# Attitudes on Divorce



## ladymisato

In another thread I upset a lot of people when I expressed my negative view of divorce (which, I'll admit, is pretty extreme). I'll state that bias upfront here.

I spent some time reading the threads in "Talk About Divorce and Separation". The heartache there is tremendous. And, per the title, there is a lot of talk about divorce. 

In so many cases, the poster is dealing with a spouse who either does not see the problems in the marriage or blames the poster for all the problems. I've heard enough complaints from others in the real world to believe that this is probably accurate most of the time though I'm sure we would hear something different from the spouse, perhaps even the opposite complaint.

Although I did see many fine suggestions on particular medical or psychological problems (suggesting to see a counselor about some possible malady) the conversation seemed always to turn quickly to the mechanics of divorce.

One comment I frequently saw in different variations was: "I can't fix this marriage alone." From there it is a very short hop to "I need to get a out of this marriage".

Having seen how divorces trade one set of problems for another, especially when kids are involved, I am wondering whether those offering advice are too quick to entertain that option.

I did see some examples where suggestions were offered for unilateral actions but they were very exceptional and usually related to some suspected condition in the other spouse. (Cure the condition and save the marriage.)

Am I exaggerating the hesitance to advise those in difficult marriages to act unilaterally instead of seeking divorce?

(I'm not quite sure how to regard separation. It can be a useful unilateral action to make the spouse realize how serious the problem is but more often it seems like a step towards divorce.)

I see my own marriage in many of those threads. Medical and psychological issues aside, marriage is most difficult when life presents challenges that put pressure on two people who are already not getting along very well. Finance is the most common such example. It is very hard for people to learn to get along with one another while dealing with all the problems of life and it's very tempting to believe that the spouse is adding to the problems instead of helping.

I look forward to your thoughts.


----------



## Revamped

Are you divorced?

You said marriage(s)...


----------



## ladymisato

Revamped said:


> Are you divorced?
> 
> You said marriage(s)...


Typo. Thanks for catching that. I am not divorced, one marriage.


----------



## Married but Happy

Have you had serious marital problems and solved them? Have those problems included any that usually lead to divorce?

Having divorced my first wife after years of trying to resolve our issues, I would say that I advocate divorce when problems are apparently insoluble or the couple is truly incompatible. In my case, the decision to divorce was the second best decision in my life so far, and has vastly improved my life and also resulted in improving my ex's life and my son's life. (My best decision was marrying my second wife. So despite what I say below, I am not against marriage - I just don't think it's necessary and not always worth preserving.)

I strongly believe in the necessity of divorce and its effectiveness. I think marriages are worth significant effort to save in many cases, but do not see marriage as so important that divorce isn't often a better choice. Marriage is a social mechanism intended to accomplish certain goals, but isn't necessary or sufficient to do so - the same things can be achieved without marriage. Divorce is also a tool, and a good one.


----------



## Lyris

I have no problem with divorce. I don't have any intention of getting one, but I'm not so arrogant as to think nothing will ever change my mind.

I'm happier married to my husband than I would be not married to him. If that changes for either of us and can't be changed back, we'll get divorced.

I don't believe in marriage for it's own sake. 80% of the marriages I've read about on TAM should have been left outside to die at birth.


----------



## Dollystanford

I completely approve of divorce. If divorce wasn't available I would still be stuck in a stultifying marriage with a fully grown adult male baby sucking the life and money out of me for the rest of my days

Some people might think that the sanctity of marriage is more important than the husband and/or wife's happiness. I think that's balls


----------



## Almostrecovered

My wife abused and killed our children and then ate them

fortunately we reconciled


----------



## Personal

Almostrecovered said:


> My wife abused and killed our children and then ate them
> 
> fortunately we reconciled


:toast:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I am NOT against divorce ..... I am one of those people who would seek my own happiness over being miserable in any type of marriage where my spouse was obstinate and didn't meet me half way with my emotional and physical needs.. Attitude and willingness is everything to me.. take that away...I'd give it a little time, but my patience would be running out and ...it'd be over...

I know ME... and I need certain things to avoid growing resentful feeling "I need to get out of this situation" dreaming of the grass being greener elsewhere.. I can understand how some fall into affairs -living with that turmoil at home..

I also *would not* be a JOY to live with in those circumstances... I'd cause fights to get us back on track...I'm not one to stuff my feelings...If I want *to give* in a certain area and crave a man LIKE THAT...no way I'd stay in a marriage with one who was irritated with what brought me joy & happiness.. 

I tend to focus TREMENDOUSLY on before people marry.. that they are HONEST, authentic *and compatible*..in their dreams, goals, beliefs, sexual chemistry, understanding each others love languages, ideas on spending money, if they want kids, what sort of lifestyle they envisioned (Traditional/ more modern)...etc etc etc.. 

So often people say "but we change!" ....do we really?? Or we just never thought much about what our future looked like.. dug deep into what makes us tick and what we could not put up with (our deal breakers)...

My Father & Mother married at 18.. He was in lust, she was naive & just went along with what he wanted...I am not sure I have ever seen 2 people so vastly different...I remember the fights as a little girl.... wouldn't take long for that train to come off the tracks...both wanted a divorce..

He went on to marry her best friend... basically his soul mate... (37 yrs going strong)...even though I was a casualty of that situation... I am thankful for my Step Mother today, because she is such a blessing to my Father.. 

Sometimes it is for the BEST ... Just be very very very careful going in.. the ride will be so much smoother if the compatibility is there on many levels.. the more the better..


----------



## Davelli0331

I will actually agree wholeheartedly that for a forum called "Talk About Marriage" and that is presumably about helping with marital problems, it seems as if many of the posters here have a fairly negative view of marriage and will often begin advocating for divorce pretty quickly.

Part of that is the nature of a forum like this, where we (usually) only hear one side of the story, and even if the OP tries to paint a full and complete picture, it can be difficult for the OP to be completely objective about how they've contributed to marital issues.

Another part of that is that we have an eclectic mix of walking wounded and ax-grinders, and that can greatly skew the responses.

However, I can say LadyMisato that if your constant references to one spouse taking unilateral actions to save a marriage are lead-ins for you to continue pushing what you were in your other thread, then this thread will end up much like that one did.


----------



## Jellybeans

ladymisato said:


> In so many cases, the poster is dealing with a spouse who either does not see the problems in the marriage or blames the poster for all the problems.
> 
> One comment I frequently saw in different variations was: *"I can't fix this marriage alone."* From there it is a very short hop to "I need to get a out of this marriage".


That's because ONE person alone cannot fix problems in a marriage. It is a two-way street, and takes a joint effort.

In cases where one spouse repeatedly and habitually tells their spouse there is a PROBLEM and the other spouses ignores them, takes it for granted, refuses counseling and/or to change the problematic dynamic, why on earth would anyone advocate the other keep trying to make it work, to the detriment of their mental/emotional happiness? 

In cases of abuse and infidelity, are you still against divorce?

Another thing is: most divorces are NOT mutual. I think a lot of people forget that. It only takes ONE person to opt out and voila, done. 

A one-sided marriage isn't much of a marriage.

Don't they say that half of marriages end in divorce now? It's not exactly a new concept, this divorce thing. It has been around since the beginning and will stay. Like adultery. Like marriage. Like people having children.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Put it this way, if there was no option of divorce I wouldn't have ever got married. Not because I am thinking of divorce or not committed to my marriage but because sometimes staying married just for the sake of the marriage hurts everyone involved (including children).


----------



## lifeistooshort

I divorced my first hb and am very happily married now, so obviously I don't see a problem with it. Don't really understand why people do; I don't think one should bail at the first speed bump but life really is too short to be miserable. And the people that take it off the table make a big mistake, your spouse should always knows they aren't guaranteed to keep you. Otherwise there's no consequences for bad behavior. My ex was very abusive and when I filed for divorce he looked me in the face and said he thought we were in this "come hell or high water". Translation: I didn't think it mattered how I treated you because I didn't think you were going anywhere. Interesting viewpoint from a guy whose first wife divorced him too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

I can think of a lot of reasons for getting divorced. I am not as committed as you are, Ladym. I would divorce a child molester. No second thought. I guess we all have our limits.

We really do not know your motives. I think if we could get a better sense of those, you might not get some of the responses you are getting. Though, as FW noted, they do not seem to bother you. And if you and your husband have lived this way for 20 years, and you are both truly happy, I am sure the scared half out of their wits responses from strangers do not bother you.

I think FW tried to explain yesterday, however vaguely, that what you do to your husband, at least at described in your blog, is something he wants, that it may be a sexual thrill for him. I think most of us did not understand that. I wish it had been explained more clearly, if that is the case. Otherwise we can become very judgmental, very quickly. And we did.

And in fairness to you, you did say, several times, that he told you how to do the things you did to him. I think it is just hard for most of us to believe a man would actually want that. And some of us could not do it, even if he did. 

I can tell you I do not have it in me to be a domme. Again, we all have our own limits. And that is surely part of the reason I am not with a submissive man, nor even a switch. I am instinctively not attracted to that kind of man, nor he to me.

At any rate, I am sorry I joined in on the pile on yesterday. I certainly believe in free speech and free expression, even when I do not agree with what is being expressed. 

Lastly, to reiterate, to me, D/s is all about love. But the way _I_ define loving may not be someone else's definition of loving. To each his own.


----------



## Satya

I am pretty certain that if I hadn't divorced my ex that I'd be in a mental hospital right now.


----------



## Jellybeans

:rofl: Satya


----------



## samyeagar

I'm making the popcorn as we speak 

I can just picture dancing munchkins bouncing around throwing torn up marriage licenses in the air going "Weee"


----------



## Jellybeans

I got you.


----------



## Personal

samyeagar said:


> I'm making the popcorn as we speak


I looked for an emoticon that shows popcorn eating here, unfortunately I couldn't find one.

P.S. Thanks Jellybeans!


----------



## SCDP Joan

Well, I suppose if people didn't divorce their husbands after child molestation and/or killing their children, as you advocate in your other thread it would likely reduce that divorce rate. 

After all, I'm sure they could have worked harder to save things. That sounds like a reasonable solution. 

So, let's see. If I had stayed in my first marriage, there would have been one less divorce that year but one more homicide. 

Seems I'm not the bigger person and couldn't forgive that he raped me and then tried to kill me. Shame on me.


----------



## samyeagar

Just a disclaimer right now...I will likely be openly mocking, argumentative and just generally obnoxious in any replies I may make. Carry on.


----------



## Wolf1974

I don't totally disagree with you

If you were to eliminate the extremes that are present in some marriages : drugs and alcohol abuse, physical and emotional abuse, purposeful lack of sex and affection and then affairs then I would say divorce should always be the last resort. As it is now people change marriages like they are changing sheets on the bed.

I would be in favor of a waiting period before marriage and before divorce.....mandatory counceling on both fronts. I personally think in this country, the USA, people get married often way to quickly and divorce just the same.

This won't happen of course as people don't look at marriages the same way anymore, and god forbid if you have to work at something in today's society.


----------



## Rowan

My ex-husband basically had zero interest in being in a monogamous marriage where he treated his wife at least as well as a random stranger. He was happy with our marriage, I was not, he wasn't willing to do anything to work on it even though I was. Our views of what a marriage should be were just _fundamentally_ incompatible. Remaining married would have required that I completely surrender the remaining small shreds of my self-respect, dignity, and emotional, mental and physical health. That price was too high, and I'd already been paying it for far too long. 

I'm not "pro divorce", but I also don't believe in marriage at all costs. I believe that many marriages could be saved if both parties were willing to really work on them. But I don't believe in remaining in a marriage that makes you suffer with a spouse that refuses to work on it with you. There are worse things than divorce. Some marriages simply can't and shouldn't continue.


----------



## samyeagar

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't totally disagree with you
> 
> If you were to eliminate the extremes that are present in some marriages : drugs and alcohol abuse, physical and emotional abuse, purposeful lack of sex and affection and then affairs then I would say divorce should always be the last resort. As it is now people change marriages like they are changing sheets on the bed.
> 
> *I would be in favor of a waiting period before marriage and before divorce*.....mandatory counceling on both fronts. I personally think in this country, the USA, people get married often way to quickly and divorce just the same.
> 
> This won't happen of course as people don't look at marriages the same way anymore, and god forbid if you have to work at something in today's society.


In most jurisdictions, there is a waiting period on the divorce. In mine, there is a minimum of six months separation required between filing and final dissolution, and that six months is only you you are able to get a waiver for the standard two year wait.

That said, I would not get too invested in this thread because the OP is pushing a very specific and destructive agenda that while it worked for her, it would not work for most people, or hardly any at all. She is a saleswoman with the only product to cure the problems she creates.


----------



## Davelli0331

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't totally disagree with you
> 
> If you were to eliminate the extremes that are present in some marriages : drugs and alcohol abuse, physical and emotional abuse,* purposeful lack of sex and affection* and then affairs then I would say divorce should always be the last resort. As it is now people change marriages like they are changing sheets on the bed.
> 
> I would be in favor of a waiting period before marriage and before divorce.....mandatory counceling on both fronts. I personally think in this country, the USA, people get married often way to quickly and divorce just the same.
> 
> This won't happen of course as people don't look at marriages the same way anymore, and god forbid if you have to work at something in today's society.


