sacrificed a part of themselves to the other) to at least make an effort to work on the relationship. As long as an honest effort is given, I have no problem with someone divorcing.
> Sure, what determines an honest effort is relative, but since it's my life, I think I'll decide what's reasonable.
> 
> There's obviously no changing your mind. You've decided that nobody is ever at fault for a divorce and nobody should have any anger toward their partner.
> 
> I say it's often both spouse's faults----- and that is where loyalty (sense of obligation) is a factor that can play the important role in salvaging a marriage that can in the future be happy or happier for both partners involved--rather than harming spouses and children with divorce.
> 
> If you don't value loyalty, so be it. I do.


#1 No I am not being obtuse, I am being realistic. You can want all you want but the other person is going to act in their best interests - NOT YOURS. It doesn't matter what you want, you cannot control the thoughts of another, That is not obtuse that is real!
#2 You only consider their behavior bad because it is not what you want. To them, they are acting in their own best interests, which may or may not be beneficial to them, but that isn't your problem.

Finally the issue is about wanting a spouse who is loyal, it is about playing the blame game of should have, would have and could have that is the issue. She could have done ... BUT she didn't. She should have done... BUT she didn't. You can not change the past!
It isn't about assigning blame. I could not care any less about blame, because the fact is, as you said here, but seemingly deny in every other post, is that usually both sides are to blame. So get over it and stop pointing fingers. It is a waste of time!

You seem very confused. I have never said I don't value loyalty. But what I value and what she could have, would have or should have done are two different things. I choose not to worry about the things I can't control and choose to focus on what I can.


----------



## Ynot

Wolf1974 said:


> It's fine and again your opinion which you're of course entitled to. I don't agree and see if very differently
> 
> Has nothing to do with control except that which we exercise
> Over ourselves. Commitments have meaning and shouldn't be made unless you mean them and follow through to the best of your ability
> 
> And what I am saying is that your ex WAS following thru to the best of their ability. But their ability wasn't good enough for you or the relationship. You have NO control over that, so let it go and move on with your life!
> And to be clear I am not angry. I am disappointed I didn't pick a better spouse but I have moved on and in a great relationship. I just don't see marriage and commitment as transient
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nor do I, despite your confusion. There is a huge difference between seeing marriage and commitment as transient and not playing the blame game of "she should have...". At some point you just have to accept that it is over and move on. There is no sense playing the blame game - it happened. It is over and done with. I am glad you have moved on. So have I. The difference is I stopped playing the should've, could've and would've game. Feel free to imagine anything you want about me.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ynot said:


> Nor do I, despite your confusion. There is a huge difference between seeing marriage and commitment as transient and not playing the blame game of "she should have...". At some point you just have to accept that it is over and move on. There is no sense playing the blame game - it happened. It is over and done with. I am glad you have moved on. So have I. The difference is I stopped playing the should've, could've and would've game. Feel free to imagine anything you want about me.


I don't imagine anything About you. I have no idea who you are. You on the other hand are doing quite a bit of projecting here making assumptions I haven't accepted what happend. That was the easiest thing to do actually.

My favorite type of poster. You pose a question then when others give their own opinion you get defensive about it. Lol good luck to you.


----------



## Evinrude58

Ynot is above wondering why his wife left him without explanation. He sees marriage and commitment as "transient", and therefore, was able to shed any anger or bitterness long ago about his wife's lack of commitment.

In your enlightened state, Ynot, could you explain whether you consider ever marrying again, and if so, what your "vows" would sound like?

I don't see how you could ever promise anything to anyone again, since by your arguement, you reserve the right to change.

You have lost all hope that a person is out there that will love you for the rest of your life. I have not. Does that allude to me as being more "angry or bitter" than you?

I'm only thinking about my past enough to try not to repeat my mistakes. I don't call that overly angry and bitter. 

Your circular arguements can be tiring; do you believe a marriage has anything to do with loyalty or commitment? What DO you look for now in a woman? Looks? Money? Talent? Character must be a trait no longer valued--- you believing it changes so much and all..

I don't get your thinking at all. I think some shrink must have shot you a long line of psychobabble in the past, and you're blind to it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ynot

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't imagine anything About you. I have no idea who you are. You on the other hand are doing quite a bit of projecting here making assumptions I haven't accepted what happend. That was the easiest thing to do actually.
> 
> My favorite type of poster. You pose a question then when others give their own opinion you get defensive about it. Lol good luck to you.


I don't have to assume anything about you. Your replies say it all.

You also might want to read the entire thread. I have clearly stated I am not being argumentative, I am trying to understand. You confuse legitimate requests for clarification, with arguing. The only thing you have clarified is that you aren't as over it as you pretend to be. Hence your need to blame.


----------



## Ynot

Evinrude58 said:


> Ynot is above wondering why his wife left him without explanation. He sees marriage and commitment as "transient", and therefore, was able to shed any anger or bitterness long ago about his wife's lack of commitment.
> 
> In your enlightened state, Ynot, could you explain whether you consider ever marrying again, and if so, what your "vows" would sound like?
> 
> I don't see how you could ever promise anything to anyone again, since by your arguement, you reserve the right to change.
> 
> You have lost all hope that a person is out there that will love you for the rest of your life. I have not. Does that allude to me as being more "angry or bitter" than you?
> 
> I'm only thinking about my past enough to try not to repeat my mistakes. I don't call that overly angry and bitter.
> 
> Your circular arguements can be tiring; do you believe a marriage has anything to do with loyalty or commitment? What DO you look for now in a woman? Looks? Money? Talent? Character must be a trait no longer valued--- you believing it changes so much and all..
> 
> *I don't get your thinking at all*. I think some shrink must have shot you a long line of psychobabble in the past, and you're blind to it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Finally some real honesty from you. This entire post completely highlights your confusion. I do think marriage requires commitment and loyalty. But unlike you, I think those commitments and loyalties are primarily driven by our own happiness first. When the loyalty and commitment aren't adding to our own happiness, we each have an obligation to ourselves to act in our own best interests.
You don't have to agree with those acts or with what anyone else considers their own best interests. Because that is THEIR choice not YOURS.
Actually I have gained MORE hope that there are actually many women out there who can love me for who I am. As for the "rest of my life"? Again you are projecting your own issues onto others. I have no idea what I will want or desire 40 years from now, nor will I arrogantly assume I know what someone else will want 40 years from now. That isn't "reserving the right", that is recognizing reality.
As a living, breathing human being my first obligation is to myself. I recognize that everyone is wired the same way. I have chosen not to ignore reality. I have chosen to accept reality. I have chosen to reject the limiting thoughts you so dearly cling to. Good luck with your self limited life I am sure you will find someone with just as limited thinking as yourself. Because God knows the world is polluted with them. Allow your self to be enslaved by the fairytale of everlasting love, despite reality's harsh refutation of it. I would suggest you look no further than your own experience if you need proof.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ynot said:


> I don't have to assume anything about you. Your replies say it all.
> 
> You also might want to read the entire thread. I have clearly stated I am not being argumentative, I am trying to understand. You confuse legitimate requests for clarification, with arguing. The only thing you have clarified is that you aren't as over it as you pretend to be. Hence your need to blame.


