# Should you Remarry?



## McDean (Jun 13, 2015)

I've seen a few posts with the question, "I've already divorced twice+ should I remarry again?" Of course it is a personal question and specific to the individuals situation but extracted from several articles and a story I have for someone else- here is food for thoughtnote, I am still on my first marriage so no personal experience)

Thoughts:
1) Are the patterns that lead you to divorces 1-2-3-etc. still in place, is your new relationship starting off the same way as the previous ones? Or is it different and how so?
2) Can you honestly afford it - pure reality question if you are paying through the teeth for alimony, child support etc.
3) What are your deal breakers? Not a huge fan of Dr. Phil but stole this one from him, if you have a laundry list of these you probably are better off alone, there should only be 3-5 otherwise your expectations for other people might simply be too high!?! For the ladies I would offer in my impromptu research the belief that many of you go into marriage with unrealistic expectations came up again and again from both male and female authors, counselors etc...part of the Disney princess syndrome perhaps (just food for thought)
4) Are you in love with the potential new spouse or in love with the idea of marriage? The first one is positive, the second one is neutral but by itself probably not a good reason to go forward.
5) What does it say if you have to ask the question of whether or not to marry again? Not a good idea to get married if you're not confident, though past failures certainly need to be considered and understandably make one hesitant - this one could be more a question of timing - are you ready to marry again? more so than 'should' you marry again....

Short story: One of my best friends moms has married 5 times - that's right folks - 5 times, 3 divorces and widow to her first husband. However, she has been happily married to husband #5 for 30yrs and if you met them I promise it would be hard to imagine them not together. Asked once why all the marriages and the main response was that through the previous 4 she learned who she was, who she wasn't, what her deal breakers were and what, in the end, she no longer cared about in a marriage but did once (ie. the reality of other people vs. the idealization of other people...deal breakers...etc)...a refinement of how to be a married person is how she describes it....she has two daughters, 1 from husband 1 and 1 from husband 3.

Maybe this will help some of you who are wondering 'should I do this again'.....obviously is much more complicated and there are more questions to be asked than just those above but these tended to come up the most in my research on the topic and supported what one woman told me about her 5 husbands....


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

Sure why not? I think marriage should be a renewable contract and am under no illusion that it is for life that often.

Can't see any problem with people remarrying, it is a bigger issue when people stay in a bad marriage for too long. Why is it more acceptable to stay in a miserable marriage than it is for people to have had multiple marriages.

As a side note, here are a couple of things to add to your "research" 
1) both men and women need to be very proactive about protecting themselves financially especially in second or more marriages. The norm where I live is for couples to get a Binding Financial Agreement before second marriages.
2) Men also go into marriage with unrealistic expectations.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

I'm saying NO. Marriage is a one time commitment. There is an old saying that says "once you give your entire heart to someone, you never get it back, so you have nothing left to give to someone else". I believe this. People rush into marriages, knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can divorce and just keep trying. Imagine if the state only allotted one marriage license per individual, maybe people would be more choosy in their mates, knowing that is their only shot at it.

I'm sure most everyone will disagree with me, but I've always taken marriage seriously and not just another disposable relationship. It's no longer "for better or for worse", it's now until I don't feel like it anymore or I'm not 100% happy with you.

I personally can't name anyone that has had multiple marriages and lasted more than 10 years. All of the 30, 40, 50th anniversaries are all first marriages. People tend to trade up every decade or less.


----------



## TeddieG (Sep 9, 2015)

woundedwarrior said:


> I'm saying NO. Marriage is a one time commitment. There is an old saying that says "once you give your entire heart to someone, you never get it back, so you have nothing left to give to someone else". I believe this. People rush into marriages, knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can divorce and just keep trying. Imagine if the state only allotted one marriage license per individual, maybe people would be more choosy in their mates, knowing that is their only shot at it.
> 
> I'm sure most everyone will disagree with me, but I've always taken marriage seriously and not just another disposable relationship. It's no longer "for better or for worse", it's now until I don't feel like it anymore or I'm not 100% happy with you.
> 
> *I personally can't name anyone that has had multiple marriages and lasted more than 10 years. All of the 30, 40, 50th anniversaries are all first marriages. People tend to trade up every decade or less*.