I would highly suggest you research OP's stances on the bolded text, as that is a large part of what she pushes.

Seriously, as samyeager said, she's pushing a very specific agenda, and before getting to invested in this conversation, you might want to read her other thread so that you know exactly what kind of agenda you're up against.


----------



## Dollystanford

SCDP Joan said:


> So, let's see. If I had stayed in my first marriage, there would have been one less divorce that year but one more homicide.
> 
> Seems I'm not the bigger person and couldn't forgive that he raped me and then tried to kill me. Shame on me.


Tell me, did you try active listening?


----------



## Satya

If I were to take a rough stab at a realistic (yet emotional) view of things, had I tried to work on my marriage rather than divorce:

- I'd have to have become a lesbian, since my ex changed gender (reason for D). 
- I'd have to get used to sex without a P. Moreover, I'd have to get used to having Sex with a person who once had a P, now does not! 
- I'd have to seriously consider adopting a child or going surrogate route with my now "wife" since we couldn't now conceive as per usual. I can imagine the fun in explaining how stable that whole environment would be for raising a child. 
- I'd have to be emotional support to someone who lied to me for years, to help her adjust to the new lifestyle and her new found narcissism. Basically, I rugs sweep the lies, she gets a new life.
- I'd have to give my new wife lessons on makeup, plucking brows, and other forms of hair removal 
- I'd have to listen to her voice change, watch her appearance change. 
- I'd have to adjust and cope with the social discomfort at family functions, parties, etc. 
- I'd have to continue to be a pillar of strength to a liar who convinced me to wait to have children, was selfish on numerous occasions, never supported me in life events or tragedies, was the "ghost spouse" who never accompanied me to anything ever, so I was always alone. 

So yeah, after I'd exhausted myself for my now wife and had an inevitable breakdown, the mental hospital would have had a field day with me. So, what I said was not a joke or sarcasm in the slightest, although I can see why it would have been perceived as such!


----------



## Jellybeans

SCDP Joan said:


> If I had stayed in my first marriage, there would have been one less divorce that year but one more homicide.


:rofl: I know it wasn't meant to be funny but it DID make me laugh. 



Davelli0331 said:


> I would highly suggest you research OP's stances on the bolded text, as that is a large part of what she pushes.
> 
> Seriously, as samyeager said, she's pushing a very specific agenda, and before getting to invested in this conversation, you might want to read her other thread so that you know exactly what kind of agenda you're up against.


Cliff's notes?


----------



## Almostrecovered

Jellybeans said:


> Cliff's notes?


----------



## Davelli0331

Jellybeans said:


> :rofl: I know it wasn't meant to be funny but it DID make me laugh.
> 
> Cliff's notes?


I won't directly link OP's blog, as I think exposure to that and her other literature are a large part of what she's actually trying to get here, but I'll be brief as possible:

OP is in a non-consensual dom/sub relationship with her husband, with her being the dom. Her various literature encourages women to (in her own words, and among other things) to use her husband's sexual desire for her to manipulate him for her own personal gain (again, her exact words). Sex is to be used as a tool for manipulation. Again, she's quite clear on this. She claims that her husband "helped" her build this dynamic, but she openly admitted that he was not nor is presently a fully aware participant in this dynamic. She claims that this framework is "OK" because it leads to "happier" husbands. She further claims that coming up with this framework of manipulation saved her marriage, and that she's helped many other women do the same, and that this is the future of marriage.

Basically, take all that idiotic MMSL but make it the woman doing all the manipulating.


----------



## Jellybeans

Oh wait. Is this one of those things were someone comes in as a newbie to TAM and just joined two days ago and tries to start all these controversial threads and possibly shell out a website/book they are selling? 

I hate when those get over on me!

I went to that thread and couldn't get past the denying of a husband's orgasm.


----------



## Almostrecovered

and add that she doesn't think child molestation, physical abuse and other such extremes are valid reasons to divorce


----------



## Davelli0331

Jellybeans said:


> Oh wait. Is this one of those things were someone comes in as a newbie to TAM and just joined two days ago and tries to start all these controversial threads and possibly shell out a website/book they are selling?
> 
> I hate when those get over on me!
> 
> I went to that thread and couldn't get past the denying of a husband's orgasm.


Orgasm denial is possibly the least offensive thing. Go find some of the posts where people quoted her blog.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

TiggyBlue said:


> Put it this way, if there was no option of divorce I wouldn't have ever got married. Not because I am thinking of divorce or not committed to my marriage but because sometimes staying married just for the sake of the marriage hurts everyone involved (including children).


My wife has made it clear that while she is against divorce, she has no problem with hiding a body.

For some reason, that makes me nervous.


----------



## Jellybeans

Davelli0331 said:


> OP is in a non-consensual dom/sub relationship with her husband, with her being the dom. Her various literature encourages women to (in her own words, and among other things) to use her husband's sexual desire for her to manipulate him for her own personal gain (again, her exact words). Sex is to be used as a tool for manipulation. Again, she's quite clear on this. She claims that her husband "helped" her build this dynamic, but she openly admitted that he was not nor is presently a fully aware participant in this dynamic.


Thanks for the Cliff's notes. It seems we are seeing a theme on TAM lately...

And I have to say: that husband, IF it's real, is a schlup.

I would not at all be attracted to a man who was into being treated so horribly and denied orgasms. 

YUCK. 

Would totally kill my lady libido.


----------



## Rowan

TAG, there's that old saying: I good friend will help you move. A _great_ friend will help you move....a body. 

I have some great friends.


----------



## Jellybeans

Davelli0331 said:


> Orgasm denial is possibly the least offensive thing. Go find some of the posts where people quoted her blog.


I also read the part about still not divorcing if the husband murdered the child.

Cause that's like, totally healthy and normal, ya'll! 

I don't care to give her any bumps on her literature so I won't click on those pages. Can only imagine.


----------



## Rowan

Jellybeans said:


> Thanks for the Cliff's notes. It seems we are seeing a theme on TAM lately...
> 
> And I have to say: that husband, IF it's real, is a schlup.
> 
> I would not a tall be attracted to a man who was into being treated so horribly and denied orgasms.
> 
> YUCK.
> 
> Would totally kill my lady libido.


Actually, the most appalling part of the whole thing was when she said that most men were happy with this arrangement eventually, even the ones who didn't consent to it in the first place. 

I'm all for couples getting their kink on to whatever degree does it for them. But nothing about non-consent coupled with a sado-sexual domination theme is remotely in the realm of okay with me. That's just a whole 'nother level of dark right there.


----------



## Personal

Then there is the idea that, a wife should paddle their husband’s buttocks in order to assuage their anger.


----------



## samyeagar

Of course, according to the OP, a lot of marriages are ALREADY like this, but it is societally taboo to admit it. Even the OP won't admit it to her friends and family...says she just goes along with the whole egalitarian presentation because of social norms.

I think more likely, she knows exactly how destructive and abusive it is and doesn't want others to know her dirty laundry, and she is likely terrified that her husband may actually catch on if people start talking, and realize just how twisted this is, and break free of it, and her crystal palace will crumble down around her.


----------



## Jellybeans

Rowan said:


> Actually, the most appalling part of the whole thing was when she said that most men were happy with this arrangement eventually, even the ones who didn't consent to it in the first place.
> 
> I'm all for couples getting their kink on to whatever degree does it for them. But nothing about non-consent coupled with a sado-sexual domination theme is remotely in the realm of okay with me. That's just a whole 'nother level of dark right there.


Well someone who thinks divorce isn't necessary after child molestation, physical abuse and murder wouldn't be far off from thinking that non-consent is totally ok and fair. At all.

All of those things involve non-consent.


----------



## chillymorn

JMHO.

by the time most people come here looking for help with their marrige they have been trying to work on their marriage a long time with no or very little help from their spouce. many time they are in really awful situations where they are or have been in such an unbalanced relationship for so long they can't see the forest through the trees.The people(regulars) on this site who have lived through it and have good life experiance to share can see it comming and often give the divorce card as an option. I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Davelli0331 said:


> Orgasm denial is possibly the least offensive thing. Go find some of the posts where people quoted her blog.


I missed this thread.. ..seen the ending with the Mod saying "What a ride"! - then LOCKED IT. I noticed one poster said she called her husband a "loser" (post #612) - from the blog ??

Leafing through some of the comments.. I see post #620 says ...


> What I would add is this. I found that there were many other wives unhappy in their marriage who were able to make a similar change. I recognize that there are certainly many people who are deeply offended by what I am proposing but there are also those who might be willing to try.
> 
> *Where I really push hard is when I see a marriage on the road to divorce.* *I really angers me to see people choosing divorce over working on their marriage creatively. That, more than anything else, is my motivation*.


----------



## Personal

Regarding attitudes to divorce, I consider the dissolution of marriage an appropriate measure for significant and irreconcilable problems.


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> I missed this thread.. ..seen the ending with the Mod saying "What a ride"! - then LOCKED IT. I noticed one poster said she called her husband a "loser"- from the blog ??
> 
> Leafing through some of the comments.. I see post #620 says ...


While what you quoted here seems pretty innocuous, you really have to read the thread to get the actual picture...


----------



## SCDP Joan

Dollystanford said:


> Tell me, did you try active listening?


Darn! I'm certain that would have worked!


----------



## Davelli0331

SimplyAmorous said:


> I missed this thread.. ..seen the ending with the Mod saying "What a ride"! - then LOCKED IT. I noticed one poster said she called her husband a "loser" (post #612) - from the blog ??
> 
> Leafing through some of the comments.. I see post #620 says ...


Listen to samyeager, go read as much of that thread as you can handle. Like anyone trying to lure people into their abusive lifestyle, she'll lead with fairly benign and even well-meaning platitudes and only once you start digging into the layers of her belief system do you start to really see just how fringe and nuthouse it is.

Again, I'm not going to quote or link her blog here bc I think that's what she wants, but you can go back to her other thread and see plenty.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Thanks for the Cliff's notes, y'all. Saved me from trying to reason with the unreasonable. I'm all for saving a marriage when at all possible, although most of the time people come here after the problem has gone so far it's hard to bring it back from the brink.

No way would I have stayed with a physically, emotionally and mentally abusive person who likely would have caused even more emotional damage to our daughter had I stayed OR he would be dead. 

Because the day he brought his gun in from the garage and put it on the kitchen counter as a threat during an argument (a berating of me for having an opinion) was the day that I nearly picked it up and pulled the trigger. Had I not been holding my toddler at the time and knew I would never be able to erase those things from her mind, he would be dead right now. Instead the phone rang and he took the call (business) and I hid the gun.

Living like that is NOT okay. If the OP can't see that, there's no sense entertaining any of her responses.


----------



## Jellybeans

Hehe. I love it when you get sassy, Enjo!


----------



## Hope1964

The thing I find hard to fathom is how the OP is even still being allowed to post here. Her blog advertises abuse, plain and simple, and she is obviously here simply to direct traffic to her website and advertise her book, yet she's not been banned.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> I will actually agree wholeheartedly that for a forum called "Talk About Marriage" and that is presumably about helping with marital problems, it seems as if many of the posters here have a fairly negative view of marriage and will often begin advocating for divorce pretty quickly.





Wolf1974 said:


> I don't totally disagree with you
> 
> If you were to eliminate the extremes that are present in some marriages : drugs and alcohol abuse, physical and emotional abuse, purposeful lack of sex and affection and then affairs then I would say divorce should always be the last resort. As it is now people change marriages like they are changing sheets on the bed.


From reading through the responses in this thread, it seems that the vast preponderance are pretty favorable toward divorce. I quote the above two posts because they are the only ones that seem to come even close to my sentiment.

Several described how they were much happier now and others described the horrors they left behind.

What I didn't hear was anyone posting that they were close to divorce but worked it out and were glad they did. Nor did I see any posts from anyone who got a divorce and regretted it. I know plenty of both in the real world in those categories (and I would include myself in the first).

I do have to correct something I said in the OP. It's clearly not that people are against one spouse taking unilateral action because divorce is almost always that.

Do I have a correct sense of the representation of posters in TAM or am I being misled by those who chose to answer here?


----------



## GTdad

ladymisato said:


> From reading through the responses in this thread, it seems that the vast preponderance are pretty favorable toward divorce. I quote the above two posts because they are the only ones that seem to come even close to my sentiment.
> 
> Several described how they were much happier now and others described the horrors they left behind.
> 
> What I didn't hear was anyone posting that they were close to divorce but worked it out and were glad they did. Nor did I see any posts from anyone who got a divorce and regretted it. I know plenty of both in the real world in those categories (and I would include myself in the first).
> 
> I do have to correct something I said in the OP. It's clearly not that people are against one spouse taking unilateral action because divorce is almost always that.
> 
> Do I have a correct sense of the representation of posters in TAM or am I being misled by those who chose to answer here?


I've been married for over 30 years to my first and almost certainly only wife. You may have a point about the rush to advocate divorce, at least to an extent, but I've learned a lot here about how to improve the relationship. Mostly, that involved changing how I saw and reacted to things, so I suppose my actions were unilateral

But what you advocate is bit more rabid than any pro-divorce advice you may see here. I doubt that a component in my marriage's recovery would be allowing my wife to dictate my use of my time and our money. That was one of our problems, in fact.