No again that is your assumption and your projection based upon written text where you assign an emotion where there is none. That is argumentative I'm just not playing the kids game with you.

I have told you my opinion, you don't care for it, and honestly I don't care if you do or you don't. You have your limited view on marriage and commitment and I have mine. They are not the same so we will just disagree. Again good luck with that


----------



## Evinrude58

Ynot said:


> Finally some real honesty from you. This entire post completely highlights your confusion.* I do think marriage requires commitment and loyalty*. But unlike you, I think those commitments and loyalties are primarily driven by our own happiness first. When the loyalty and commitment aren't adding to our own happiness, *we each have an obligation to ourselves to act in our own best interests.*
> You don't have to agree with those acts or with what anyone else considers their own best interests. Because that is THEIR choice not YOURS.
> Actually I have gained MORE hope that there are actually many women out there who can love me for who I am. As for the "rest of my life"? Again you are projecting your own issues onto others. I have no idea what I will want or desire 40 years from now, nor will I arrogantly assume I know what someone else will want 40 years from now. That isn't "reserving the right", that is recognizing reality.
> As a living, breathing human being *my first obligation is to myself*. I recognize that everyone is wired the same way. I have chosen not to ignore reality. I have chosen to accept reality. I have chosen to reject the limiting thoughts you so dearly cling to. Good luck with your self limited life I am sure you will find someone with just as limited thinking as yourself. Because God knows the world is polluted with them. *Allow your self to be enslaved by the fairytale of everlasting love*, despite reality's harsh refutation of it. I would suggest you look no further than your own experience if you need proof.


Ynot,
You say that YOU think that marriage REQUIRES commitment and loyalty. I AGREE! 

Then you say some nonsense about happiness, etc.
What you don't seem to get is that being married, having the security of a spouse that you love and have faith in IS HAPPINESS to some. Yes, there are a lot of us out there "polluting the world" who are happy and content in marriage. We don't change at the drop of a hat and want something different. 

Then you say "your first obligation is to yourself". That's not what marriage is all about. You should know that. Others do.

Yes, I will remain in the fairy tale land of wanting a wife that will truly love and appreciate me until the end of our days. I will do that for her. I'm not scared of that commitment or "obligation". It's not an obligation to a good person, it's a way of life. Just because your wife didn't want that way of life, doesn't mean others don't. There are quite a few people that stay happily married. I don't want a fairy tale, I just want to be one of them. That's not arrogance to want a person that loves and appreciates you.

Good luck with your life. We just see things totally differently. I guess for the first time, I've met someone more pessimistic than myself. You truly seem to be one that finds a bucket of poo at the end of a rainbow.
I'm not there quite yet. Maybe I'm an idiot and you're the genius....
Time will tell.


----------



## Ynot

Evinrude58 said:


> Ynot,
> You say that YOU think that marriage REQUIRES commitment and loyalty. I AGREE!
> 
> Then you say some nonsense about happiness, etc.
> What nonsense is that? Do you truly believe you can be happy in your marriage if you are not happy with yourself and who you are? You must first love yourself before you can love another - or is that nonsense too?
> What you don't seem to get is that being married, having the security of a spouse that you love and have faith in IS HAPPINESS to some. I have never said it isn't but that is a projection that you make. You are the one who believes your ex SHOULD HAVE or COULD HAVE done something, implying she should have thought just like you - but she didn't and that is/was her right as living breathing human being. Yes, there are a lot of us out there "polluting the world" who are happy and content in marriage. And for the most part so was I, until the end, when she decided she wasn't? What to do, what to do? sit around and lament over what she SHOULD have done to make me happy, or recognize reality? I'll take reality over self pit all day, every day We don't change at the drop of a hat and want something different. And I also don't ever recall saying anyone changes at the drop of the hat and want something different - again, a projection of your mind, not mine. What I have said, a number of times, is that we can't possibly know what we want or someone else may want 10, 20, 30 years off. If you say you haven't changed over the years, you are lying to yourself and to me. But that is your problem, not mine,
> 
> Then you say "your first obligation is to yourself". That's not what marriage is all about. You should know that. Others do.
> Actually that is what marriage is about. I don't know of too many people who marry because it will make them miserable. Most people marry because they feel it will make them as an individual happy. Marriage serves the purpose of enhancing our happiness. When it doesn't that is when problems arise. Some may choose to alter themselves to make it work, but all can only do that to the point that it affects them as a person.
> Yes, I will remain in the fairy tale land of wanting a wife that will truly love and appreciate me until the end of our days. I will do that for her. I'm not scared of that commitment or "obligation". It's not an obligation to a good person, it's a way of life. Just because your wife didn't want that way of life, doesn't mean others don't. There are quite a few people that stay happily married. I don't want a fairy tale, I just want to be one of them. That's not arrogance to want a person that loves and appreciates you.
> It isn't arrogance to want a person who loves and appreciates you. It is arrogance to expect that they will place your happiness ahead of their own. But then I guess that is what you don't understand
> Good luck with your life. We just see things totally differently. I guess for the first time, I've met someone more pessimistic than myself. You truly seem to be one that finds a bucket of poo at the end of a rainbow.
> The bucket of poo, is your refusal to accept reality to continue to pursue rainbows and unicorns. Unlike you, I do not need to remain a victim to make myself feel better about what happened to me. If you do...well good luck with that. I am far from pessimistic, which is something that you can't seem to understand in your upside down world of victimhood. I understand that life is short and I can't worry about that which I cannot control.
> I'm not there quite yet. Maybe I'm an idiot and you're the genius....
> Time will tell.