My STBXH and I lived together for eight years before we married, and dated five years before that. He proposed and he was the one excited and wanting to look into wedding venues. Two years later he had some health issues and began changing and not for the better. I have stood by him, in sickness and in health, and his solution to his illness was to find a younger woman, a single mom on welfare looking for a retirement check. He is in a hurry to divorce now so he can marry her (he promised and she thought he meant "yesterday") so I don't think I'll marry again ever. We are just shy of married ten years (January 3 will be ten, as a matter of fact). He was the love of my life, when he was him, not the guy he is now, yet I still love him. I may have a relationship again in the future, but unless something changes drastically with me, I don't plan to marry again.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

Holland said:


> Sure why not? I think marriage should be a renewable contract and am under no illusion that it is for life that often.
> 
> Can't see any problem with people remarrying, it is a bigger issue when people stay in a bad marriage for too long. Why is it more acceptable to stay in a miserable marriage than it is for people to have had multiple marriages.
> 
> ...


How so? That's an awfully broad statement


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

woundedwarrior said:


> I'm saying NO. Marriage is a one time commitment. There is an old saying that says "once you give your entire heart to someone, you never get it back, so you have nothing left to give to someone else". I believe this. People rush into marriages, knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can divorce and just keep trying. Imagine if the state only allotted one marriage license per individual, maybe people would be more choosy in their mates, knowing that is their only shot at it.
> 
> I'm sure most everyone will disagree with me, but I've always taken marriage seriously and not just another disposable relationship. It's no longer "for better or for worse", it's now until I don't feel like it anymore or I'm not 100% happy with you.
> 
> *I personally can't name anyone that has had multiple marriages and lasted more than 10 years. All of the 30, 40, 50th anniversaries are all first marriages. People tend to trade up every decade or less.*


*
*

Well now this is interesting.... I can't think of anyone either to be honest


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

I go back and forth on remarriage. I am discovering that where I land is that second or third marriages may work after all youngsters are up and out of the house. Also agree that financial safeguards need to be in place..i.e. Pre-nups.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

woundedwarrior said:


> I'm saying NO. Marriage is a one time commitment. There is an old saying that says "once you give your entire heart to someone, you never get it back, so you have nothing left to give to someone else". I believe this. People rush into marriages, knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can divorce and just keep trying. Imagine if the state only allotted one marriage license per individual, maybe people would be more choosy in their mates, knowing that is their only shot at it.
> 
> I'm sure most everyone will disagree with me, but I've always taken marriage seriously and not just another disposable relationship. It's no longer "for better or for worse", it's now until I don't feel like it anymore or I'm not 100% happy with you.
> 
> I personally can't name anyone that has had multiple marriages and lasted more than 10 years. All of the 30, 40, 50th anniversaries are all first marriages. People tend to trade up every decade or less.


Second marriage, on year 16, and proving wrong your idea of giving your heart to someone means you can't to someone else. I think that's simple indoctrination, and far from fact unless you buy into the propaganda - which some people do, obviously.

Anyway, if people UPGRADE every decade or less, then that sounds like a good thing! But, I'm more than happy with my over-10 year second relationship, and can't imagine finding someone better. I take marriage seriously, but since I do, I won't settle for less than a good one.


----------



## JustTired (Jan 22, 2012)

> 1) Are the patterns that lead you to divorces 1-2-3-etc. still in place, is your new relationship starting off the same way as the previous ones? Or is it different and how so?


I think the question above is a very important one. People have to be fully aware of their role in the marriage & their contributions to it. If you can't be objective with yourself & recognize where you went wrong in the past, you will continue to have the same type of relationships.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

Wolf1974 said:


> How so? That's an awfully broad statement


I belive that was an asterix to OP claim in original post that women go into marriage with unrealistic expectations.


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

Married but Happy said:


> Second marriage, on year 16, and proving wrong your idea of giving your heart to someone means you can't to someone else. I think that's simple indoctrination, and far from fact unless you buy into the propaganda - which some people do, obviously.
> 
> Anyway, if people UPGRADE every decade or less, then that sounds like a good thing! But, I'm more than happy with my over-10 year second relationship, and can't imagine finding someone better. I take marriage seriously, but since I do, I won't settle for less than a good one.