----------



## Davelli0331

1) Actually, quite a few people in this thread (whom I won't name, but who include myself) worked through extreme marital problems to save their marriages. For my marriage, it was affairs and deceit.

2) You're probably not going to a lot of discourse because by this point we're mostly familiar with your platform and really don't want to further contribute to it nor do we want to lend anymore exposure to it.


----------



## Dollystanford

Holy 'way to miss the point' Batman!


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon all
since marriages differ a lot, I think the appropriateness of divorce as a fix for problems varies a lot.

A couple that has been together for a long time, children, one working one stay-at-home: I'd try to avoid divorce. They have build their lives together and one or both will be badly hurt. 

At the other extreme there is a couple that is married, but each is able to be completely self sufficient. In that case a divorce might make both happier. If they have drifted apart over time, I see no reason they shouldn't each try to find happiness somewhere else.


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> From reading through the responses in this thread, it seems that the vast preponderance are pretty favorable toward divorce. I quote the above two posts because they are the only ones that seem to come even close to my sentiment.
> 
> Several described how they were much happier now and others described the horrors they left behind.
> 
> What I didn't hear was anyone posting that they were close to divorce but worked it out and were glad they did. Nor did I see any posts from anyone who got a divorce and regretted it. I know plenty of both in the real world in those categories (and I would include myself in the first).
> 
> I do have to correct something I said in the OP. It's clearly not that people are against one spouse taking unilateral action because divorce is almost always that.
> 
> Do I have a correct sense of the representation of posters in TAM or am I being misled by those who chose to answer here?


I think you are nothing more than a snake oil saleswoman who is agenda driven. I do not believe that you have any vested interest in helping people.

I have been around here for a while, came here when I began going through my own separation and divorce. I think that most people here are actually pro marriage, pro saving marriage, but more than that, we are pro people, pro respect. You profess a mantra that is counter to that in many ways, which is why you have been met with such strong resistance. We are an intelligent bunch of people with extensive and varied life experiences collectively and can see right through you. Please peddle your wares elsewhere.


----------



## committed4ever

I have not read this whole thread, so this may have already been noted, but I do think divorce is recommended way to often here on TAM. Especially in cases where posters have indicated they don't want to divorce right from the start.


----------



## samyeagar

committed4ever said:


> I have not read this whole thread, so this may have already been noted, but I do think divorce is recommended way to often here on TAM. Especially in cases where posters have indicated they don't want to divorce right from the start.


Most people don't want to divorce right from the start, and for various reasons. 

Yes, divorce is recommend rather quickly in many cases, but the reason is simple in that many of the cases are common...we've seen the same thing over and over again. The same things tried and failed, the same journey taken by many, arriving at the same destination. Yes, one can claim that each case is unique, and it certainly is, but everyone want to feel, NEEDS to feel as if they will be the exception, and some are, but most are not.


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> From reading through the responses in this thread, it seems that the vast preponderance are pretty favorable toward divorce. I quote the above two posts because they are the only ones that seem to come even close to my sentiment.
> 
> Several described how they were much happier now and others described the horrors they left behind.
> 
> What I didn't hear was anyone posting that they were close to divorce but worked it out and were glad they did. Nor did I see any posts from anyone who got a divorce and regretted it. I know plenty of both in the real world in those categories (and I would include myself in the first).
> 
> I do have to correct something I said in the OP. It's clearly not that people are against one spouse taking unilateral action because divorce is almost always that.
> 
> Do I have a correct sense of the representation of posters in TAM or am I being misled by those who chose to answer here?



Is it possible you are confusing "unilateral decisions" with "firm boundaries?" 

If I make a unilateral decision that I will no longer...deny myself the joy of socializing and dancing with friends because my husband doesn't like to dance am I not simply asserting my own boundaries? If I make plans to go out to dance with friends, inform my husband of my plans while ignoring his noises of discontent, isn't that the same as asserting my boundaries that having fun is important to me and I will do it with or without your approval?

I'm trying to understand the difference between a unilateral decision and asserting boundaries. In the end, we can only control ourselves and conduct ourself as we deem best.


----------



## Davelli0331

samyeagar said:


> Most people don't want to divorce right from the start, and for various reasons.
> 
> Yes, divorce is recommend rather quickly in many cases, but the reason is simple in that many of the cases are common...we've seen the same thing over and over again. The same things tried and failed, the same journey taken by many, arriving at the same destination. Yes, one can claim that each case is unique, and it certainly is, but everyone want to feel, NEEDS to feel as if they will be the exception, and some are, but most are not.


I agree with this to some degree but with the two caveats:

1) Overexposure to the situations here on TAM I think leads some people to being fairly jaded, and thus we tend to offer canned responses to the same major keywords in an OP without always carefully considering the OP's actual situation. TAM can be hideously reactionary at times, and I think that causes a loss of nuance and context in a lot of cases.

2) Always, always, always remember here that you're only ever getting one side of the story, and people are typically pretty bad at outlining what _they've_ done to help ruin their marriages while being fairly articulate at what the other spouse did.


----------



## committed4ever

samyeagar said:


> Most people don't want to divorce right from the start, and for various reasons.
> 
> Yes, divorce is recommend rather quickly in many cases, but the reason is simple in that many of the cases are common...we've seen the same thing over and over again. The same things tried and failed, the same journey taken by many, arriving at the same destination. Yes, one can claim that each case is unique, and it certainly is, but everyone want to feel, NEEDS to feel as if they will be the exception, and some are, but most are not.


I'm pretty sure I disagree with this, because I am excluding cases of infidelity and physical/sexual abuse. I have no problem with anyone quickly recommending that in either of those cases.

For all others, I don't think you can say that any one case fits the mold of another becuase you don't get to hear from both partners. For example someone could be in a sexless marriage but for all we know it could be because the HD person has absolutely no clue how to please their mate, or no sexual skill at all. The LD mate may just think the sex they are getting is as good as it gets so, they conclude that sex sucks so they dont want it.


----------



## ladymisato

Anon Pink said:


> Is it possible you are confusing "unilateral decisions" with "firm boundaries?"
> 
> If I make a unilateral decision that I will no longer...deny myself the joy of socializing and dancing with friends because my husband doesn't like to dance am I not simply asserting my own boundaries? If I make plans to go out to dance with friends, inform my husband of my plans while ignoring his noises of discontent, isn't that the same as asserting my boundaries that having fun is important to me and I will do it with or without your approval?
> 
> I'm trying to understand the difference between a unilateral decision and asserting boundaries. In the end, we can only control ourselves and conduct ourself as we deem best.


I'm thinking of unilateral decisions as any choice that one spouse makes without consulting the other. That would include, of course, setting boundaries. It sounds like you are similarly treating setting boundaries as a form of unilateral decision.

The difference would be that there are kinds of unilateral decisions that are not simply setting boundaries. Divorce is one example. I would not call going to the dance a boundary setting but it is a unilateral decision. (Perhaps in all unilateral decisions you can invent some boundary that is being set?)

All boundary setting is unilateral decision but not all unilateral decisions are boundary setting.


----------



## Eagle3

_If I make a unilateral decision that I will no longer...deny myself the joy of socializing and dancing with friends because my husband doesn't like to dance am I not simply asserting my own boundaries? If I make plans to go out to dance with friends, inform my husband of my plans while ignoring his noises of discontent, isn't that the same as asserting my boundaries that having fun is important to me and I will do it with or without your approval?_

Oh great AP way to drop this topic in here. See you guys on page 75.


----------



## Anon Pink

Hope1964 said:


> The thing I find hard to fathom is how the OP is even still being allowed to post here. Her blog advertises abuse, plain and simple, and she is obviously here simply to direct traffic to her website and advertise her book, yet she's not been banned.


There are several members who post on TAM with the hopes of redirecting traffic to their websites. It is my opinion that they genuinely thoughtfully participate in each thread.

I don't see why Ladymisato should be banned just because her message is unpalatable.


----------



## samyeagar

committed4ever said:


> I'm pretty sure I disagree with this, because I am excluding cases of infidelity and physical/sexual abuse. I have no problem with anyone quickly recommending that in either of those cases.
> 
> For all others, I don't think you can say that any one case fits the mold of another becuase you don't get to hear from both partners. For example someone could be in a sexless marriage but for all we know it could be because the HD person has absolutely no clue how to please their mate, or no sexual skill at all. The LD mate may just think the sex they are getting is as good as it gets so, they conclude that sex sucks so they dont want it.


And in the example you gave, the general advice given are communication strategies, looking for non sexual emotional causes, physical issues. Those avenues are more often than not explored way before divorce is ever put out there. When discussions start going down the divorce route, it is frequently brought up with the caveat that we are only getting one side, and are assuming the poster is being honest and as objective as possible.


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> I'm thinking of unilateral decisions as any choice that one spouse makes without consulting the other. That would include, of course, setting boundaries. It sounds like you are similarly treating setting boundaries as a form of unilateral decision.
> 
> The difference would be that there are kinds of unilateral decisions that are not simply setting boundaries. Divorce is one example.
> 
> *All boundary setting is unilateral decision but not all unilateral decisions are boundary setting*.


:banghead:

Back to evasiveness I see. 

Please describe *in detail* situations which are unilateral decision making but NOT boundary setting?


----------



## ladymisato

Anon Pink said:


> Please describe *in detail* situations which are unilateral decision making but NOT boundary setting?


I gave one example, divorce, and added another after you posted, going to the dance.


----------



## Almostrecovered

Anon Pink said:


> I don't see why Ladymisato should be banned just because her message is unpalatable.


posters have been banned for coyly suggesting violence as a way to solve an issue

to suggest to manipulate and abuse a spouse without implicit consent is just as worse if not worse


----------



## GTdad

For folks like me, who have hang-ups about the idea of divorce in the first place, whether it be for moral, religious, cultural or any other reason, I think it's very important to reach a point in a troubled marriage to see divorce as an option. Preferably the last option, but an option nonetheless, and to understand that divorce is something that will be survived.

It helps put the marriage in perspective, understanding that you're in fact _not_ trapped, that the universe _won't_ come to a crashing end. It's liberating, in other words. It dispels feelings of hopelessness that we might have otherwise. It helps us approach our problems in a healthier way, I think, to know that option is on the table.

That said, it remains the last option, one that would only be used if I'm satisfied that I and we have done everything we can to make the marriage work but there's no reasonable expectation that things will change for the better. I'm a very long ways from that point.


----------



## Jellybeans

Anon Pink said:


> I don't see why Ladymisato should be banned just because her message is unpalatable.


Using the forum as a marketing tool to garner traffic to your business/what you are selling is against forum rules.


----------



## Davelli0331

GTdad said:


> For folks like me, who have hang-ups about the idea of divorce in the first place, whether it be for moral, religious, cultural or any other reason, I think it's very important to reach a point in a troubled marriage to see divorce as an option. Preferably the last option, but an option nonetheless, and to understand that divorce is something that will be survived.
> 
> It helps put the marriage in perspective, understanding that you're in fact _not_ trapped, that the universe _won't_ come to a crashing end. It's liberating, in other words. It dispels feelings of hopelessness that we might have otherwise. It helps us approach our problems in a healthier way, I think, to know that option is on the table.
> 
> That said, it remains the last option, one that would only be used if I'm satisfied that I and we have done everything we can to make the marriage work but there's no reasonable expectation that things will change for the better. I'm a very long ways from that point.


I agree. Marriage is like many other arrangements in that part of your power lies in your ability to walk away. I'm not saying that a healthy marriage is one under constant threat of divorce, but I do think a healthy component in a marriage is the understanding that if the other person crosses a line from which you cannot return, then that's it. 

Of course, that power can be abused just as any other.


----------



## committed4ever

samyeagar said:


> And in the example you gave, the general advice given are communication strategies, looking for non sexual emotional causes, physical issues. Those avenues are more often than not explored way before divorce is ever put out there. When discussions start going down the divorce route, it is frequently brought up with the caveat that we are only getting one side, and are assuming the poster is being honest and as objective as possible.


Usually what I see is "put up with it or leave. Its not going to change." But I don't read those type threads much anymore so you may have a more accurate picture.

I do see enough threads to still say the divorce solution is recommended far too often for this to be a marriage solution forum. If it were a "should I get a divorce" forum it would be more appropriate.


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> I gave one example, divorce, and added another after you posted, going to the dance.


I see, at least I think I see.

They are both boundaries. Both decisions, going out to dance or divorcing were made by one spouse in response to a lack of sufficient cooperation from the other spouse. Both were prompted by the unmet needs of one spouse after giving the the other spouse an opportunity to alter their stance/comfort level/behavior and both actions (dancing and divorce) were discussed as potential outcomes.

A unilateral decision might be made without prior discussion, attempts at consensus, or opinion gathering. 

Do you advocate unilateral decision making in marriage? I don't think most people could be content with this.


----------



## jld

Almostrecovered said:


> posters have been banned for coyly suggesting violence as a way to solve an issue
> 
> *to suggest to manipulate and abuse a spouse without implicit consent is just as worse if not worse*


Banning a poster can create a martyr. That is what you risk when you try to stop free speech, however good your intentions.