----------



## Ynot

Wolf1974 said:


> No again that is your assumption and your projection based upon written text where you assign an emotion where there is none. That is argumentative I'm just not playing the kids game with you.
> Okey dokey it is perfectly healthy to sit around playing victim because someone else did or didn't do anything. it makes it so much easier than to accept the hard truth and move on.
> I have told you my opinion, you don't care for it, and honestly I don't care if you do or you don't. You have your limited view on marriage and commitment and I have mine. They are not the same so we will just disagree. Again good luck with that


And once again, we see the anger. If I didn't care for your opinion I wouldn't be engaged in this discussion with you. More of your projection? I should just think like you do, just as your ex should have thought like you do?

I actually have no "limited view" given that I recognize that change is a constant, whereas you refuse to accept that is so, in favor of the limiting belief that everything is permanent.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ynot said:


> And once again, we see the anger. If I didn't care for your opinion I wouldn't be engaged in this discussion with you. More of your projection? I should just think like you do, just as your ex should have thought like you do?
> 
> I actually have no "limited view" given that I recognize that change is a constant, whereas you refuse to accept that is so, in favor of the limiting belief that everything is permanent.


Actually you sound very bitter and angry. Sounds like you can't handle the fact that you x left you so you came up with the I don't give a crap attitude. It would be almost funny if not for how pathetic you sound. You attack others who have conflicting opinions and think yours is enlightened. It isn't. All I see is a desperate attempt to get others to think like you do. Doesn't seem to be working well for you lol. But by all means continue the argument no one is having but you. I'm getting a kick out of it now :grin2:
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ynot

Wolf1974 said:


> Actually you sound very bitter and angry. Sounds like you can't handle the fact that you x left you so you came up with the I don't give a crap attitude. It would be almost funny if not for how pathetic you sound. You attack others who have conflicting opinions and think yours is enlightened. It isn't. All I see is a desperate attempt to get others to think like you do. Doesn't seem to be working well for you lol. But by all means continue the argument no one is having but you. I'm getting a kick out of it now :grin2:
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Pot^^^meet kettle!
You are correct in one regard - I really don't care, anymore. I already have my answer. She doesn't want to be with me because she has chosen to act in her own best interest. So, in the meantime, sit around playing victim while pretending you aren't. While you are at it, keep projecting your own shortcomings on me if it makes you feel better. After all - IF only I WOULD think like you...


----------



## Wolf1974

Ynot said:


> Pot^^^meet kettle!
> You are correct in one regard - I really don't care, anymore. I already have my answer. She doesn't want to be with me because she has chosen to act in her own best interest. So, in the meantime, sit around playing victim while pretending you aren't. While you are at it, keep projecting your own shortcomings on me if it makes you feel better. After all - IF only I WOULD think like you...


Okey dokie I will get right on that. Lol

In all seriousness , and I know you won't listen because your not capable yet, but consider counseling. It really did help me move past the past and concentrate on the future. I really don't think I would have been in a place to have the relationship I have now unless I delt with it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ynot

Wolf1974 said:


> Okey dokie I will get right on that. Lol
> 
> In all seriousness , and I know you won't listen because your not capable yet, but consider counseling. It really did help me move past the past and concentrate on the future. I really don't think I would have been in a place to have the relationship I have now unless I delt with it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Um, perhaps you have missed the part where I have already moved on? Of course not! I don't think like you even though I SHOULD. As for counseling I did that too, it helped me understand that people change, I am not a victim and no one is coming to save me. As I said bask in your own self pity by playing victim and imagining that what you think should matter to your ex.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ynot said:


> Um, perhaps you have missed the part where I have already moved on? Of course not! I don't think like you even though I SHOULD. As for counseling I did that too, it helped me understand that people change, I am not a victim and no one is coming to save me. As I said bask in your own self pity by playing victim and imagining that what you think should matter to your ex.


Yeah I thought but ok. Good luck
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Evinrude58

You won't say what your vows would sound like in your new frame of mind as far as accepting that people change. What would they be like? Are you willing to offer a statement?
I enjoy arguing as much as anyone. 

I just want to hear if you are interested in getting married again, and if so, what you would want your vows to be..
What say you?


----------



## 2ntnuf

Evinrude58 said:


> Ynot,
> You say that YOU think that marriage REQUIRES commitment and loyalty. I AGREE!
> 
> Then you say some nonsense about happiness, etc.
> What you don't seem to get is that *being married, having the security of a spouse that you love and have faith in IS HAPPINESS to some.* Yes, there are a lot of us out there "polluting the world" who are happy and content in marriage. We don't change at the drop of a hat and want something different.
> 
> Then you say "your first obligation is to yourself". *That's not what marriage is all about. * You should know that. Others do.
> 
> Yes, I will remain in the fairy tale land of wanting a wife that will truly love and appreciate me until the end of our days. I will do that for her. * I'm not scared of that commitment or "obligation".* * It's not an obligation to a good person, it's a way of life.* Just because your wife didn't want that way of life, doesn't mean others don't. There are quite a few people that stay happily married. I don't want a fairy tale, I just want to be one of them. That's not arrogance to want a person that loves and appreciates you.
> 
> Good luck with your life. We just see things totally differently. I guess for the first time, I've met someone more pessimistic than myself. You truly seem to be one that finds a bucket of poo at the end of a rainbow.
> I'm not there quite yet. Maybe I'm an idiot and you're the genius....
> Time will tell.


I agreed with much of what @Evinrude58 posted. The most important points or those that made me want to say aloud, Yes, I underlined or emboldened. 

Commenting on the part about not being quite there yet as E58 posted above, here is my situation: I was there for a long long time. I do get periods of despair and for many of the reasons you(E58) posted. 

Yes, Ynot, I do not date. What I was trying to tell you is, that's okay for me right now. I think I posted something like, some want to be in a relationship and some do not. Whatever gives them joy is what brings them happiness. 

Right now, this is best for me. It doesn't mean I don't long for what brings me joy. I found more joy in my second marriage, than I ever did in the rest of my life. That says something. No, I don't know why she decided to do the things she did. I don't. I never will. I was here trying to figure out what she might have been thinking. What caused it all. I do not know what did cause it. If you knew the whole story from my side, you'd understand. I will not post it. I have posted some, but I think I deleted it. 

It was too late for me. She made up her mind and that's it. She doesn't talk to me. I don't talk to her. I rarely see her; almost never, now. 

Yes, I love that woman that I married. She is gone now. She is no more. She is now, nothing like the woman I married. You know something? I have not met one person that is like she was when we married and the first few years. I don't know what happened to her, but I do know that there will never be another woman like her. 