KUDOS to you, but you are a rarity, at least in the happy sense. That is an old saying, but think about it, if you truly believe you married the right person, not a shotgun wedding or quickie elope etc., give yourself fully to that person and something happens, you will subconsciously hold a little back on subsequent relationships.

Even though my first marriage ended badly, when we were in our prime, it was unsurpassed than any year I've had with my current wife and not to say we didn't have great years, it just was never the same. You never forget your first, whether it's your first kiss, car, job or spouse. It doesn't mean they can't be rewarding, but they will never equal if things would have worked out the first time.


----------



## McDean (Jun 13, 2015)

WandaJ said:


> I belive that was an asterix to OP claim in original post that women go into marriage with unrealistic expectations.


Right, point of clarification- no question both men and women go into marriages with unrealistic expectations. Just mentioning that in my unscientific research it came up more for women as an issue, but never qualified how much more honestly.....


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

JustTired said:


> I think the question above is a very important one. People have to be fully aware of their role in the marriage & their contributions to it. If you can't be objective with yourself & recognize where you went wrong in the past, you will continue to have the same type of relationships.


That is exactly right and very few people know what the heck happened? Even if there was cheating, why was there cheating?

The favored excuse of "we grew apart" or "I'm not in love with you anymore", what actually caused the feelings change?

That is my whole problem. I have no clue what happened either time. My first wife claimed she wanted to be single again and she still is, she only cheated to force me out the door; my wife now is happy with almost no emotional connection, she prefers to give it to our granddaughter instead of me. Neither wife could ever tell me why the sudden change, so I have nothing to go on.

This is the main reason why I would never marry again and staying has become my safety net.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

McDean said:


> Right, point of clarification- no question both men and women go into marriages with unrealistic expectations. Just mentioning that in my unscientific research it came up more for women as an issue, but never qualified how much more honestly.....


How unrealistic were those expectations from women? I see a lot of men here who expected to keep sex hot and frequent after wedding day, while withdrawing the romance part, and also expecting their wives to mother them, take care of them as their mother did.


----------



## GA HEART (Oct 18, 2011)

Wow, what a depressing thread.

:-/


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

The fact remains that marriage is a good deal only for women. They get taken care of for life by the man they marry whether they stay with him or not. If the marriage ends, it's of little consequence to them, they get your money no matter what. In this situation, there's really no reason for a woman to take her marriage seriously nor to be bound to it. Men really get nothing at all other than being bound by law to having to take care of someone for life, irregardless of the situation. It was a bad deal the first time I did it and I'm certainly not doing it again if I ever find a way to get out of the marriage I have now.


----------



## McDean (Jun 13, 2015)

WandaJ said:


> How unrealistic were those expectations from women? I see a lot of men here who expected to keep sex hot and frequent after wedding day, while withdrawing the romance part, and also expecting their wives to mother them, take care of them as their mother did.


I am sure there is some truth to your point and pretty sure many women expected to be romanced every day of their life and never have to work and have a husband who keeps their six pack abs until death - there are shades of 'crazy' in both sexes when it comes to marriage. (as evidenced by this site)

If it helps, the authors pointed more to expectations that both sexes had of a marriage feeling the same as it did during the honeymoon phase and for whatever reason more women cited problems with their SO after this wore off - could be for the reasons you listed WandaJ or could be unrealistic expectations in general.....

To me it simply speaks to everyone working hard to get each other but once they do, not working hard to keep each other. In many cases, maybe since men often are the pursuers (in older groups in particular) their SOs feel let down when that stops or slows down - total guess on my part.....


----------



## Bibi1031 (Sep 14, 2015)

GA HEART said:


> Wow, what a depressing thread.
> 
> :-/




I think it has some very valid points.


Bibi


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

jb02157 said:


> The fact remains that marriage is a good deal only for women. They get taken care of for life by the man they marry whether they stay with him or not. If the marriage ends, it's of little consequence to them, they get your money no matter what. In this situation, there's really no reason for a woman to take her marriage seriously nor to be bound to it. Men really get nothing at all other than being bound by law to having to take care of someone for life, irregardless of the situation. It was a bad deal the first time I did it and I'm certainly not doing it again if I ever find a way to get out of the marriage I have now.