Just shutting people down does not educate people. If you really want to prevent abuse, show it for what it is. Answer people's honest questions about it. Share your concerns.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> I see, at least I think I see.
> 
> They are both boundaries. Both decisions, going out to dance or divorcing were made by one spouse in response to a lack of sufficient cooperation from the other spouse. Both were prompted by the unmet needs of one spouse after giving the the other spouse an opportunity to alter their stance/comfort level/behavior and both actions (dancing and divorce) were discussed as potential outcomes.
> 
> A unilateral decision might be made without prior discussion, attempts at consensus, or opinion gathering.
> 
> *Do you advocate unilateral decision making in marriage? I don't think most people could be content with this*.


HaHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Anon Pink

Jellybeans said:


> Using the forum as a marketing tool to garner traffic to your business/what you are selling is against forum rules.


Well then someone ought to tell that to CynthiaD and the countless MLCSWs who post here.


----------



## Almostrecovered

jld said:


> Banning a poster can create a martyr. *That is what you risk when you try to stop free speech*, however good your intentions.
> 
> Just shutting people down does not educate people. If you really want to prevent abuse, show it for what it is. Answer people's honest questions about it. Share your concerns.


nice try

free speech doesn't apply here, it is a privately owned and operated website, everyone here is a guest and needs to follow the rules of the board which includes prohibiting violent or hateful speech

and you honestly think she would be a martyr? wow


----------



## Hope1964

Anon Pink said:


> There are several members who post on TAM with the hopes of redirecting traffic to their websites. It is my opinion that they genuinely thoughtfully participate in each thread.
> 
> I don't see why Ladymisato should be banned just because her message is unpalatable.


Have you read her other thread and the quotes from her website? 



jld said:


> Banning a poster can create a martyr. That is what you risk when you try to stop free speech, however good your intentions.
> 
> Just shutting people down does not educate people. If you really want to prevent abuse, show it for what it is. Answer people's honest questions about it. Share your concerns.


What does this have to do with anything?? This is a marriage board - to promote healthy marriages. How is anything on her website doing that?

Her other thread got shut down so she started this one ostensibly to talk about divorce then proceeded to turn it to the same topic as her first one.

I am starting to wonder where these people hear about TAM and if they're being pointed here by current members.


----------



## Rowan

Anon Pink said:


> Do you advocate unilateral decision making in marriage? I don't think most people could be content with this.


Well, yes, I think it's clear from her earlier thread and from the writings on her website that this is _exactly_ what she advocates. That the wife make unilateral decisions in the marriage, and that she control her husband's reactions to this through sado-sexual manipulation. For which he will, apparently, eventually be grateful - even if he did not consent to this arrangement. 

Which is, of course, why some posters are a bit concerned with the OP's agenda.


----------



## jld

Almostrecovered said:


> nice try
> 
> free speech doesn't apply here, it is a privately owned and operated website, everyone here is a guest and needs to follow the rules of the board which includes prohibiting violent or hateful speech
> 
> and you honestly think she would be a martyr? wow


To some, yes, she would be. I think to some male subs, she would be. If they did not have enough information about her.

And you are right, this is a private website, and the mods decide what is hate speech. 

I do believe that you will do more to prevent abuse by exposing it, and really showing it for what it is, than just trying to shut someone down. It is more work, but it yields more fruit.


----------



## Davelli0331

Oh lord, if we're gonna start into who should and should not be banned and in what order for what offenses, this thread will go on forever.


----------



## ladymisato

Anon Pink said:


> I see, at least I think I see. They are both boundaries. Both decisions, going out to dance or divorcing were made by one spouse in response to a lack of sufficient cooperation from the other spouse. Both were prompted by the unmet needs of one spouse after giving the the other spouse an opportunity to alter their stance/comfort level/behavior and both actions (dancing and divorce) were discussed as potential outcomes.


I can kinda-sorta look at it that way. Its not how I would naturally see it. To me, boundary setting means saying if you do that, I'm going to do this. It's unilateral but it's more specific. But I can see how you might say every unilateral decision involves some sort of boundary. (The boundary is set and the spouse crossing it leads to the action.)



> A unilateral decision might be made without prior discussion, attempts at consensus, or opinion gathering.


Yes, we could also talk in more detail about how much consultation is involved but I'd say that no matter how much you consult, if you act without agreement, that's a unilateral decision.



> Do you advocate unilateral decision making in marriage? I don't think most people could be content with this.


Well, it does seem as broadly as we are discussing these that marriage involves many. Demanding a divorce is certainly a dramatic unilateral decision.


----------



## Hope1964

committed4ever said:


> If you want to start banning people for what LadyM said (and I read most of her first thread, almost none of this one), then there are some other posters who should be moved ahead of her before she is banned, in my opinion and based on forum rules.


It isn't what she SAID, it's what she's promoting. She's been quite careful to stay within forum guidelines with what she's posting here.


----------



## Hope1964

jld said:


> To some, yes, she would be. I think to some male subs, she would be. If they did not have enough information about her.


By allowing her to continue to post here, that is exactly what's happening. 

You called her a sadist, jld. How can you say she should be allowed to keep spreading this garbage?


----------



## jld

Hope1964 said:


> What does this have to do with anything?? This is a marriage board - to promote healthy marriages. How is anything on her website doing that?
> 
> Her other thread got shut down so she started this one ostensibly to talk about divorce then proceeded to turn it to the same topic as her first one.
> 
> I am starting to wonder where these people hear about TAM and if they're being pointed here by current members.


As far as I know, she just showed up here. Same as most people, I would guess.

Show how her approach is not healthy. Insulting her is not necessarily going to do that. Show logically how it is not healthy. That will reach a wider audience. 

Unhealthiness does indeed need to be exposed. Use reason to do it, not emotion.


----------



## Almostrecovered

jld said:


> I do believe that you will do more to prevent abuse by exposing it, and really showing it for what it is, than just trying to shut someone down. It is more work, but it yields more fruit.



I think the 70 pages or so have exposed it quite enough but it's not my call


----------



## Jellybeans

Anon Pink said:


> Well then someone ought to tell that to CynthiaD and the countless MLCSWs who post here.


I don't know anything about thoat or what MLCWS is.


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> I can kinda-sorta look at it that way. Its not how I would naturally see it. To me, boundary setting means saying if you do that, I'm going to do this. It's unilateral but it's more specific. But I can see how you might say every unilateral decision involves some sort of boundary. (The boundary is set and the spouse crossing it leads to the action.)
> 
> 
> Yes, we could also talk in more detail about how much consultation is involved but I'd say that no matter how much you consult, if you act without agreement, that's a unilateral decision.
> 
> 
> Well, it does seem as broadly as we are discussing these that marriage involves many. Demanding a divorce is certainly a dramatic unilateral decision.


A unilateral decision would be informing your spouse without any prior consultation, that you've taken a job in another city and the family will be moving in a few weeks time.

The component of prior consultation is vital. Making a unilateral decision is not how adult partners treat each other, even in a total power exchange relationship. To be in the habit of making unilateral decisions without prior consultation is manipulation at best and abusive at worst.

But you don't see it that way?


----------



## Jellybeans

Hope1964 said:


> Have you read her other thread and the quotes from her website?
> 
> What does this have to do with anything?? This is a marriage board - to promote healthy marriages. How is anything on her website doing that?
> 
> Her other thread got shut down so she started this one ostensibly to talk about divorce then proceeded to turn it to the same topic as her first one.
> 
> I am starting to wonder where these people hear about TAM and if they're being pointed here by current members.


Word. :iagree:


----------



## jld

Hope1964 said:


> By allowing her to continue to post here, that is exactly what's happening.
> 
> You called her a sadist, jld. How can you say she should be allowed to keep spreading this garbage?


I do not agree to anything that is non-consensual. I am all about openness and honesty. 

Fight abuse with truthfulness, Hope. Expose lies with reason.

The reality is that some people accept sadism. Sometimes it is consensual, and that, between two adults, is generally none of our business. What could be our business is non-consensual sadism. That is what is in question here.

We are walking on fragile ground here. What two adults do is generally their own business. The best we can do is expose and educate.


----------



## Davelli0331

jld said:


> As far as I know, she just showed up here. Same as most people, I would guess.
> 
> Show how her approach is not healthy. Insulting her is not necessarily going to do that. Show logically how it is not healthy. That will reach a wider audience.
> 
> Unhealthiness does indeed need to be exposed. Use reason to do it, not emotion.


 I agree somewhat with this, that in this particular case, it might be more beneficial to everyone to show how insidiously unhealthy OP's lifestyle is.

However, I also agree with Hope that OP is already somewhat directing this thread down the same path as her last one, and probably to the same purpose, and I also agree with AR that we've already enumerated pretty clearly in the other thread why we think OP's lifestyle is unhealthy.


----------



## Anon Pink

Jellybeans said:


> I don't know anything about thoat or what MLCWS is.


Masters level clinical social worker. They sometimes jump into a thread or even create a thread particularly if they have a program they think might help. I haven't seen one do it in a while but I've seen lots of them in the past.

One posted in a thread and I thought her was SOOO frisking wrong I jumped all over him. Rather enjoyed that...


----------



## Hope1964

jld said:


> Show how her approach is not healthy. Insulting her is not necessarily going to do that. Show logically how it is not healthy. That will reach a wider audience.
> 
> Unhealthiness does indeed need to be exposed. Use reason to do it, not emotion.


Why bother?? If I cared to do that I would go to her website and comment or something. Although the fact that she didn't answer a single direct question I posed to her in her first thread kinda indicates that I'd be wasting my time. You go right ahead, though.


----------



## ladymisato

Anon Pink said:


> A unilateral decision would be informing your spouse without any prior consultation, that you've taken a job in another city and the family will be moving in a few weeks time.


So you are saying that if one spouse consults with the other, does not obtain an agreement, but goes ahead anyway, that's not a unilateral decision? For you consultation is the difference?

I would say that if one spouse consulted with the other and conveyed every single detail about the job and the move but did not obtain an agreement on the decision but took the job and moved anyway, that would be a unilateral decision.



> The component of prior consultation is vital. Making a unilateral decision is not how adult partners treat each other, even in a total power exchange relationship. To be in the habit of making unilateral decisions without prior consultation is manipulation at best and abusive at worst.
> 
> But you don't see it that way?


I presume we are talking about big decisions. Because we make all sorts of small decisions without consulting our spouse all the time. So would you agree that the size of the decision, the impact of it, is also a critical matter?

Now consider another variation. Let's suppose that one spouse handles the finances by mutual agreement. What constitutes a unilateral decision there? It might entail, say, moving a lot of money from stocks into bonds or paying down the mortgage.


----------



## jld

Challenge her, Davelli. She cannot direct anything all by herself. This is a conversation, not a monologue.


----------



## Almostrecovered

Anon Pink said:


> Masters level clinical social worker. They sometimes jump into a thread or even create a thread particularly if they have a program they think might help. I haven't seen one do it in a while but I've seen lots of them in the past.
> 
> One posted in a thread and I thought her was SOOO frisking wrong I jumped all over him. Rather enjoyed that...


I don't know about current ownership but Chris used to invite these counselors to the board specifically


----------



## Davelli0331

jld said:


> Challenge her, Davelli. She cannot direct anything all by herself. This is a conversation, not a monologue.


I already did. Did you not see in her other thread after I repeatedly asked her if this arrangement was consensual with her husband a fully aware participant that she answered no? (link)



> Originally Posted by Davelli0331 View Post
> Was your husband a fully aware, fully cognizant, fully competent, of his own free and un-manipulated, will participant in building this dynamic, and is he such now?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is free of manipulation. You are posing an absurd standard. So the simple answer is "no".
Click to expand...


----------



## jld

Almostrecovered said:


> I don't know about current ownership but Chris used to invite these counselors to the board specifically


Well, I have seen people link their websites in their signatures and one used to advertise her book. 

Maybe the mods are getting stricter.


----------



## Maricha75

jld said:


> Almostrecovered said:
> 
> 
> 
> posters have been banned for coyly suggesting violence as a way to solve an issue
> 
> *to suggest to manipulate and abuse a spouse without implicit consent is just as worse if not worse*
> 
> 
> 
> Banning a poster can create a martyr. That is what you risk when you try to stop free speech, however good your intentions.
> 
> Just shutting people down does not educate people. If you really want to prevent abuse, show it for what it is. Answer people's honest questions about it. Share your concerns.
Click to expand...

Yes, then we get "Oh, I never thought of it that way. They are free to do as they please, of vourse", as if the choice is unpalatable to the poster... but hey, we're free to make our own choices, right? Which include divorcing or not divorcing. Personally, I'm thankful divorce is allowed. Otherwise, I wouldn't be here. My mom divorced her first husband because of his infidelity (he hot his mistress pregnant). A couple years later, she met and married my dad. Do I think divorce should be the "go to" response for every situation? No. Neither do I believe that one should feel obligated to "work it out" with an abuser, molester, or cheater. Note, I said they shouldn't feel OBLIGATED. No one should feel obligated simply because the idea of divorce leaves a bad taste in someone else's mouth. No one.