Can there be better women than her? Sure, depends on what you mean by better. Seemingly better suited to me? I honestly don't know. I don't even want to find out right now. Truthfully, I thought she was the very most compatible woman I'd ever met, or ever would meet. I really tried to figure that out. I wanted what E58 talks about in his post. I wanted it more than anything. That's why I asked questions that were tough to answer. I asked things I know weren't my business. She got through them like a trooper. 

As to what each of us decides to do with our lives:

Some stay married for their children. Their children bring them so much joy, they can't bear the sadness they know would come, if they divorced. So, they live with all the difficulties that are actually dealbreakers for their marriage. The divorce will come later. I don't necessarily agree with their choice for my own life, but they have to choose the path for their own lives.

Some get divorced and see their children when they can, according to the attorneys and courts. That's okay for them because the dealbreakers for the marriage were tougher to handle and they knew they could see their children and all would be okay. That's okay, too. That gives them enough peace to live happily. They find their joy in another way. It still may be the children that give them joy and happiness, but they live their lives differently than the folks in the paragraph directly above.

It's like choosing to be in a relationship, date, or just be single after divorce. It's not wrong or right. It's individualism. What's right for me, may not be right for someone else.

I was being wishy-washy in my posts to some extent, for a reason. I can't say what's right for others, only what's right for me...right now, today. I don't look ahead any more. I deal with today. It's all I can do. Most times, I deal with what is in front of me in the moment, and right now, just try to survive. Surviving, for me, is tough right now. That's another story. 

I just don't think you read or maybe comprehended, or maybe were in an open and friendly enough mood to allow yourself to think about other's ideas. They aren't wrong. They might not be right for you, today. Just like going out and having sex with many different women to find out who is best for me has never been, and probably will never be what I choose for myself. 

@MJJEAN made a post. I think back on page 3, but it may have been 4, about folks she knows who are Catholic or something and how they believe/do certain things and it's not even questioned or thought about(or something to that effect). I can sort of relate to that. It's not quite true for me or how I grew up, but it isn't far off. 

I have actually thought highly of many of your posts. I hope you can continue to learn. Being open doesn't just mean bearing your soul, but open to differing thoughts. You don't have to agree with those thoughts. 

I'm not angry with you. I just didn't want my written thoughts distorted any more. When that happens, it's much more than disagreeing.

I hope this helps you understand a little more about me and my posts. 

Take care, Ynot.


----------



## wanttolove

SecondTime'Round said:


> To me it's just about one's integrity level with regard to vows they made. Why make a vow at all if it's not important for you to keep it?


I wish I could "like" this comment a thousand times. Yes. A thousand times yes.

_Commitment_. It should mean something. _Commitment_ means you push through the times when you want to _quit_. Ever train for an endurance event, like a marathon? If you're not committed to it, you won't finish because you won't be able to take the pain.. but it's worth the fight.

_Obligation_ is not a reason to stick around. _Obligation_ is an insult.

Marriage is a _covenant_, a stronger word than vow IMHO. When made with God in mind (I know the OP does not believe.. sorry), covenant is a promise that can not or will not be broken. 

That makes the decision to leave serious, the consequences more important than the personal considerations.

CAN I GET A WITNESS?!!!?


----------



## 2ntnuf

wanttolove said:


> I wish I could "like" this comment a thousand times. Yes. A thousand times yes.
> 
> _Commitment_. It should mean something. _Commitment_ means you push through the times when you want to _quit_. Ever train for an endurance event, like a marathon? If you're not committed to it, you won't finish because you won't be able to take the pain.. but it's worth the fight.
> 
> _Obligation_ is not a reason to stick around. _Obligation_ is an insult.
> 
> Marriage is a _covenant_, a stronger word than vow IMHO. When made with God in mind (I know the OP does not believe.. sorry), covenant is a promise that can not or will not be broken.
> 
> That makes the decision to leave serious, the consequences more important than the personal considerations.
> 
> CAN I GET A WITNESS?!!!?


Obligation puts me in mind of someone holding a shotgun to my back and urging me onward. 

Though, when E58 used the word, I do not believe that's what he meant. My description above, is completely different to what I understood he meant. 

I agree with you about pushing through, except for a few cases which actually are exceptions in the religious world, too. I truly do not think I could reconcile a marriage that went through infidelity. I don't think I could be truly sincere. If I'm faking it, I will never make it. I didn't fake it when we started. There had to be something there, or it would never have gotten to the point of marriage. 

In my case, I did not follow my beliefs. I was confused about my beliefs. And, I think it's best for both spouses to have the same or very similar beliefs or none.


----------



## wanttolove

2ntnuf said:


> ...except for a few cases which actually are exceptions in the religious world, too. I truly do not think I could reconcile a marriage that went through infidelity. I don't think I could be truly sincere. If I'm faking it, I will never make it. I didn't fake it when we started. There had to be something there, or it would never have gotten to the point of marriage.


I think that is why infidelity is given as "the" reason for divorce in the Christian bible. I'm not sure silence on other viable reasons means there are not other reasons. I listened to a close friend, a sincere Christian, struggle on whether or not to stay with his wife, who had cheated on him multiple times. For him to even try to fight through that time, there had to be a commitment. I think he may have tried to stay married to her had she not continued in her infidelity. He endured a lot, but he is happier now and obviously blessed after his divorce and remarriage to a woman who is a gift to him.


----------



## Ynot

Ok Evinrude here are my "vows"
I swear before the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus that I will love you forever, never grow or change and forgo what ever happiness I might find so that we may be together forever more (insert puking emoticon here) or perhaps
With this ring I take possession of your every thought. You agree to only place my happiness as a priority in your life and agree to never think for yourself or act in your own best interest"
Does that satisfy your greedy needs?
Actually, I have no intention of ever marrying again as I see no need for it. I raised my children and don't see any need to legally entangle myself ever again. But if I were I think the "vows" would probably be something along the lines of:
" I take you for my wife for as long as it pleases you and agree to be your husband for as long as we mutually agree to remain together"


----------



## Ynot

I have a question for you bitter enders. Since you claim that people never change and vows were meant to last forever, how do you justify your new relationships? After all you took a vow. According to you those vows should last forever. So why did you choose to reject your vows and take up with another? Please don't feed me the line about how they broke the vow so you aren't obligated anymore. YOU have already said vows are forever. So YOU chose to break your vows. You COULD have remained committed you your ex, but you chose to break your vows.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Ynot said:


> I have a question for you bitter enders. Since you claim that people never change and vows were meant to last forever, how do you justify your new relationships?


You made me laugh. I am not the same person I was when I married my second wife. I know she is not the same person. Believe me, if she is, I was duped. 