I see two sides to this. I know women who got screwed over by not getting child support and really struggle and I also know women who re married rich guys, that take extra vacations with the child support money.

It's screwy, but the new husband isn't responsible financially for his new wife's previous children, no matter what he makes.

I will say, in most cases though, the woman does have a lot less to lose. My ex made out like a bandit and even hocked her wedding ring for further insult. Husbands get the short end of the stick in a divorce, whether it's his fault or not.


----------



## GA HEART (Oct 18, 2011)

Some valid points, but depressing none-the-less. If a resounding NO for remarriage is the consensus, anyway. People change. Marriages that occur in someone's late teens or early 20's that fail shouldn't mean they have extreme emotional issues. I guess I'm just a little sensitive to the snobbish opinions of people who have never been divorced. (Not pointing fingers at those on this thread necessarily, but in general. And yes, I have run across those people.) How can anyone judge a situation that they have never lived through.

That being said, I am a divorcee who is terrified of marriage. LOL! I entered into my marriage with the idea it should last, and although I was decently miserable in the marriage, I was committed to it. He was the one who initiated the divorce, and it was ABSOLUTELY for the best. I likely would have never initiated it and remained married to a part time abusive, full time BPD jerk. 

It has left a bad taste of fear in my mouth about the whole subject. 

I have love in my life, but the days of trusting blindly that "love will conquer all" and "we can make it as long as we have each other" are looooong gone. (I am truly happy for those of you who haven't had to deal with what I have there.) 

Commitment in a marriage is only as strong as the weaker partner. If the weaker partner gives up, what is the other to do? Really? 

Granted, I have several friends who divorced after me and are already remarried......some only dating a few short weeks (!) before tying the knot. I do have to question their sanity, truthfully.

But I would like to think that happiness in a marriage again is there for me someday, and I know that I deserve it if it is something I want, regardless of my past history of a failed marriage.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

WandaJ said:


> I belive that was an asterix to OP claim in original post that women go into marriage with unrealistic expectations.


Ahh gotcha thanks

I think both genders can have unrealistic expectations. Those more down to earth tend to survive the long haul


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

GA HEART said:


> Some valid points, but depressing none-the-less. If a resounding NO for remarriage is the consensus, anyway. People change. Marriages that occur in someone's late teens or early 20's that fail shouldn't mean they have extreme emotional issues. I guess I'm just a little sensitive to the snobbish opinions of people who have never been divorced. (Not pointing fingers at those on this thread necessarily, but in general. And yes, I have run across those people.) How can anyone judge a situation that they have never lived through.
> 
> That being said, I am a divorcee who is terrified of marriage. LOL! I entered into my marriage with the idea it should last, and although I was decently miserable in the marriage, I was committed to it. He was the one who initiated the divorce, and it was ABSOLUTELY for the best. I likely would have never initiated it and remained married to a part time abusive, full time BPD jerk.
> 
> ...


This is an absolute truth many don't seem to understand. Everyone wants to think that two people contribute to the demise of a marriage but one toxic and weak person can in fact unravel it no matter how strong the other partner is.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

I am going to add that I see marriage as a pragmatic decision. If not for some practical considerations, we probably would not have married. Likewise, while we don't have a problem being married, we'd divorce for practical reasons as well, even though we'd continue to live together and love each other. 

Marriage is a tool to use or discard as needed, in our view. Now that we are married, though, we are content with our status and would prefer to avoid the costs involved with a pragmatic divorce.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

woundedwarrior said:


> I see two sides to this. I know women who got screwed over by not getting child support and really struggle and I also know women who re married rich guys, that take extra vacations with the child support money.
> 
> It's screwy, but the new husband isn't responsible financially for his new wife's previous children, no matter what he makes.
> 
> I will say, in most cases though, the woman does have a lot less to lose. My ex made out like a bandit and even hocked her wedding ring for further insult. Husbands get the short end of the stick in a divorce, whether it's his fault or not.


Here in the Republic of Texas, its pretty fair, especially if you have true joint custody. You have to be married over 10 years to get alimony and even then you have to be a SAHM w no means of support. It only lasts 3 years then you are on your own regardless. The child support makes sense to me. I don't want some new husband paying for my children.