As for how often divorce is advocated, I see many say it in a sarcastic manner, to wake the OP up. I also see some say it as a LAST RESORT, which is what generally leads someone here in the first place. They have exhausted all other methods they can think of.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Challenge her, Davelli. She cannot direct anything all by herself. *This is a conversation, not a monologue.*


It is pontification thinly veiled as a conversation.


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> So you are saying that if one spouse consults with the other, does not obtain an agreement, but goes ahead anyway, that's not a unilateral decision? For you consultation is the difference?
> 
> I would say that if one spouse consulted with the other and conveyed every single detail about the job and the move but did not obtain an agreement on the decision but took the job and moved anyway, that would be a unilateral decision.
> 
> 
> 
> I presume we are talking about big decisions. Because we make all sorts of small decisions without consulting our spouse all the time. So would you agree that the size of the decision, the impact of it, is also a critical matter?
> 
> Now consider another variation. Let's suppose that one spouse handles the finances by mutual agreement. What constitutes a unilateral decision there? It might entail, say, moving a lot of money from stocks into bonds or paying down the mortgage.


We all make unilateral decisions every day. Do I stop at the traffic light or do I barrel through? Do I return this call or do I ignore them once again?

Some decisions can only be unilateral.

But we are splitting hairs here aren't we?

The crux of this discussion has to do with divorce and when it is appropriate and when it is not.

Do you honestly think that you or anyone for that matter can make a unilateral decision for ANYONE regarding their marriage and or best interests?


----------



## Anon Pink

samyeagar said:


> It is pontification thinly veiled as a conversation.


True!


----------



## jld

Davelli0331 said:


> I already did. Did you not see in her other thread after I repeatedly asked her if this arrangement was consensual with her husband a fully aware participant that she answered no?


It is not a won and done. Education takes a lot of patience and repetition.


----------



## ladymisato

Anon Pink said:


> We all make unilateral decisions every day. Do I stop at the traffic light or do I barrel through? Do I return this call or do I ignore them once again?
> 
> Some decisions can only be unilateral.
> 
> But we are splitting hairs here aren't we?


Well, we need to be clear on terms because you and I have already discovered that we use the term "unilateral decision" to mean different things. Our different view on the role of consultation, for example, is significant. (I don't think the boundary setting issue is.)



> The crux of this discussion has to do with divorce and when it is appropriate and when it is not.
> 
> Do you honestly think that you or anyone for that matter can make a unilateral decision for ANYONE regarding their marriage and or best interests?


I do. I gave the example of finances. If one spouse is better at managing the finances he (typically) acts unilaterally with big sums of money that has enormous impact on the marriage. Often when the husband dies the wife has no idea how to manage money because she had left it all to the husband.


----------



## Jellybeans

Anon Pink said:


> Do you honestly think that you or anyone for that matter can make a unilateral decision for ANYONE regarding their marriage and or best interests?


:iagree:


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> We all make unilateral decisions every day. Do I stop at the traffic light or do I barrel through? Do I return this call or do I ignore them once again?
> 
> Some decisions can only be unilateral.
> 
> But we are splitting hairs here aren't we?
> 
> The crux of this discussion has to do with divorce and when it is appropriate and when it is not.
> 
> Do you honestly think that you or anyone for that matter can make a unilateral decision for ANYONE regarding their marriage and or best interests?


Going with just her biggest example of unilateral decision...she is claiming that the decision to divorce is a unilateral decision, that it only takes one partner to make that decision without any consent from the other. In a sense, that is technically true, but in practice, I don't see many cases where everything is going along perfectly fine, and out of the blue one partner files. Also, even if one partner files, a divorce that does not make. It has to go through the entire process, and so a person never just wakes up one morning to find themselves divorced.


----------



## Jellybeans

ladymisato said:


> Well, we need to be clear on terms because you and I have already discovered that we use the term "unilateral decision" to mean different things.


"Unilateral decision" means ONE thing.


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> Going with just her biggest example of unilateral decision...she is claiming that the decision to divorce is a unilateral decision, that it only takes one partner to make that decision without any consent from the other. In a sense, that is technically true, but in practice, I don't see many cases where everything is going along perfectly fine, and out of the blue one partner files. Also, even if one partner files, a divorce that does not make. It has to go through the entire process, and so a person never just wakes up one morning to find themselves divorced.


Yes, I am counting divorce as the ultimate unilateral decision. (I realize that there are some cases where it is mutual but usually one spouse initiates it.)

My question, then, is if couples are willing to do that why not other things that might save the marriage?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> It is pontification thinly veiled as a conversation.


So again, expose it, using _reason_, Sam. It is more effective long term than emotion. And non-consensual sadism _does _need to be exposed.


----------



## ladymisato

Jellybeans said:


> "Unilateral decision" means ONE thing.


And that is?



ladymisato said:


> So you are saying that if one spouse consults with the other, does not obtain an agreement, but goes ahead anyway, that's not a unilateral decision? For you consultation is the difference?
> 
> I would say that if one spouse consulted with the other and conveyed every single detail about the job and the move but did not obtain an agreement on the decision but took the job and moved anyway, that would be a unilateral decision.
> 
> I presume we are talking about big decisions. Because we make all sorts of small decisions without consulting our spouse all the time. So would you agree that the size of the decision, the impact of it, is also a critical matter?
> 
> Now consider another variation. Let's suppose that one spouse handles the finances by mutual agreement. What constitutes a unilateral decision there? It might entail, say, moving a lot of money from stocks into bonds or paying down the mortgage.


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> Well, we need to be clear on terms because you and I have already discovered that we use the term "unilateral decision" to mean different things. Our different view on the role of consultation, for example, is significant. (I don't think the boundary setting issue is.)
> 
> 
> 
> I do. I gave the example of finances. If one spouse is better at managing the finances he (typically) acts unilaterally with big sums of money that has enormous impact on the marriage. *Often when the husband dies the wife has no idea how to manage money because she had left it all to the husband*.


Agreed. That was certainly true in many movies made in the 1950's. And what you are advocating is essentially swapping gender roles in your vision of how things appear to be, but keeping the essentials the same...that stuff is just too complicated for that pretty little head of his...


----------



## jld

ladymisato said:


> Yes, I am counting divorce as the ultimate unilateral decision. (I realize that there are some cases where it is mutual but usually one spouse initiates it.)
> 
> My question, then, is if couples are willing to do that why not other things that might save the marriage?


Because there is this thing called _morality,_ and _the ends not justifying the means._


----------



## Jellybeans

Anon Pink said:


> One posted in a thread and I thought her was SOOO frisking wrong I jumped all over him. Rather enjoyed that...


Sounds like you. 



Almostrecovered said:


> I don't know about current ownership but Chris used to invite these counselors to the board specifically


"Hello, I am your Marriage Counselor, Jellybeans."












ladymisato said:


> My question, then, is if couples are willing to do that why not other things that might save the marriage?


Because it has to come from both. And both may not want to save it. BOTH have to want it enough to save it in order for that to happen. And in most cases of divorce, BOTH aren't generally on the same page anymore.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Yes, I am counting divorce as the ultimate unilateral decision. (I realize that there are some cases where it is mutual but usually one spouse initiates it.)
> 
> My question, then, is if couples are willing to do that why not other things that might save the marriage?


And let me guess, I bet you know JUST THE THING


----------



## Jellybeans

jld said:


> Because there is this thing called _morality,_ and _the ends not justifying the means._


Huh? :scratchhead:


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> Yes, I am counting divorce as the ultimate unilateral decision. (I realize that there are some cases where it is mutual but usually one spouse initiates it.)
> 
> *My question, then, is if couples are willing to do that why not other things that might save the marriage*?


Because very often, the things your are espousing here to fix the marriage are the things the led to the decision to consider divorce in the first place.


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> Agreed. That was certainly true in many movies made in the 1950's. And what you are advocating is essentially swapping gender roles in your vision of how things appear to be, but keeping the essentials the same...that stuff is just too complicated for that pretty little head of his...


Do you consider financial management by one spouse to be unilateral decision making?


----------



## jld

Jellybeans said:


> Huh? :scratchhead:


It means I do not believe in saving the marriage _at all costs,_ jelly beans. I think there are valid reasons to end a marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

Jellybeans said:


> Because it has to come from both. And both may not want to save it. BOTH have to want it enough to save it in order for that to happen. And in most cases of divorce, BOTH aren't generally on the same page anymore.


Does filing for divorce need to come from both?


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> Do you consider financial management by one spouse to be unilateral decision making?


I see what you did here...

I do not consider one partner having unilateral control over marital finances to be a healthy dynamic for most marriages.


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> Yes, I am counting divorce as the ultimate unilateral decision. (I realize that there are some cases where it is mutual but usually one spouse initiates it.)
> 
> *My question, then, is if couples are willing to do that why not other things that might save the marriage?*


What makes you think they haven't? And I ask... why should anyone feel OBLIGATED to "try to save a marriage" when the other spouse is a child moester or rapist or cheater? Why should any one person be obligated to lower his/her own moral standards because someone on the internet feels they should try to remain married to an indivual like that? Utterly absurd.


----------



## Jellybeans

jld said:


> It means I do not believe in saving the marriage _at all costs,_ jelly beans. I think there are valid reasons to end a marriage.


Gotcha. I thought you meant people were not pointing out the pontifications.

That's a lot of 'p's in one sentence.


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> Does filing for divorce need to come from both?


From the strictest legal sense, only one partners filing is considered, even if they both filed. There cannot legally be a joint filing. One is always the petitioner, and the other is always the respondent.


----------



## Davelli0331

Jellybeans said:


> Gotcha. I thought you meant people were not pointing out the pontifications.
> 
> That's a lot of 'p's in one sentence.


Jellybean, the alliteration queen


----------



## Jellybeans

ladymisato said:


> Does filing for divorce need to come from both?


I suspect you know the answer to this. Unless you live under a bridge. 

Also, you can refer to my initial post about this in t his thread which talks about that very thing. 

Also, I did see a snippet of your book which says that oral sex is a form of social power and hence, a wife should never give her husband oral sex. 

Ya lost me, lady. Completely.

Cause BJs and ORAL make the world go round!


----------



## Jellybeans

Davelli0331 said:


> Jellbean, the alliteration queen


I do what I can.


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> I do not consider one partner having unilateral control over marital finances to be a healthy dynamic for most marriages.


Ok, fair enough. But you will agree that it is very common, right? I never thought of my parents marriage as being unhealthy for it.


----------



## Jellybeans

Divorce is the new black


----------



## TiggyBlue

But does someone filing for divorce automatically mean they made the unilateral decision to end the marriage?


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> Ok, fair enough. *But you will agree that it is very common, right*? I never thought of my parents marriage as being unhealthy for it.


No.


----------



## ladymisato

Maricha75 said:


> What makes you think they haven't? And I ask... why should anyone feel OBLIGATED to "try to save a marriage" when the other spouse is a child moester or rapist or cheater? Why should any one person be obligated to lower his/her own moral standards because someone on the internet feels they should try to remain married to an indivual like that? Utterly absurd.


I'm just trying to understand why people think a spouse is OBLIGATED not to make any unilateral decisions except to end the marriage.


----------



## samyeagar

TiggyBlue said:


> But does someone filing for divorce automatically mean they made the unilateral decision to end the marriage?


I suspect in most cases, the decision to move forward with a divorce is a joint decision.


----------



## Maricha75

Jellybeans said:


> I suspect you know the answer to this. Unless you live under a bridge.
> 
> Also, you can refer to my initial post about this in t his thread which talks about that very thing.
> 
> *Also, I did see a snippet of your book which says that oral sex is a form of social power and hence, a wife should never give her husband oral sex.*
> 
> Ya lost me, lady. Completely.
> 
> Cause BJs and ORAL make the world go round!


Say what???? Another one of THOSE????? PASS!!!!!!!


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> Yes, I am counting divorce as the ultimate unilateral decision. (I realize that there are some cases where it is mutual but usually one spouse initiates it.)
> 
> My question, then, is if couples are willing to do that why not other things that might save the marriage?


The answer to this is a very long and complicated hypothesis that can't be too generalized.

Given your alternative wife led marriage, it seems obvious that you are advocating that a woman who is miserable in her marriage and has tried everything she can to make it work, not proceed with divorce but instead slowly groom her husband to be submissive to her dominance.

I have no problem with advocating an alternative approach such as yours.

I have a BIG problem with manipulation, coercion and a slow erosion of a spouses full consent. This is what I think you are ultimately advocating and I think it is wrong on several levels.

I had hoped you could become another voice around here presenting a healthy consentual alternative to marriage difficulties but you are continually attempting to manipulate my fellow members with your evasive and vague circumlocution.

The people in this forum are mostly decent human beings and advocating for any of them to practice manipulation or coercion as a means of avoiding divorce won't be welcome here.

However, discussions about getting your needs met, while meeting your husbands needs by dominating him would be a welcome discussion.


----------



## Davelli0331

LadyMisato, I am assuming that by "try other things", you are at least alluding to the non-consensual lifestyle that you have manipulated your husband into. Even if you aren't alluding to it, it is still something you have done and have advised many other women to do.