I am not the same person I was before I posted in this thread. Each day of our lives, each moment, impacts us. I still came back. 

I felt a little obligated because I posted here and you seemed confused. There is no real obligation to you, there is an obligation to myself, to improve my communication. No, this isn't face to face. That obligation will only keep me here as long as I feel I'm being heard, and I feel like it. We aren't married.

If it was a marriage, I'd do much more. I'd still, after listening and determining it was futile to talk at that point in time, walk away from her when I wanted to let it drop for a while, but if the issues were important to our marriage, happiness, commitment, vows, my oath, my word, my integrity, etc., I'd get all the information I could understand and try to help work out the disagreements. I don't mean walk away from the marriage. I mean walk away from the discussion for a time. 

I'd try to have deep discussions and stop when we came to an impasse. I'd come back to it in few days when we have both calmed down and hopefully opened up or allowed ourselves to be more vulnerable, to attempt more discussion. I'd suggest going to counseling together and as individuals, as determined by the psychologist. 

I'd work on this for years living our lives as a normal married couple, or until it was determined by us, that our opinions simply could never meet in the middle and it affected everything in our lives. 

And yes, living as normal married couple does include all my obligations and all of the sickly sweet love honor and so forth. So, I'd be having sex with or expecting sex with my wife. Why? She's my wife. I'm her husband. That's what we do, along with lots of other things. If a difference of opinion stops sex, my wife and I are too weak to have gotten married in the first place. We surely need to get some outside help.

This is pretty much what I did. She likely thought I didn't want to talk at times because I didn't address things again. There were reasons. One was that I thought the issues were resolved. Marriage isn't a one way street. If one of us has a problem and we don't speak up, nothing will change. 

I mean, I can't say that I broke a drill bit and expect her to know that I want a brand new drill press with fixtures to hold the part and new twist drills and a sharpener because using a corded drill free hand just won't work well on round bar stock steel. 

I can't expect her to know that I'm frustrated and angry because I feel inadequate when I can't drill that round stock for her. I have to tell her at least some of that for her to figure it out. And, not in passing. I have to stop and talk with her. 

Man, that isn't the best analogy. I realize that. I hope you can understand that, in the above scenario, my imaginary wife has asked me to drill a piece of round bar stock which is steel. She needs it for some reason, but I have no idea what. I don't care what she needs it for, but I do care that I do it in a timely manner and that it is done properly, to her satisfaction. 

If I'd do some of that on the job, why wouldn't I do the rest with the woman I'm married with, gave an oath, my word to for the rest of our lives? I mean, I was serious. I thought about what that meant. I realized I'd suffer, if I didn't at least live up to my end of the oath. That's the place where thinking of myself first comes into play. I have to respect myself to want to do all to keep that oath I made. I have to understand it's complications and the extent of how serous it is to make an oath like that, before I make it. 

I, nor anyone can know all, but we sure can think back to a time when some bully picked on us at school and ask ourselves if we want to stay married to a person that picks on and laughs at us at every opportunity. And yes, I was bullied, too, at times. I think most of us were, unless we led some sheltered privileged life. There is always someone tougher than a bully. We can consider how frustrating it is to have to constantly explain that math to the classmate we really think is a good kid and want to be friends with, but just simply doesn't understand the subject. We can consider what it feels like to have a friend in that school who just doesn't ever seem to want to go out and play a game kickball with us or kick the can or jump rope together. 

We aren't much different. Our lives as adults are just more complicated and our choices affect more folks in a profound way. 


Why would I do that? Because...we are all different. We change and the only way to keep my oath and be true to my word as best I can, is to work on the issues. We have a lifetime together, so we have a lifetime to figure out all of them, and come to some mutually agreeable solution. If we can't in a reasonable amount of time and with help from professionals, maybe it is time to talk with an attorney, or in the case of the religious, your pastor, a priest, etc.?

Yes, this is where I differ with the oath. At some point, I believe whatever higher power one believes in, would certainly want us to be happy. I don't believe that's at the expense of the person we are married to, though. 



> After all you took a vow. According to you those vows should last forever.


This is where we part company. You say the vows should last forever. I say, it's my word, my oath, that I intend to last forever when saying those vows. Vows are just words. Marriage vows or the words are just that. Words that are so good that they have been used in various forms for centuries. They are not that difficult to say, but difficult to keep. So, we dare not utter them unless we are serious, or we give them no meaning. Should someone who does not understand what they mean, even be thinking about saying them to someone else in front of witnesses? 



> So why did you choose to reject your vows and take up with another? Please don't feed me the line about how they broke the vow so you aren't obligated anymore. YOU have already said vows are forever. So YOU chose to break your vows. You COULD have remained committed you your ex, but you chose to break your vows.


First, when you live by the rules as you stated, in the vows, you also live by the rules that allow you to remove yourself from those vows. If you don't want to live by all of the rules, don't bother stating them at all. 

Oddly, what comes to mind is something like this: If two plus two equals for in arithmetic, then, four minus two equals two. 

But, when I read what you write about the vows and your question about why did we choose to break our vows, I think the above arithmetic needs to be explained like this: If two plus two equals four, then, four minus two equals any number. 

So, yes, in my mind, there are some sort of rules to all of it. And, if you want to say there really are no rules, all I have to say is, then those are your rules. There are folks who have open marriages and like them. They find it best for them. It works for them. But, just don't try to convince me that it's right for me. It isn't. 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by, so why did you reject your vows and take up with another. If one is to reject them, the other has a choice. They need to assess whether or not they can stay in the marriage and keep all the parts about loving and cherishing or whatever. At some point, respect for one's self must be the consideration, or one cannot live up to the lofty ideals of the vows.

I could not have remained committed to my oath with my first wife. I was too young and naïve and she was told by a priest that we were too different and should not get married. I refused to accept his accurate assessment and we married anyway, outside the church first, then within the church for our own responsibilities to our beliefs. I met her a month or two before I turned sixteen. We dated, broke up, then dated and married. I was not ready. I don't think she was either. It ended before I turned thirty-one. The actual divorce happened four years later, and I don't know why it took that long. I knew I could not make a go of it, and the church would agree with my assessment. 

Civil court will let you divorce for irreconcilable differences, which means, if you fart in the car while your spouse is present, they can go to your attorney and draw up papers. The spouse does not even have to do it with any regularity. That's up to the obligation they feel to keep their oath. 

Ah, there's that darn word again, obligation. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't when used in a sentence for understanding and clarification. 