----------



## GA HEART (Oct 18, 2011)

Wolf1974 said:


> This is an absolute truth many don't seem to understand. Everyone wants to think that two people contribute to the demise of a marriage but one toxic and weak person can in fact unravel it no matter how strong the other partner is.


People don't understand what they haven't experienced. Sure, it does take the actions and choices of two to make or break a marriage. But there is ALWAYS an imbalance. At some point or another, in EVERY marriage and divorce.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

jb02157 said:


> The fact remains that marriage is a good deal only for women. They get taken care of for life by the man they marry whether they stay with him or not. If the marriage ends, it's of little consequence to them, they get your money no matter what. In this situation, there's really no reason for a woman to take her marriage seriously nor to be bound to it. Men really get nothing at all other than being bound by law to having to take care of someone for life, irregardless of the situation. It was a bad deal the first time I did it and I'm certainly not doing it again if I ever find a way to get out of the marriage I have now.


belive me there are a lot of women who cannot get out of their crappy marriage for the same reasons you can not. Everybody looses in divorce. But you can not divorce your children, you are still responsible for them.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

GA HEART said:


> *People don't understand what they haven't experienced. * Sure, it does take the actions and choices of two to make or break a marriage. But there is ALWAYS an imbalance. At some point or another, in EVERY marriage and divorce.


TAM in a nutshell :grin2:


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

jb02157 said:


> The fact remains that marriage is a good deal only for women. They get taken care of for life by the man they marry whether they stay with him or not. If the marriage ends, it's of little consequence to them, they get your money no matter what. In this situation, there's really no reason for a woman to take her marriage seriously nor to be bound to it. Men really get nothing at all other than being bound by law to having to take care of someone for life, irregardless of the situation. It was a bad deal the first time I did it and I'm certainly not doing it again if I ever find a way to get out of the marriage I have now.


Marriage and divorce are a level playing field of good and bad for men and women. 
It is rubbish to say that women are so flippant about their marriages, sure some MEN AND WOMEN may be this way but the majority take marriages seriously. It often does not work out but that doesn't mean their intentions were bad.

You have had what sounds like 2 disasterous marriages, you are the common denominator, do you think any of it is your fault or is it those evil women's fault as usual?


----------



## woundedwarrior (Dec 9, 2011)

Holland said:


> Marriage and divorce are a level playing field of good and bad for men and women.
> It is rubbish to say that women are so flippant about their marriages, sure some MEN AND WOMEN may be this way but the majority take marriages seriously. It often does not work out but that doesn't mean their intentions were bad.
> 
> You have had what sounds like 2 disasterous marriages, you are the common denominator, do you think any of it is your fault or is it those evil women's fault as usual?


I'm also the common denominator and another reason why there won't ever be a #3 for me. If you don't know where you went wrong, you won't know to not go wrong again?


----------



## McDean (Jun 13, 2015)

Definitely agree that the weaker of the two in a relationship may set the tone and/or bring it all down...and over 30+ years would imagine sometimes who is the weaker flip flops....

In my OP story, the 5 times married mom was the common denominator and yet has been married 30yrs now.....so maybe you can figure it out or more likely figure out the type of mate you need for long term success....

On marriage being pragmatic, which I think also holds an element of truth, how many would pursue marriage if we were all independently wealthy, could pay for nanny support-pay for school-pay a mortgage (or buy homes outright) etc etc etc- look at the number of marriages for in the Forbes 400 or Hollywood etc...maybe we would choose to love many instead of one anyway given this scenario.....


----------



## TeddieG (Sep 9, 2015)

woundedwarrior said:


> I'm also the common denominator and another reason why there won't ever be a #3 for me. If you don't know where you went wrong, you won't know to not go wrong again?


Yes. When my h had surgery and was depressed and withdrawn, And as to expectations, I had the expectation that we would grow old together, that our bodies would change, that we would face medical issues, that we would change over time and accept that change. I didn't let myself go, but I didn't starve myself after my hysterectomy to drop the extra ten pounds I put on. I wanted to enjoy life and not spend it being stressed about no longer looking twenty (although I do look years younger than my age, fewer years now after 7 of his midlife meltdown). But my h thought the honeymoon phase defined our marriage and would last forever. He left me for a new period of lust and rabbit sex and yet, his six-pack abs are gone, he doesn't cut his hair, chews his nails down to nubs, he wears t-shirts with the arms cut out of them, and his ******* ***** is perfectly happy with that. I don't think I need to change my expectations. I would just need to find someone who shares them, and I don't expect that to happen. But IF I ever ended up with a partner, perhaps for life, I wouldn't spoil it by marrying.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

McDean said:


> To me it simply speaks to everyone working hard to get each other but once they do, not working hard to keep each other. .