I want to key off something jld said, the ends justifying the means. Is that your attitude regarding your marriage? Your husband may be a non-consensual and unaware participant, but hey, he's happy and it "saved your marriage" (though I'm not sure the dynamic you've described is anything that I'd define as "successful").

That all sounds very "Brave New World"ish to me.


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> I'm just trying to understand why people think a spouse is OBLIGATED not to make any unilateral decisions except to end the marriage.


for the same reason one thinks it's ok to make a unilateral decision to not ALLOW her husband to orgasm.


----------



## ladymisato

TiggyBlue said:


> But does someone filing for divorce automatically mean they made the unilateral decision to end the marriage?


Virtually always one spouse pulls the plug. The other spouse may also be at wits end and not fight it. But then there are very many cases where one spouse is blindsided or has opposed getting a divorce. It only takes one, as someone pointed out.


----------



## Jellybeans

I'm not really sure what your point is. Divorce can be filed by one person to initiate the process. 

We're talking consent stuff. In your other thread you were saying you were in a non-consensual relationship with your husband where he doesn't know that you mess with him/ and manipulate him/using sex as a tool to get what you want.

Yin and yang.

Please do not compare getting a divorce to playing games with your husband who doesn't have a clue he's in one with you. 

Also, I feel bad for him if he never receives a blow job (I have a special place in my heart for men that are married to women who never do this for them).


----------



## Jellybeans

Maricha75 said:


> Say what???? Another one of THOSE????? PASS!!!!!!!


Yeah, so they really are out there. But apparently some just use it as a form to manipulate. I can't imagine.

I have said it before and will again, I would not date, let alone MARRY someone who ever thought oral sex was completely off limits.

NO NO NO NO NO.


----------



## ladymisato

Anon Pink said:


> The answer to this is a very long and complicated hypothesis that can't be too generalized.
> 
> Given your alternative wife led marriage, it seems obvious that you are advocating that a woman who is miserable in her marriage and has tried everything she can to make it work, not proceed with divorce but instead slowly groom her husband to be submissive to her dominance.
> 
> I have no problem with advocating an alternative approach such as yours.
> 
> I have a BIG problem with manipulation, coercion and a slow erosion of a spouses full consent. This is what I think you are ultimately advocating and I think it is wrong on several levels.
> 
> I had hoped you could become another voice around here presenting a healthy consentual alternative to marriage difficulties but you are continually attempting to manipulate my fellow members with your evasive and vague circumlocution.
> 
> The people in this forum are mostly decent human beings and advocating for any of them to practice manipulation or coercion as a means of avoiding divorce won't be welcome here.
> 
> However, discussions about getting your needs met, while meeting your husbands needs by dominating him would be a welcome discussion.


If I understand you correctly, you prefer divorce.


----------



## ladymisato

Jellybeans said:


> Please do not compare getting a divorce to playing games with your husband who doesn't have a clue he's in one with you.


Let's compare unilateral decisions.


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> *If I understand you correctly*, you prefer divorce.


You don't.


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> If I understand you correctly, you prefer divorce.


Prefer divorce to what?


----------



## Jellybeans

ladymisato said:


> If I understand you correctly, you prefer divorce.


Oh dear stars.



Anon Pink said:


> I have a BIG problem with manipulation, coercion and a slow erosion of a spouses full consent. This is what I think you are ultimately advocating and I think it is wrong on several levels.
> 
> I had hoped you could become another voice around here presenting a healthy consentual alternative to marriage difficulties but you are continually attempting to manipulate *my fellow members* with your evasive and vague circumlocution.
> 
> The people in this forum are mostly decent human beings and advocating for any of them to practice manipulation or coercion as a means of avoiding divorce won't be welcome here.


::High-fives my kinky friend, Anon!::


----------



## Jellybeans

What is the point of this thread? Really?


----------



## TiggyBlue

ladymisato said:


> Virtually always one spouse pulls the plug. The other spouse may also be at wits end and not fight it. But then there are very many cases where one spouse is blindsided or has opposed getting a divorce. It only takes one, as someone pointed out.


I agree with that, if someone cheats on their partner knowing this is a complete deal breaker for their spouse aren't they the person who pulled the plug on the marriage (even if they are opposed to divorcing).


----------



## ladymisato

Anon Pink said:


> Prefer divorce to what?


You gave us a very vivid description of one alternative. I could paint my own less lurid scenario but let's go with yours.


----------



## Almostrecovered

Maricha75 said:


> You don't.


uh oh you done and pissed of Maricha

if you think you're the dom, just you wait and see what her wrath is like


----------



## Anon Pink

Jellybeans said:


> Oh dear stars.
> 
> 
> 
> ::High-fives my kinky friend, Anon!::


Own it sister!


----------



## Jellybeans

I was feeling the TAM camaderie in your "my fellow members" statement. Lol.


----------



## ladymisato

TiggyBlue said:


> I agree with that, if someone cheats on their partner knowing this is a complete deal breaker for their spouse aren't they the person who pulled the plug on the marriage (even if they are opposed to divorcing).


The reason that it is not is that the spouse who is wrong still has the option not to file for divorce even if he/she had previously threatened to. Divorce is never automatic.


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> Virtually always one spouse pulls the plug. The other spouse may also be at wits end and not fight it. *But then there are very many cases where one spouse is blindsided or has opposed getting a divorce*. It only takes one, as someone pointed out.


Of course there are cases where this happens, but I think you are over blowing it here. I don't think it is very common at all that one spouse is completely blindsided, as in they go to sleep one night honestly believing everything is fine and wake up the next morning divorced. In fact, that is impossible considering the waiting periods most jurisdictions have, and the length of time it takes things to make their way through the courts. There are a lot of cases where divorce is filed, but then withdrawn later. Again, it is also legally IMPOSSIBLE for both parties to file jointly...one is ALWAYS the petitioner, and the other is ALWAYS the respondent...that in no way shape of form indicates that the decision was unilateral, so get off that kick already unless you are will to stop being so damned disingenuous...sheesh.


----------



## TiggyBlue

ladymisato said:


> The reason that it is not is that the spouse who is wrong still has the option not to file for divorce even if he/she had previously threatened to. *Divorce is never automatic.*


It is for someone who has concrete deal breakers.


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> Of course there are cases where this happens, but I think you are over blowing it here. I don't think it is very common at all that one spouse is completely blindsided, as in they go to sleep one night honestly believing everything is fine and wake up the next morning divorced. In fact, that is impossible considering the waiting periods most jurisdictions have, and the length of time it takes things to make their way through the courts. There are a lot of cases where divorce is filed, but then withdrawn later. Again, it is also legally IMPOSSIBLE for both parties to file jointly...one is ALWAYS the petitioner, and the other is ALWAYS the respondent...that in no way shape of form indicates that the decision was unilateral, so get off that kick already unless you are will to stop being so damned disingenuous...sheesh.


Legally, it is unilateral. But that's not what I think is important here. You've conceded that there are cases where one spouse is surprised by the other, but we both agree that more often they see it coming.

The problem is that we never settled on a definition of unilateral decisions. Does it merely entail consultation or does it require agreement of some sort? I gave a clarifying example (and repeated it) but nobody wants to nail it down.


----------



## ladymisato

TiggyBlue said:


> It is for someone who has concrete deal breakers.


It still requires filing papers. Concrete deal breakers don't change that.


----------



## TiggyBlue

ladymisato said:


> It still requires filing papers. Concrete deal breakers don't change that.


and?

one made the unilateral decision to do something that would have their spouse file for divorce, the spouse made the unilateral decision to file for divorce.
Both unilateral decisions ended the marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

TiggyBlue said:


> one made the unilateral decision to do something that would have their spouse file for divorce, the spouse made the unilateral decision to file for divorce.
> Both unilateral decisions ended the marriage.


Agreed. Does anyone disagree with this characterization?


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> TiggyBlue said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is for someone who has concrete deal breakers.
> 
> 
> 
> It still requires filing papers. Concrete deal breakers don't change that.
Click to expand...

Marriage requires filing papers. Birth requires filing papers. What exactly is your point? If someone says "this is my boundary. I cannot abide 'xyz' so don't do it. If you do, we can no longer be married." and the other spouse does it anyway, then it is his/her own fault. They were warned. Filing papers doesn't change concrete dealbreakers.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## ladymisato

Maricha75 said:


> Marriage requires filing papers. Birth requires filing papers. What exactly is your point? If someone says "this is my boundary. I cannot abide 'xyz' so don't do it. If you do, we can no longer be married." and the other spouse does it anyway, then it is his/her own fault. They were warned. Filing papers doesn't change concrete dealbreakers.


My point is simply that filing divorce papers is a unilateral decision.


----------



## Jellybeans

Your initial post seemed to suggest you are against divorce in all cases. 

So I don't really understand what or where you are going with this or what the point you are trying to make is. 



ladymisato said:


> Legally, it is unilateral. But that's not what I think is important here. You've conceded that there are cases where one spouse is surprised by the other, but we both agree that more often they see it coming.
> 
> *The problem is that we never settled on a definition of unilateral decisions*. Does it merely entail consultation or does it require agreement of some sort? I gave a clarifying example (and repeated it) but nobody wants to nail it down.


The fact is: people get divorced. Every day, so many people get divorced. And they will tomorrow. And the day after that and the month after that and the year after that forever and ever.


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> Maricha75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage requires filing papers. Birth requires filing papers. What exactly is your point? If someone says "this is my boundary. I cannot abide 'xyz' so don't do it. If you do, we can no longer be married." and the other spouse does it anyway, then it is his/her own fault. They were warned. Filing papers doesn't change concrete dealbreakers.
> 
> 
> 
> My point is simply that filing divorce papers is a unilateral decision.
Click to expand...

As is deciding to hold your husband hostage to your manipulations.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## Hope1964

Jellybeans said:


> What is the point of this thread? Really?


We've already established that it's for Ladywhatever to promote her book and website.



jld said:


> Challenge her, Davelli. She cannot direct anything all by herself. This is a conversation, not a monologue.


It is so a monologue. She has her own agenda and refuses to address anything she doesn't like or want to hear, all the while spewing nonsense and using big words to push her agenda of abuse.

Go ahead, ask her directly about what she's doing. She'll either dance around the issue or ignore you completely.


----------



## ladymisato

Jellybeans said:


> Your initial post seemed to suggest you are against divorce in all cases.
> 
> So I don't really understand what or where you are going with this or what the point you are trying to make is.


I started this thread because I was surprised by what I found in the forums. I didn't expect anyone to be as extreme as I am on divorce but it did seem that people are very comfortable with divorce as a remedy. After I pointed this out a few posters noted that TAM had strengthened their marriage but as many concurred that there is a tendency to promote divorce.



> The fact is: people get divorced. Every day, so many people get divorced. And they will tomorrow. And the day after that and the month after that and the year after that forever and ever.


Well, yes they do. What I am exploring is why.


----------



## ladymisato

Maricha75 said:


> As is deciding to hold your husband hostage to your manipulations.


Agreed.


----------



## Jellybeans

ladymisato said:


> Well, yes they do. What I am exploring is why.


Because one or both choose to. 

It is really that simple.


----------



## Davelli0331

I note that once again you are not answering the direct questions that I am asking you. I can only assume that is bc you know how unpalatable the answer might be, and you don't want to so quickly turn anyone off to the clearly inevitable solution you're going to give us.

So I'll just roll right along.

Yesterday in your thread you made the oft-repeated statement that your husband is "happier" in this new dynamic. I would first note that there's no real way for you to unequivocally say that since he does not know he is being manipulated.

However, I would ask, happier by whose definition, yours or his?

I would also point out that someone in a generally sh!tty situation can be "happier" when that situation becomes slightly less sh!tty, even though generally the person would rather not be in that situation at all. In this case, the person is _relatively_ happy.

But I wonder if your husband is _absolutely_ happy (as in absolute vs relative). IOW, if this whole manipulative charade were suddenly revealed to him, would he still choose to be in your rigged dynamic versus one where he is a knowing participant?

That brings to mind the question Anon Pink asked you directly regarding what agency your husband has to indicate any displeasure with this dynamic. You sidestepped the question by saying "he's still a legal adult". Of course, we now know he's an unaware participant, so it's a moot point anyway. This rolls back to what I asked you earlier. In this case, do you believe that the ends of his blissfully unaware happiness justify your means of sexual manipulation?

And is that really how you define happy?


----------



## Hope1964

Copied definition of unilateral:

(of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others.


----------



## ladymisato

Hope1964 said:


> Copied definition of unilateral:
> 
> (of an action or decision) performed by or affecting only one person, group, or country involved in a particular situation, without the agreement of another or the others.


Right, that's the definition I had in mind. It has nothing whatsoever to do with consultation much less expectation.


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> Maricha75 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As is deciding to hold your husband hostage to your manipulations.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...

Yet you think that is ok? I'd rather divorce my husband that to force him to pretend to be happy with me. What a sad existence.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## Almostrecovered

ladymisato said:


> Well, yes they do. What I am exploring is why.



Damn egalitarianism has screwed us all!


----------



## Jellybeans

Maricha75 said:


> Yet you think that is ok? I'd rather divorce my husband that to force him to pretend to be happy with me. What a sad existence.


:iagree:

I can't imagine a sadder dynamic, especially in a romantic relationship, a marriage.