I was committed to my oath with my second wife, until she left our home. As I wrote before, I don't know what happened there and never will. It wasn't the same as my first marriage in any way. I was more mature. I learned about myself. I knew what I wanted and looked for it in a woman. I thought I found it. 

There were things which happened in both marriages that allowed for us to divorce, whether in civil court or within the church. Though, the reasons civil court allows divorce remove commitment and any obligation. Proof is tough to get when you don't know how and don't want to add to the issues already present in the failing marriage.

Civil marriage is a joke, in my opinion. It's another reason I married my first wife twice, the second time within the church. Yes, I know civil court is where the rubber meets the road with the law and destroys or makes folks lives, but it doesn't mean I respect or believe in all the wording in every law. I just have to respect the punitive side and myself enough to not break the law. While I don't run stop lights because it's against the law and I will be fined or worse(civil marriage and divorce laws today), I also, and I think this is more important, don't do it because I could run someone over or smash into someone and seriously injure or kill them(religious ideologies and beliefs on marriage). Hope that's a good enough analogy.


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> You made me laugh. I am not the same person I was when I married my second wife. I know she is not the same person. Believe me, if she is, I was duped.
> 
> I am not the same person I was before I posted in this thread. Each day of our lives, each moment, impacts us. I still came back.
> In other words you CHANGED! Which is what I have been saying happens to each and every one of us, including all those ex-spouses that some here would like to imagine "just left for no apparent reason" Thank you for being honest and accepting reality.
> I felt a little obligated because I posted here and you seemed confused. Except that I have never been confused
> 
> I realized I'd suffer, if I didn't at least live up to my end of the oath. What about when you suffer because you do live up to your oath? What about when your spouse suffers because she lived up to her end of the oath?That's the place where thinking of myself first comes into play. I have to respect myself to want to do all to keep that oath I made. I have to understand it's complications and the extent of how serous it is to make an oath like that, before I make it.
> Yep, it is called doing the best that you can do! Another thing I keep saying, but seems to fall on the deaf ears of the bitter enders. Regardless of what you think your ex should have been thinking, she KNEW what she was thinking. Regardless of how you think she should have felt, she KNEW what she felt. Then she acted in what she considered to be her own best interest, just as you have claimed the duty yourelf.
> 
> 
> Why would I do that? Because...we are all different. *We change* and the only way to keep my oath and be true to my word as best I can, is to work on the issues. We have a lifetime together (says who? not reality!), so we have a lifetime to figure out all of them, and come to some mutually agreeable solution. If we can't in a reasonable amount of time and with help from professionals, maybe it is time to talk with an attorney, or in the case of the religious, your pastor, a priest, etc.?
> What then? Live in misery? Divorce?
> 
> Yes, this is where I differ with the oath. At some point, I believe whatever higher power one believes in, would certainly want us to be happy. I don't believe that's at the expense of the person we are married to, though.
> Nor should that hold true for the person you are married to. Because
> 
> 
> This is where we part company. You say the vows should last forever (No I don't, but that is the sentiment I am trying to figure out) . I say, it's my word, my oath, that I intend to last forever when saying those vows. Vows are just words. Marriage vows or the words are just that. Words that are so good that they have been used in various forms for centuries. They are not that difficult to say, but difficult to keep. So, we dare not utter them unless we are serious, or we give them no meaning. Should someone who does not understand what they mean, even be thinking about saying them to someone else in front of witnesses?
> Except that you don't know if they didn't understand or take them seriously. You only know you were hurt when they didn't live up to your standards
> 
> 
> First, when you live by the rules as you stated, in the vows, *you also live by the rules that allow you to remove yourself from those vows.* If you don't want to live by all of the rules, don't bother stating them at all.
> Which is great for you, but apparently not for your ex. Because she was just stupid, didn't understand, was selfish, left for no apparent reason etc etc.
> Oddly, what comes to mind is something like this: If two plus two equals for in arithmetic, then, four minus two equals two.
> 
> But, when I read what you write about the vows and your question about why did we choose to break our vows, I think the above arithmetic needs to be explained like this: If two plus two equals four, then, four minus two equals any number.
> 
> So, yes, in my mind, there are some sort of rules to all of it. And, if you want to say there really are no rules, all I have to say is, then those are your rules. There are folks who have open marriages and like them. They find it best for them. It works for them. But, just don't try to convince me that it's right for me. It isn't.
> There are rules but one of them is not the rule of PERMANENCE. This is what many of you refuse to accept (even though you admit it yourself) - the proper rule is that CHANGE IS CONSTANT
> Also, I'm not sure what you mean by, so why did you reject your vows and take up with another. If one is to reject them, the other has a choice. They need to assess whether or not they can stay in the marriage and keep all the parts about loving and cherishing or whatever. At some point, respect for one's self must be the consideration, or one cannot live up to the lofty ideals of the vows.
> What I mean is that there are some here who argue that a vow is permanent and remain victims of the vow being broken by their ex. They do have a choice, just as their ex had a choice. If they truly believed the vow made to them SHOULD have been permanent, why do they chose to break the one they made to another. They do have a choice, but they would deny that choice to their ex.
> I could not have remained committed to my oath with my first wife. I was too young and naïve and she was told by a priest that we were too different and should not get married. I refused to accept his accurate assessment and we married anyway, outside the church first, then within the church for our own responsibilities to our beliefs. I met her a month or two before I turned sixteen. We dated, broke up, then dated and married. I was not ready. I don't think she was either. It ended before I turned thirty-one. The actual divorce happened four years later, and I don't know why it took that long. I knew I could not make a go of it, and the church would agree with my assessment.
> Funny, you are allowed to be too young and naive. You are allowed to make a mistake, but not your ex?
> Civil court will let you divorce for irreconcilable differences, which means, if you fart in the car while your spouse is present, they can go to your attorney and draw up papers. The spouse does not even have to do it with any regularity. That's up to the obligation they feel to keep their oath.
> Though, the reasons civil court allows divorce remove commitment and any obligation.
> Actually civil courts do not remove commitment and obligation, other wise they wouldn't exist in order for you to relieve or be relieved of them. They simply recognize human dignity in NOT making you present evidence of transgression, when you or your ex decides the marriage was not working for them
> .


The issue with obligation is the double standard employed in regards to it. The other side SHOULD HAVE or COULD HAVE, and when they didn't you were hurt. So they become WAW who left for no apparent reason, conniving *****s, liars or just plain stupid for not putting your interests ahead of their own. I think the word is empathy. But many here refuse to exercise empathy using the excuse of having been hurt. 
But it is called the Golden Rule. I choose to live by it.