Agreed. Most people take their spouse for granted, and ironically, if you belief in one marriage for lifetime, it is easy to stop working on it. 

You cannot live in honeymoon phase forever, but you still need to keep the fire on, in the middle of all everyday troubles and boring chores. It is really not that much - listenning to your spouse actively, smile here, touch there, can do wonders. Small things. And respect has to be here not just in words, but actions.

And it all goes for both sexes.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

woundedwarrior said:


> I personally can't name anyone that has had multiple marriages and lasted more than 10 years. All of the 30, 40, 50th anniversaries are all first marriages. People tend to trade up every decade or less.


I'm on my 2nd marriage. We've been together 15 years, married 12.

My grandpa had been married 2 times previously, but was married to grandma for over 25 years when she passed.

My former FIL was married 5 times. He and my MIL, who was wife #5, were married for over 43 years when he passed.

My friend, M, has been married 4 times. She and her 4th husband just celebrated their 10th anniversary.

I know a paternal uncle and paternal aunt are both on their 2nd marriages of well over a decade, but I can't remember the exact number of years. Uncle's marriage is somewhere around 20 years and the Aunt's marriage is a few years younger.

Two different neighbors on my block are on their 2nd marriages of 10 years or more.

And that's just off the top of my head. I think there are a lot more previously married people in currently successful decade or older marriages out there. Any former marriage is in the past and not part of that persons current life, so it's just not brought up as it's not relevant.



GA HEART said:


> That being said, I am a divorcee who is terrified of marriage.
> 
> It has left a bad taste of fear in my mouth about the whole subject.
> 
> ...


I hope you find what you're looking for, marriage or other.



McDean said:


> On marriage being pragmatic, which I think also holds an element of truth, how many would pursue marriage if we were all independently wealthy, could pay for nanny support-pay for school-pay a mortgage (or buy homes outright) etc etc etc- look at the number of marriages for in the Forbes 400 or Hollywood etc...maybe we would choose to love many instead of one anyway given this scenario.....


My two BILs are extremely well off. One worked in finance and retired a few years ago in his late 40's. The other actually does work in Hollywood as one of the producers of a long running TV show. They are also both married and determined to stay that way _because_ they are extremely well off. Neither wants to risk the marriage because a risk to the marriage is a risk to the money.

If you look at divorce stats by income, you'll see that the wealthier a couple is the less likely they'll split.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

Holland said:


> Marriage and divorce are a level playing field of good and bad for men and women.
> It is rubbish to say that women are so flippant about their marriages, sure some MEN AND WOMEN may be this way but the majority take marriages seriously. It often does not work out but that doesn't mean their intentions were bad.
> 
> You have had what sounds like 2 disasterous marriages, you are the common denominator, do you think any of it is your fault or is it those evil women's fault as usual?


I beg to differ. If I can sign a contract that says I can draw money from someone, legally, without having to do a damn thing, I would be inclined to be more interested in agreeing to it than the one who has to do the paying, right?

I didn't say that women are flippant in their marriages but they can be if they wanted. Men are tied to payments if the marriage ends, so that would prevent them from leaving (theoretically). I do think that men and women both don't take marriage that seriously these days. If you don't believe that, why has the divorce rate gone up so fast to the point one is more likely to have a divorce during their lifetime than not.


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

Not to get too technical but I think a lot of people here have cognitive dissonance when it comes to marriage/divorce. In this case we need to change the cognition(definition of marriage) to remove the dissonance. Marriage is just not really what we thought it was when we were growing up. Like Santa clause it was a fantasy. Let's redefine it? Thoughts?