Manipulating someone so that they do what you want. 

That isn't love. 

That is the most blatant form of disrespect.


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> Legally, it is unilateral. But that's not what I think is important here. You've conceded that there are cases where one spouse is surprised by the other, but we both agree that more often they see it coming.
> 
> The problem is that we never settled on a definition of unilateral decisions. Does it merely entail consultation or does it require agreement of some sort? I gave a clarifying example (and repeated it) but nobody wants to nail it down.


Yes, I do concede that there are examples of complete blindsiding. I don't know of any examples personally, but I will accept that exceptions to the norm exist. You on the other hand are latching onto some extreme outlier examples and trying to make an absolute out of it...as in divorce is never acceptable. Would you agree then that the remedy for divorce, one that would drop the rate to zero would be to eliminate marriage all together?


----------



## Jellybeans

Almostrecovered said:


> Damn egalitarianism has screwed us all!


You are cracking me up. (As always).


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> I note that once again you are not answering the direct questions that I am asking you. I can only assume that is bc you know how unpalatable the answer might be, and you don't want to so quickly turn anyone off to the clearly inevitable solution you're going to give us.
> 
> So I'll just roll right along.
> 
> Yesterday in your thread you made the oft-repeated statement that your husband is "happier" in this new dynamic. I would first note that there's no real way for you to unequivocally say that since he does not know he is being manipulated.
> 
> However, I would ask, happier by whose definition, yours or his?
> 
> I would also point out that someone in a generally sh!tty situation can be "happier" when that situation becomes slightly less sh!tty, even though generally the person would rather not be in that situation at all. In this case, the person is _relatively_ happy.
> 
> But I wonder if your husband is _absolutely_ happy (as in absolute vs relative). IOW, if this whole manipulative charade were suddenly revealed to him, would he still choose to be in your rigged dynamic versus one where he is a knowing participant?
> 
> That brings to mind the question Anon Pink asked you directly regarding what agency your husband has to indicate any displeasure with his dynamic. You sidestepped the question by saying "he's still a legal adult". Of course, we now know he's an unaware participant, so it's a moot point anyway. This rolls back to what I asked you earlier. In this case, do you believe that the ends of his blissfully unaware happiness justify your means of sexual manipulation?
> 
> And is that really how you define happy?


I think this is offtopic but I don't want to be accused of avoiding questions so I'll give it my best try.

Obviously I am not concerned with having an egalitarian marriage. And I am not concerned with making unilateral decisions.

I do believe, with great conviction and I think plenty of evidence, that my husband is very happy. (If you've read the "Conversation" chapter you know how I know my husband inside and out.) Of course, he is a legal adult so, in the end, he has many options were his happiness ever in doubt.

I did point out many times that not only is he aware of the manipulation, he educated me in it.

I described his happiness relative to before. He is relatively happier now than before we made the changes. Of course, I am confident that he is _much_ happier but happier will suffice.

Did I miss anything?


----------



## Jellybeans

samyeagar said:


> Would you agree then that the remedy for divorce, one that would drop the rate to zero would be to eliminate marriage all together?


I see what you did there, Sam.

Because really, you can't have a divorce without a marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

Maricha75 said:


> Yet you think that is ok? I'd rather divorce my husband that to force him to pretend to be happy with me. What a sad existence.


Well, obviously I don't think it is a pretended happiness but, yes, I am quite happy with the choice we made.


----------



## Almostrecovered

ladymisato said:


> Did I miss anything?



Where is Hoffa buried?


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> Yes, I do concede that there are examples of complete blindsiding. I don't know of any examples personally, but I will accept that exceptions to the norm exist. You on the other hand are latching onto some extreme outlier examples and trying to make an absolute out of it...as in divorce is never acceptable. Would you agree then that the remedy for divorce, one that would drop the rate to zero would be to eliminate marriage all together?


I am noting them but primarily latching onto the fact that divorce is always a unilateral decision.

I certainly cannot agree that ending marriage is a useful way to end divorce. Ending birth would end death.


----------



## Rowan

The OP's agenda here is to promote the idea that being a sado-sexual dom to a non-consenting spouse is no more of a unilateral decision than filing for divorce. And since divorce is apparently much worse than anything else that could possibly happen, it's much better to make the unilateral decision to go the D/s route than the unilateral decision to divorce. 

Happily, I do not anticipate that this "solution" will be a welcome one to the majority of TAMers.


----------



## Hope1964

Lady, I have a challenge for you. Go and post in threads started by other people for a whole day and do not come back to this one. In 48 hours you've made 217 posts (so that's over 100 a day) nowhere on this board except to your own threads, except for one post.

I can't say as I have ever seen anyone so dedicated before. I would really like to know what the reasoning is behind you being here. I really would. You aren't participating except with yourself so the board as a whole isn't gaining anything by you being here. And 100 posts a day? Holy crap. That's phenomenal.


----------



## ladymisato

Rowan said:


> The OP's agenda here is to promote the idea that being a sado-sexual dom to a non-consenting spouse is no more of a unilateral decision than filing for divorce. And since divorce is apparently much worse than anything else that could possibly happen, it's much better to make the unilateral decision to go the D/s route than the unilateral decision to divorce.


Setting aside the hyperbole, that's close enough.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> I think this is offtopic but I don't want to be accused of avoiding questions so I'll give it my best try.
> 
> Obviously I am not concerned with having an egalitarian marriage. And I am not concerned with making unilateral decisions.
> 
> I do believe, with great conviction and I think plenty of evidence, that my husband is very happy. (If you've read the "Conversation" chapter you know how I know my husband inside and out.) Of course, he is a legal adult so, in the end, he has many options were his happiness ever in doubt.
> 
> I did point out many times that not only is he aware of the manipulation, he educated me in it.
> 
> I described his happiness relative to before. He is relatively happier now than before we made the changes. Of course, I am confident that he is _much_ happier but happier will suffice.
> 
> Did I miss anything?


1) You still sidestepped the issue of what agency he has to indicate displeasure with the dynamic by referring to him as a legal adult

2) You did not answer who defines happiness

3) You did not answer if you think the ends justify the means

4) You're either giving slippery answers or contradicting yourself, as yesterday you clearly indicated that your husband is an unaware and non-consenting participant in this dynamic

5) You did not answer whether you think your husband is absolutely happy and would choose this dynamic over any other, though that is apparently dependent on which answer you're giving of just how aware a participant he is


----------



## ladymisato

Hope1964 said:


> Lady, I have a challenge for you. Go and post in threads started by other people for a whole day and do not come back to this one. In 48 hours you've made 217 posts (so that's over 100 a day) nowhere on this board except to your own threads, except for one post.


I've certainly considered posting more in other threads but I wanted to understand some things better first. I doubt my posts in other threads would be any less upsetting to people, perhaps more so.


----------



## Regret214

I stopped at Page 5 when a poster made the comment that you can't ban someone for "free speech".

I wish to whatever you pray to that people actually understood what that really means. It doesn't mean that people can say whatever they want. The idea of the First Amendment is that people are allowed to speak freely against their government without fear of persecution/prosecution. Unless, of course, they express themselves using violence or subversive tactics.

Sound familiar?

Please read about what free speech is before claiming it is a "right".


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> I am noting them but primarily latching onto the fact that divorce is always a unilateral decision.
> 
> *I certainly cannot agree that ending marriage is a useful way to end divorce*. Ending birth would end death.


Ends justify the means right? Easiest and fastest way to achieve your goal...though it would put a bit of a wrench in your whole wife led marriage control and manipulation scheme here...


----------



## jld

What are your motives, Ladym? You want to see women become dominant in their marriages through any means necessary? Now that women have much more education than they used to, and much more money, they should use that to their (selfish) advantage?

Even if men do not want it initially, they will come to appreciate it? That is what you said?

Did your husband want it initially, maybe as a means of avoiding divorce while you were considering it? And then he educated you on how to control him, and men like him, most effectively? And now you are selling that knowledge to other women, even if their husbands do not want it? All because they will someday realize it is good for them?

Yep, sounds like a totalitarian or cult approach.

I think D/s is a beautiful thing, a tremendous force for love and bonding. I think you are twisting it, using the dark side of it, like others have said, to manipulate and deceive. 

I do not advocate banning you, or at least not until your approach has been thoroughly exposed for what it is.

I have been almost completely lost throughout both of these threads. You and I are like day and night, LadyM. I advocate transparency. I believe in the power of D/s to heal. I believe D/s is love. But you have clearly shown that it can be twisted into something very different. Even evil.

I have a wonderful dominant who would never, ever treat me the way you advocate treating a submissive. In fact, he has warned me about the dark side of D/s. But it takes seeing it live, here, for that to be driven home to me.


----------



## Hope1964

ladymisato said:


> I've certainly considered posting more in other threads but I wanted to understand some things better first. I doubt my posts in other threads would be any less upsetting to people, perhaps more so.


LOL way to edit out and ignore the parts of my post you didn't like!


----------



## Regret214

Hope1964 said:


> Lady, I have a challenge for you. Go and post in threads started by other people for a whole day and do not come back to this one. In 48 hours you've made 217 posts (so that's over 100 a day) nowhere on this board except to your own threads, except for one post.
> 
> I can't say as I have ever seen anyone so dedicated before. I would really like to know what the reasoning is behind you being here. I really would. You aren't participating except with yourself so the board as a whole isn't gaining anything by you being here. And 100 posts a day? Holy crap. That's phenomenal.



Maybe I need to leave the teaching profession and become a CEO. I have no idea how one can post so much with such a highly important and highly paying career. It's almost as if I don't even believe it at this stage of the game. And, it is a game.


----------



## samyeagar

Hope1964 said:


> Lady, I have a challenge for you. Go and post in threads started by other people for a whole day and do not come back to this one. In 48 hours you've made 217 posts (so that's over 100 a day) nowhere on this board except to your own threads, except for one post.
> 
> I can't say as I have ever seen anyone so dedicated before. I would really like to know what the reasoning is behind you being here. I really would. You aren't participating except with yourself so the board as a whole isn't gaining anything by you being here. And 100 posts a day? Holy crap. That's phenomenal.


Sales must be slowing, so she's got plenty of time to spare...


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> 1) You still sidestepped the issue of what agency he has to indicate displeasure with the dynamic by referring to him as a legal adult


Being a legal adult means, for example, that he could file for divorce (and take half the common assets and probably get alimony).



> 2) You did not answer who defines happiness


I'm going by the usual, vague understanding that we all possess. He smiles alot, for example.



> 3) You did not answer if you think the ends justify the means


Very often, yes. Unless the means do more harm.



> 4) You're either giving slippery answers or contradicting yourself, as yesterday you clearly indicated that your husband is an unaware and non-consenting participant in this dynamic


No, I never said that. I did concede that he was never free of manipulation. I did refer to other husbands who were not initially aware. Perhaps there was some confusion on these points. I noted several times the fact that he was a willing traitor to his gender giving me very detailed knowledge of how men think.



> 5) You did not answer whether you think your husband is absolutely happy and would choose this dynamic over any other, though that is apparently dependent on which answer you're giving of just how aware a participant he is


I know that for an absolute fact because of how we got where we are and his current happiness.


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> Maybe I need to leave the teaching profession and become a CEO. I have no idea how one can post so much with such a highly important and highly paying career. It's almost as if I don't even believe it at this stage of the game. And, it is a game.


I'm retired now, I have _lots_ and _lots_ of time.


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> Hope1964 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lady, I have a challenge for you. Go and post in threads started by other people for a whole day and do not come back to this one. In 48 hours you've made 217 posts (so that's over 100 a day) nowhere on this board except to your own threads, except for one post.
> 
> 
> 
> I've certainly considered posting more in other threads but I wanted to understand some things better first. I doubt my posts in other threads would be any less upsetting to people, perhaps more so.
Click to expand...

Bull. You didn't want to understand a blasted thing. You wanted to get people riled up, plain and simple. Mission accomplished. Now, try Hope's challenge.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## Almostrecovered

or don't


----------



## Regret214

ladymisato said:


> I'm retired now, I have _lots_ and _lots_ of time.


Well, if my husband were forced/coerced into servitude and I was retired, I guess I'd have a lot of time on my hands as well.

You're one "lucky" Lady.

:loser:


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> What are your motives, Ladym? You want to see women become dominant in their marriages through any means necessary? Now that women have much more education than they used to, and much more money, they should use that to their (selfish) advantage?


In the simplest terms, I would like to see more women choosing that over divorce.



> Even if men do not want it initially, they will come to appreciate it? That is what you said?


Yes. (Although I also said that most would embrace it ahead of time if it were offered.)



> Did your husband want it initially, maybe as a means of avoiding divorce while you were considering it? And then he educated you on how to control him, and men like him, most effectively? And now you are selling that knowledge to other women, even if their husbands do not want it? All because they will someday realize it is good for them?


He wanted it initially because we were at a crisis point in our marriage and he wasn't getting any sex. (And, no, I was not withholding it, I had lost the desire for sex.)



> Yep, sounds like a totalitarian or cult approach.
> 
> I think D/s is a beautiful thing, a tremendous force for love and bonding. I think you are twisting it, using the dark side of it, like others have said, to manipulate and deceive.
> 
> I do not advocate banning you, or at least not until your approach has been thoroughly exposed for what it is.