----------



## 2ntnuf

> In other words you CHANGED! Which is what I have been saying happens to each and every one of us, including all those ex-spouses that some here would like to imagine "just left for no apparent reason" Thank you for being honest and accepting reality.


No, you've said change is what makes you happy. You've not said that in the same manner I have here and in my other posts.




> What about when you suffer because you do live up to your oath? What about when your spouse suffers because she lived up to her end of the oath?


Please give me an example of how your wife and you were suffering.

Then, give me an example of when either I or my second wife was suffering, please. 





> Yep, it is called doing the best that you can do! Another thing I keep saying, but seems to fall on the deaf ears of the bitter enders. Regardless of what you think your ex should have been thinking, she KNEW what she was thinking. Regardless of how you think she should have felt, she KNEW what she felt. Then she acted in what she considered to be her own best interest, just as you have claimed the duty yourelf.


I think I understand your term "bitter enders", now. What you mean is a derogatory remark that describes a person committed to their word, their marriage, their partner, their relationship, their children, themselves, and their family, enough to talk about, work on, and give every possible chance to saving the marriage before they quit.

These folks are not ill informed, naïve or stupid. They are aware that it is not easy to find a match. It's not easy to get married, blend families, make life long commitments, nor always be right. They know they will make mistakes. They know they have to work on their marriage to make it great. 

The others, are runners. They run from their commitments to those they claim they love at the first sign of having to be open and honest. They run because they are afraid. They run because it's easier for them than to work hard and admit their own faults. They run because they don't know how to communicate to their spouse what is really bothering them and important. 

There would be no socalled walk away spouses, if they did know how to communicate. And, they don't want to learn. 



> We have a lifetime together (says who? not reality!),


Till death do you part? Maybe that's where I got that crazy idea? 





> What then? Live in misery? Divorce?


I get the feeling that many walk away spouses are very detailed and dramatic when they speak to their friends and family, but not to the one person they claim to love and made commitments with. 




> Nor should that hold true for the person you are married to.


Not sure where you are getting your ideas about me. You seem to be completely wrong about what I think on almost everything. 

If you have some post I made with all the previous comments, in other words, the whole thread with comments from all side still intact and want to point me to what gave you the impression that I have ever believed the neither my exes, nor I could leave that marriages at any cost, or any other woman I dated, I'd be glad to take a look. 

This is one of the weirdest threads I've been in. It's like you have some conclusions that you believe to be true for all who do not fit into some nice neat little scenario you've decided to believe in. It's projecting, unless you have some accurate evidence to the contrary, not just opinions. 

The way you write, is how I believe my second wife was duped into believing she couldn't talk to me about anything, nor live with her decision to stay married to me. 

This is how I believe she was duped into believing what she wanted was to go out and play the field for a while. When, actually, she is now married again. 

So, in truth, she always wanted to be married, but was so confused by her hormones from perimenopause, she was vulnerable to those who saw that what I had was a great woman. 

Now, not so great, but apparently there is someone who can forgive her, most likely because he wasn't the target of her misplaced aggression as I was.





> Except that you don't know if they didn't understand or take them seriously. You only know you were hurt when they didn't live up to your standards


That's what I said. The trouble is, neither do you. You make these statements like you know what walk aways are thinking. You don't know any more than anyone else. Unless you were the walk away yourself, you could not know what they were thinking, the influences that caused them to lean in or out of the marriage and/or what their convictions were. 

You do or at least should have had an idea of what your wife might have been thinking through observation of her actions. You pretty much said you didn't and it's unlikely you do now, either. She isn't going to tell you the truth now. All she would do is smooth things over so no one is angry any longer and life goes on for her. So, I'm not sure you are reading your own posts. They go back and forth and move in circles. 





> Which is great for you, but apparently not for your ex. Because she was just stupid, didn't understand, was selfish, left for no apparent reason etc etc.


Well, here again, you don't truly know me. I never thought my second wife was stupid. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have dated her if I thought she was. I met her at a university we were attending. 

She may not have understood, just as your wife may not have understood, or just as we don't seem to understand each other.

We are all selfish. You and I both admitted it previously in this thread. This is one reason your posts don't make sense. You say selfish here, like it's bad, but previously, used it as and example of something we all should be. 

We are all selfish and we must be to some extent. When married, we must find a much harder to reach balance between being selfish and selfless than in everyday life outside of marriage or a committed monogamous relationship. 



> There are rules but one of them is not the rule of PERMANENCE. This is what many of you refuse to accept (even though you admit it yourself) - the proper rule is that CHANGE IS CONSTANT


Till death do us part? Not sure if you read the same vows I did? Maybe yours said, till death or one farts? Remember my attempt at humorous analogy?



> What I mean is that there are some here who argue that a vow is permanent and remain victims of the vow being broken by their ex. They do have a choice, just as their ex had a choice. If they truly believed the vow made to them SHOULD have been permanent, why do they chose to break the one they made to another. They do have a choice, but they would deny that choice to their ex.


It's intended to be permanent. That was important to me. I never ever intended to get divorced. Not when I said my vows in either marriage, but in the second, I asked all the questions to sniff out dealbreakers. I observed her actions to sniff out dealbreakers. I met her family to sniff out dealbreakers. I met any friends she would let me, red flag, to sniff out dealbreakers. We had sex to sniff out any dealbreakers. We lived together for two and a half years before getting married and talked and shared our lives together. There wasn't one thing she didn't know about me that wasn't of vital importance to the health of the marriage. If she forgot to ask something, that's on her. I volunteered all the major information. 

So, my question for you is, WTF are you talking about man? Do you know? This is one of the freakiest threads I've ever been in. If there is something that you would like to tell me that you don't want to post here, just pm me. Otherwise, you freak me out because you think you know so much about me and you are so far off, it's repulsive. 






> Funny, you are allowed to be too young and naive. You are allowed to make a mistake, but not your ex?


Well, just as shoplifting is not as serous a crime as murder, there are always degrees of mistakes. Whether something was done once or many times is also a factor. The difference between civil and criminal law to human interaction is simply that laws don't change very often, but each human being has their own dealbreakers. 

When those dealbreakers are very similar in both spouses, we tend to call that compatible. 

I checked for those as well, before my second wife and I got married.

Do you think I took that lifelong idea of marriage in the vows seriously in my second marriage? I did not do the same for my first. I was just horny and loved having sex with her. I was very attracted to her and I was young and naïve. 