----------



## McDean (Jun 13, 2015)

MJJEAN- if there is money earned during the marriage you are probably right ending a marriage could be too costly- but what about those who have money going into a marriage- the listed # of marriages for the forbes 400 reflects an attitude that I can take the financial hit so 'whatever' - not too mention pre-nups were originated by wealthy men wanting to give marriage a go without the potential financial ruin than come with a divorce....so, from a pragmatic standpoint I either don't get married or get you to acknowledge that trusting you for 30yrs is not pragmatic so please sign this pre-nup because what I earned or inherited before we exchange vows has nothing to do with you afterwards.....like George Clooney, well to-do before marriage, marries someone with their own assets and wealth and who still pursues her own work, she could not claim full dependence on his money if they divorce...but I'm sure they had a pre-nup.....again only taking the pragmatic/financial view of 'why get married'...

It is interesting however because historically marriage was often for pragmatic/financial purposes only- dowries, title, etc....then love becomes a greater part of it, then both become important but due to the divorce rate it almost seems like one could argue we will end back in the original pragmatic bucket....only maybe this time, you marry for money and procreation but both husband and wife have flings on the side lol...


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

jb02157 said:


> I do think that men and women both don't take marriage that seriously these days. If you don't believe that, why has the divorce rate gone up so fast to the point one is more likely to have a divorce during their lifetime than not.


They do still take it seriously. People in the past were STUCK in their marriages if they did not work out. And love and support weren't goal of marriage. Just because people stayed married and lonely for lifetime does not mean they were better spouses.


----------



## Mr.Fisty (Nov 4, 2014)

WandaJ said:


> They do still take it seriously. People in the past were STUCK in their marriages if they did not work out. And love and support weren't goal of marriage. Just because people stayed married and lonely for lifetime does not mean they were better spouses.



I agree. Marriage was never about love from its inception. It was about status and the number of wives showed one's power and wealth. It is about 100 years or less since more people chose their own partners. Prior to that, it was all arrange marriage and people were stuck so if they were miserable, they made the most of it.

I also do not find a marriage ending to mean failure. If one marries an abuser, then I would consider divorce a success in escaping. If the goal is to have a fulfilling life while we are on this planet,then leaving someone who is detrimental to that is a good thing.

Sure it is not the others job to make you happy, but having a good relationship does make one happy. I enjoy flirting, telling nasty jokes, poking my gf's belly button, and enjoy dancing with her. Those things make me feel happy and she is a catalyst in that.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

McDean said:


> MJJEAN- if there is money earned during the marriage you are probably right ending a marriage could be too costly- but what about those who have money going into a marriage- the listed # of marriages for the forbes 400 reflects an attitude that I can take the financial hit so 'whatever' - not too mention pre-nups were originated by wealthy men wanting to give marriage a go without the potential financial ruin than come with a divorce....so, from a pragmatic standpoint I either don't get married or get you to acknowledge that trusting you for 30yrs is not pragmatic so please sign this pre-nup because what I earned or inherited before we exchange vows has nothing to do with you afterwards.....like George Clooney, well to-do before marriage, marries someone with their own assets and wealth and who still pursues her own work, she could not claim full dependence on his money if they divorce...but I'm sure they had a pre-nup.....again only taking the pragmatic/financial view of 'why get married'...
> 
> It is interesting however because historically marriage was often for pragmatic/financial purposes only- dowries, title, etc....then love becomes a greater part of it, then both become important but due to the divorce rate it almost seems like one could argue we will end back in the original pragmatic bucket....only maybe this time, you marry for money and procreation but both husband and wife have flings on the side lol...


For the mega wealthy, whatever. I was speaking more about the upper middle class multi-millionaires to the 6 figure earners. A much larger sample population. And, yes, it does seem like those people are reverting from romanticism back to pragmatism.

Statistically, those people are also overwhelmingly monogamous. And that's likely more pragmatic than romantic. Having a partner jeopardizes the financial and social status quo because the other spouse may discover it and leave. Allowing your spouse to have outside partners jeopardizes the social and financial status quo by risking emotional attachment and/or illegitimate children. So, non-monogamy cannot be tolerated by most couples. Obviously, there are some who successfully have open marriages. Those are the few though.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

woundedwarrior said:


> I'm saying NO. Marriage is a one time commitment. There is an old saying that says "once you give your entire heart to someone, you never get it back, so you have nothing left to give to someone else". I believe this. People rush into marriages, knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can divorce and just keep trying. Imagine if the state only allotted one marriage license per individual, maybe people would be more choosy in their mates, knowing that is their only shot at it.
> 
> I'm sure most everyone will disagree with me, but I've always taken marriage seriously and not just another disposable relationship. It's no longer "for better or for worse", it's now until I don't feel like it anymore or I'm not 100% happy with you.
> 
> I personally can't name anyone that has had multiple marriages and lasted more than 10 years. All of the 30, 40, 50th anniversaries are all first marriages. People tend to trade up every decade or less.