I was through one marriage, counseling sessions, child support hearings, going out and living single for eight years when my second wife and I met at the ages of 39. You'd think, by that age, we both were taking life seriously, and our commitments. I mean, the actions were there. She checked me out, too, but in a slightly different way. 



> Actually civil courts do not remove commitment and obligation, other wise they wouldn't exist in order for you to relieve or be relieved of them. They simply recognize human dignity in NOT making you present evidence of transgression, when you or your ex decides the marriage was not working for them


If you don't need a reason, there is no real obligation. There is nothing holding you to your word. So, no, you are mistaken.




> The issue with obligation is the double standard employed in regards to it. The other side SHOULD HAVE or COULD HAVE, and when they didn't you were hurt. So they become WAW who left for no apparent reason, conniving *****s, liars or just plain stupid for not putting your interests ahead of their own. I think the word is empathy. But many here refuse to exercise empathy using the excuse of having been hurt.
> But it is called the Golden Rule. I choose to live by it.


That's not a double standard, it's what they stated in the vows when getting married. Till death do us part. In sickness and health, for richer or poorer and so forth. They kind of cover all issues. Don't you think? If you don't realize what the vows mean nor believe in them, you really aren't prepared to get married nor commit to anyone. 

It was much more than your description that hurt me and it was much more than hurt. I was harmed by what happened, what my second wife and all those who took a part in the dissolution of our marriage did. Many are not harmed. Some are. I, unfortunately, will have the scars and have to work on them the rest of my life. They have affected who I am and what I do in all aspects of my life. I've never been in this position before. 

Well, what did she do? I ask that because you don't know what she did, nor do I know what mine did. They have to tell us what they are sorry for doing and ask forgiveness before it can be given. All I have is what I know to have happened. It was all bad and it happened to me. I don't know of anything bad that happened to her. So, what does she need empathy for? 

She needed sex? She went out and got it. She really wasn't lacking sex in her life, just from me. I only asked that she stop and we see a counselor together and/or separately as directed by the counselor. 

Edit: I'd say that right there, that statement to her that we see a counselor together and separately, if that was also needed, is empathy. I did not try to punish her for her infidelities. Unfortunately, I took her for her word, that she and I would go and work on our issues. She did go, but left me out of the conversations. Don't you think a counselor would have helped us to work out the issues and become closer, or, help us to split amicably with less harm to both? Well, duh. What happened there? I have no clue, but it must have been something others, including the counselor and her were discussing without my input. You can't really know the truth unless you have more than one side. She rejected my offer of empathy. You see, that was all long before I was harmed, years in fact. I never tried to punish her for what she was doing. Though, in truth, her infidelities and lack of respect for me(obviously) did take their toll on my desire for her. 

She obviously didn't want to be married. You stated that here, in so many words. I wanted her to stop that and work on our sex life. Remember above where I covered this in dealbreakers long before the marriage? If there was a compatibility issue, she could easily have gotten out of any more dates or a relationship. After marriage it's a bit more complicated with families and so forth. 

She wanted to get a divorce? I didn't try to stop her. 

She wanted to leave? I put her stuff on the porch. 

She wanted to have a business? I didn't try to stop her. 

She wanted to...you name it. I didn't try to stop her. 

All I ever wanted was an explanation. All I ever wanted was to understand. All I ever wanted was to do the work she promised to do with me and the counselor. 

Why would I think she was capable of keeping any promises? Shame on me. 

Interesting conversation Ynot. Try not to project too much. Ask me what you suspect I might be thinking or have done before you accuse. It's frustrating when I have to go back and say the same things over and over because you want to force your beliefs of who I am onto me.


----------



## 2ntnuf

The fact of the matter is, in my humble opinion Ynot, that walk aways do so without explanation because the are not sure of their decision and new found goals and thoughts. They are confused and don't want to take the chance that they are mistaken. They took too many steps already to subvert their beliefs and can't handle any more. They are confused and just want to move on to make all the doubts go away. 

They don't have the ability to handle the persistent attacks on their marriage by those who want them to believe what they know doesn't make sense, so decide to run. They don't want to explain because they don't want to find out they were mistaken. It would make them lose their mind.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Hey Ynot, wouldn't it be interesting to hear her side of the story with evidence to back her opinions? I mean, my second ex or yours. I think that would ease your mind. I don't think you'd be starting threads like this anymore. You wouldn't bother talking about it. It wouldn't matter. 

No, I don't think they'd tell the truth. It would be interesting, though.


----------



## Ynot

2ntnuf said:


> The fact of the matter is, in my humble opinion Ynot, that walk aways do so without explanation because the are not sure of their decision and new found goals and thoughts. They are confused and don't want to take the chance that they are mistaken. They took too many steps already to subvert their beliefs and can't handle any more. They are confused and just want to move on to make all the doubts go away.
> 
> They don't have the ability to handle the persistent attacks on their marriage by those who want them to believe what they know doesn't make sense, so decide to run. They don't want to explain because they don't want to find out they were mistaken. It would make them lose their mind.


Spoken like a true victim. They just walked away with no explanation, not because you can't recognize their right to act in the their own best interests. Heck, you refuse to recognize their own best interest as a reason simply because their actions did not comply with your expectations.
Then you go on to say they didn't have the ability to believe something they know doesn't make sense (which BTW is another reason) But again, since they can't believe what you believe you reject that as a reason.
And to go back to your previous post, can you please tell me where I ever said "change is what makes me happy"? You completely confused on so many levels it is no wonder that you find this a freaky thread. The only thing I have said is that change is constant, and unlike many of you bitter enders (yes that is meant as a slur) I recognize that as reality. 
I also know what commitment, loyalty and obligation means, but I understand that all of those change over time, as we all change over time. If you and your fellow bitter enders want to sit around bemoaning all of the things your ex's could have done or should have done based on obligations, commitments and loyalties, which reality has proven over and over and over again to be TEMPORARY and NOT PERMANENT, then be my guests.
That doesn't make me mentally ill, that doesn't make me disloyal, unable to commit or lacking in obligations. What it does is allow me to recognize reality for what it is - an ever changing aspect of life. Going forward, I will recognize change as a constant and rather than shirking my responsibility to myself, I will make greater effort to insure that my selfish needs are met.
And in regards to selfishness, which is another thing you are confused about, there is rational self interest and immature or irrational self interest. Recognizing reality is rational self interest. Refusing to recognize reality on the basis of some ideal you have been conditioned to believe, to your own detriment, is irrational self interest. Reliance on obligations is irrational self interest. But as I said, do not allow me to stop you. Afterall look at how well it has worked for you!


----------