You can name me. 

I was married for 10 years to my first wife when I divorced her because of her mental cruelty.

I have now been married 18 years to my second wife, with no expectation of that marriage ending other than by death.


----------



## EnigmaGirl (Feb 7, 2015)

> The fact remains that marriage is a good deal only for women. They get taken care of for life by the man they marry whether they stay with him or not. If the marriage ends, it's of little consequence to them, they get your money no matter what. In this situation, there's really no reason for a woman to take her marriage seriously nor to be bound to it. Men really get nothing at all other than being bound by law to having to take care of someone for life, irregardless of the situation. It was a bad deal the first time I did it and I'm certainly not doing it again if I ever find a way to get out of the marriage I have now.


I'm female and this certainly doesn't apply to me. I got divorced and didn't request any funds beyond the fair split of our mutually acquired assets because I am educated, have a great career and can easily support myself and my children.

If you don't want to deal with someone leeching off of you for life...don't marry someone who is too lazy to earn a living. Pretty simple. 

I have zero respect for financially dependent women who have no means to support themselves or their children and I have equally little sympathy for men who tolerate these types of women and then whine about having to support them when they try to get rid of them.

My advice to men...don't marry an uneducated woman with no career background...and never stay married to a woman who isn't financially independent unless you're ok with them sponging off you after a divorce. 

But do not make generalized statements about ALL women. Many of us have the dignity and self-respect to never have to financially depend on any man and love our children enough to make sure we can take care of them in any circumstance. All of the women in my social circle are educated women who don't need to use any man for money during or after marriage. 




> I'm saying NO. Marriage is a one time commitment. There is an old saying that says "once you give your entire heart to someone, you never get it back, so you have nothing left to give to someone else". I believe this. People rush into marriages, knowing that if it doesn't work out, they can divorce and just keep trying. Imagine if the state only allotted one marriage license per individual, maybe people would be more choosy in their mates, knowing that is their only shot at it.


I never gave my entire heart to my first husband. I married for practical reasons. I can't ever say that I loved him but I think the relationship was successful. We lasted 21 years, we were functional, we had two lovely children...it simply ended because sometimes relationships end. People needs and expectations change...its perfectly normal. No one that gets married at 20 can anticipate their life at 40...and sometimes people grow apart.

In fact, I would argue that happy marriages in general...1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc are very, very rare. And people who want to keep trying to find happiness and companionship have every right to try as many times as they see fit to live the dream. I do agree with the OP that people should use good judgement in entering into a subsequent marriage though.

I'm on my second marriage and its amazing. I literally met the most perfect guy in the world and the first man I've ever loved. I think everyone should have the chance to achieve the dream of a great relationship...no matter how many false tries they have.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

WandaJ said:


> They do still take it seriously. People in the past were STUCK in their marriages if they did not work out. And love and support weren't goal of marriage. Just because people stayed married and lonely for lifetime does not mean they were better spouses.


Not necessarily, I think people's view on marriage these days is that is an extended date and not really a commitment. Some on those I know who have gotten married just were not ready and weren't that commited but did it anyway. They'll end up divorced in a couple years.


----------



## WandaJ (Aug 5, 2014)

jb02157 said:


> Not necessarily, I think people's view on marriage these days is that is an extended date and not really a commitment. Some on those I know who have gotten married just were not ready and weren't that commited but did it anyway. They'll end up divorced in a couple years.



there were always people not ready to committ. They just did not have a choice, but stay. Divorce was not an option.


----------



## McDean (Jun 13, 2015)

Maybe marriage, like sex, finance, rearing children just requires a similar compatibility and without it the end is near.....for some people it does seem to be of little consequence to get divorced and for others not so much just like some couple have sex every day and others every month and so on, maybe the trick to anything long lasting is simply finding someone who feels as you do and if you don't move on...


----------