I appreciate that. I look forward to further discussion.



> I have been almost completely lost throughout both of these threads. You and I are like day and night, LadyM. I advocate transparency. I believe in the power of D/s to heal. I believe D/s is love. But you have clearly shown that it can be twisted into something very different. Even evil.
> 
> I have a wonderful dominant who would never, ever treat me the way you advocate treating a submissive. In fact, he has warned me about the dark side of D/s. But it takes seeing it live, here, for that to be driven home to me.


We are different.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Being a legal adult means, for example, that he could file for divorce (and take half the common assets and probably get alimony).


Again you're sidestepping. You know exactly what I'm asking you.

Can your husband outright tell you that he no longer wants to be a part of his dynamic? Can he come to you and say, "LadyM, I don't like this, or this, or this part of the dynamic? If so, how do you respond?



ladymisato said:


> I'm going by the usual, vague understanding that we all possess. He smiles alot, for example.


Again, you are giving vague answers. Does your husband tell you with some regularity, "LadyM, I am fully aware of this dynamic, and I am very happy with it." Period.



ladymisato said:


> Very often, yes. Unless the means do more harm.


Then this is just another point where we generally disagree, but thank you for giving me a direct and honest answer.


ladymisato said:


> No, I never said that. I did concede that he was never free of manipulation. I did refer to other husbands who were not initially aware. Perhaps there was some confusion on these points. I noted several times the fact that he was a willing traitor to his gender giving me very detailed knowledge of how men think.





> Originally Posted by Davelli0331 View Post
> Was your husband a fully aware, fully cognizant, fully competent, of his own free and un-manipulated, will participant in building this dynamic, and *is he such now*?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is free of manipulation. You are posing an absurd standard. So the simple answer is "no".
Click to expand...

That was your direct answer to me yesterday, and you are contradicting that now.



ladymisato said:


> I know that for an absolute fact because of how we got where we are and his current happiness.


Have you actually asked him?


----------



## Regret214

ladymisato said:


> (And, no, I was not withholding it, I had lost the desire for sex.)


Ummm....:scratchhead:

yeah.


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> In the simplest terms, I would like to see more women choosing that over divorce.
> 
> 
> Yes. (Although I also said that most would embrace it ahead of time if it were offered.)
> 
> 
> He wanted it initially because we were at a crisis point in our marriage and *he wasn't getting any sex*. (And, no, *I was not withholding it*, I had lost the desire for sex.)
> 
> 
> I appreciate that. I look forward to further discussion.
> 
> 
> We are different.


Gah...I know I'm going to regret this, but...one of these things is not like the other...he wasn't getting sex, but you weren't witholding...were you getting sex elsewhere?


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> Again you're sidestepping. You know exactly what I'm asking you.
> 
> Can your husband outright tell you that he no longer wants to be a part of his dynamic? Can he come to you and say, "LadyM, I don't like this, or this, or this part of the dynamic? If so, how do you respond?


He is certainly able to mouth those words if he so chose. I would probably first ask what he wanted instead and why he had grown unhappy.



> Again, you are giving vague answers. Does your husband tell you with some regularity, "LadyM, I am fully aware of this dynamic, and I am very happy with it." Period.


I have never head him say anything like that. But he helps me to edit the book so I don't think anything is a secret from him.



> Then this is just another point where we generally disagree, but thank you for giving me a direct and honest answer.
> 
> That was your direct answer to me yesterday, and you are contradicting that now.


Why don't you quote me, then.



> Have you actually asked him?


Yes.


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> Gah...I know I'm going to regret this, but...one of these things is not like the other...he wasn't getting sex, but you weren't witholding...were you getting sex elsewhere?


I had no sex drive. I was too exhausted from work and home and kids. The last thing I would have wanted was an affair.


----------



## jld

Maricha75 said:


> Bull. You didn't want to understand a blasted thing. You wanted to get people riled up, plain and simple. Mission accomplished.


I don't think her mission was to rile people up, though she probably was not shocked by it. I think she really believes in what she advocates. And I believe this non-consensual manipulation, including sadism, is evil.


----------



## Eagle3

What would you do if you woke up and saw your husband's friend cooking pancakes in his boxers?


----------



## Jellybeans

:rofl:

Eagle, you won the internet today!


----------



## samyeagar

Eagle3 said:


> What would you do if you woke up and saw your husband's friend cooking pancakes in his boxers?


What if her husbands friend was wearing ummm...high heels? winky hmmm wink?

Would that make it a wife led marriage? Does the wife have to be a woman?


----------



## Davelli0331

Wow. I will give you kudos, you could hang with most politicians when it comes to answering questions without actually taking a stance or revealing anything.



ladymisato said:


> He is certainly able to mouth those words if he so chose. I would probably first ask what he wanted instead and why he had grown unhappy.


Oh FFS. Again, you know exactly what I'm asking you, but either way you've answered my initial question. It is your responsibility to decide if he is unhappy and then act on that.



ladymisato said:


> I have never head him say anything like that. But he helps me to edit the book so I don't think anything is a secret from him.


Nice move, admitting that he's never said it but still holding open the door of reasonable doubt with the book editing comment.



ladymisato said:


> Why don't you quote me, then.


uh, I already did?


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> It is your responsibility to decide if he is unhappy and then act on that.


Yes, I'm pretty sure I said that at least a couple times in the other thread.



> Nice move, admitting that he's never said it but still holding open the door of reasonable doubt with the book editing comment.
> 
> uh, I already did?


If its the quote you posted earlier here then it was simply a miscommunication. I thought I was answering the question as to whether he accepted it without manipulation, not that it was without his knowledge.


----------



## Maricha75

Eagle3 said:


> What would you do if you woke up and saw your husband's friend cooking pancakes in his boxers?


Mmmmmm.... pancakes.... chocolate chip? Whipped cream? Whipped cream... wait. We were talking about pancakes...

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## jld

ladymisato said:


> We are different.


Oh, we are _extremely_ different. Our motives are completely different.

You can stop this, Ladym. You can turn away from this, from advocating this, from treating those unknowing men in this way. You know with whatever truth is in you that what you are doing is wrong.

You would not want to be treated this way if you were them. That is how you know this is wrong.


----------



## ladymisato

ladymisato said:


> If its the quote you posted earlier here then it was simply a miscommunication. I thought I was answering the question as to whether he accepted it without manipulation, not that it was without his knowledge.


The preface of the book describes this moment is some detail. It was a pivotal moment in the marriage.


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> Davelli0331 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your responsibility to decide if he is unhappy and then act on that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I'm pretty sure I said that at least a couple times in the other thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice move, admitting that he's never said it but still holding open the door of reasonable doubt with the book editing comment.
> 
> uh, I already did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If its the quote you posted earlier here then it was simply a miscommunication. I thought I was answering the question as to whether he accepted it without manipulation, not that it was without his knowledge.
Click to expand...

You do not get to decide whether he is unhappy or not. Only he can make that decision for himself. He has to decide whether to act on it or not. What you CAN do is decide how you will react, should he have the balls to voice any displeasure at the dynamic. 

Smiles are not always an indication of happiness. Smiling can often mask displeasure, hurt, dissatisfaction.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## GettingIt_2

Eagle3 said:


> What would you do if you woke up and saw your husband's friend cooking pancakes in his boxers?


Coffee. Nose. 

OWWWWWW!

Thanks Eagle  :rofl:


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> Oh, we are _extremely_ different. Our motives are completely different.
> 
> You can stop this, Ladym. You can turn away from this, from advocating this, from treating those unknowing men in this way. You know with whatever truth is in you that what you are doing is wrong.
> 
> You would not want to be treated this way if you were them. That is how you know this is wrong.


I appreciate your attempt to reach out to me in this way. I am touched. But I see things differently. You were right earlier, I do believe in this with great sincerity. I have seen it work too many times.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Yes, I'm pretty sure I said that at least a couple times in the other thread.


So if it is up to you do determine when he is unhappy, then that also implies that ultimately it is *your* definition of happy that matters, not his. Much like a parent will discern whether a child is truly unhappy or is only momentarily pouting and therefore free to ignore it.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> The preface of the book describes this moment is some detail. It was a pivotal moment in the marriage.


LMAO

And now we come to it.

I'm reporting this thread.


----------



## ladymisato

Maricha75 said:


> You do not get to decide whether he is unhappy or not. Only he can make that decision for himself. He has to decide whether to act on it or not. What you CAN do is decide how you will react, should he have the balls to voice any displeasure at the dynamic.
> 
> Smiles are not always an indication of happiness. Smiling can often mask displeasure, hurt, dissatisfaction.


You misunderstood. I am responsible for making him happy. I do not choose to make him unhappy.


----------



## samyeagar

Davelli0331 said:


> So if it is up to you do determine when he is unhappy, then that also implies that *ultimately it is *your* definition of happy that matters, not his.* Much like a parent will discern whether a child is truly unhappy or is only momentarily pouting and therefore free to ignore it.


Well...duh!


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> So if it is up to you do determine when he is unhappy, then that also implies that ultimately it is *your* definition of happy that matters, not his. Much like a parent will discern whether a child is truly unhappy or is only momentarily pouting and therefore free to ignore it.


He exhibits all the outward signs that people understand to be happiness. He reports himself to be happy. He is enthusiastic about his life and our marriage. This is no mystery.


----------



## Hope1964

So you have all this time on your hands and you decide to post here 24/7? Why?? No one here agrees with you. What are you accomplishing? Do you really think this is a productive use of your time?


----------



## Regret214

First edition of your book came out in 2007. Second edition in February 2014. With *ALL* of those couples you have helped, riddle me this: How can you only have 94 subscribers on Facebook? If this is so damn revolutionary, I would think that you could at least get more than my husband's graphic novel Facebook page Vigil-8. He has 195 *AND* hasn't posted anything since January 3, 2011.

I guess you're really not that good at this, are you? Maybe you should come out of retirement and get another job. Or easier, you could run swinger parties out of your home and charging $40/couple, $60/single men - and always let the lady unicorns in for free. You might get a bunch more subscribers to your Facebook page.


----------



## Fozzy

Still trying to understand the point of the thread here. OP, please explain for us dummies what exactly is at the root of your admittedly extreme opposition to divorce. Is it religious? ethical? what? 

What makes divorce more evil in and of itself than, for example, subjecting yourself and your children to an abusive husband/father?


----------



## Davelli0331

Hope1964 said:


> So you have all this time on your hands and you decide to post here 24/7? Why?? No one here agrees with you. What are you accomplishing? Do you really think this is a productive use of your time?


Wikipedia - Viral Marketing


----------



## Anon Pink

Eagle3 said:


> What would you do if you woke up and saw your husband's friend cooking pancakes in his boxers?


OMG Eagle!!! Next round is on me my friend!


----------



## samyeagar

Fozzy said:


> Still trying to understand the point of the thread here. OP, please explain for us dummies what exactly is at the root of your admittedly extreme opposition to divorce. Is it religious? ethical? what?
> 
> What makes divorce more evil in and of itself than, for example, subjecting yourself and your children to an abusive husband/father?


I wonder if the root isn't somewhere in what you just asked...perhaps this is a reaction to an abusive husband/father situation where rather than suggest leaving, she is suggesting turning the tables. Perhaps she felt trapped by an abusive husband/father and wants to exact revenge by insisting that men be trapped...


----------



## ladymisato

Fozzy said:


> Still trying to understand the point of the thread here. OP, please explain for us dummies what exactly is at the root of your admittedly extreme opposition to divorce. Is it religious? ethical? what?


It is many things: religious, moral, ethical, and cultural.

But in addition to that, I have seen many divorces in my lifetime that I was convinced were fixable. I'm not saying all of then needed the fix I found. But fixable.

This is perhaps the most emotional driver for me.



> What makes divorce more evil in and of itself than, for example, subjecting yourself and your children to an abusive husband/father?


First, of all the divorces I've known, I've never seen that. I know it happens but it's not the kind of divorce that I'm thinking about.

But even so there is a difference between divorce and separation. Separation, not to mention jailtime, can resolve such problems without resorting to divorce.


----------



## Fozzy

ladymisato said:


> It is many things: religious, moral, ethical, and cultural.
> 
> But in addition to that, I have seen many divorces in my lifetime that I was convinced were fixable. I'm not saying all of then needed the fix I found. But fixable.
> 
> This is perhaps the most emotional driver for me.
> 
> 
> First, of all the divorces I've known, I've never seen that. I know it happens but it's not the kind of divorce that I'm thinking about.
> 
> But even so there is a difference between divorce and separation. Separation, not to mention jailtime, can resolve such problems without resorting to divorce.


Jailtime could potentially end abuse (at least temporarily), but prevents the abused from moving on with his or her life. Financial devastation is likely in this scenario, imo.

I think you'd have an easier time convincing people to "think creatively" if you could help people understand why divorce is the more unsavory option in what are commonly perceived as "unfixable" scenarios (adultery, abuse, etc). Why would abused or betrayed spouse, who may not even love their spouse - who may even in fact HATE them, why would they go out of their way to remain leashed to someone who causes them misery? To fit cultural norms? To satisfy religious doctrine?

Screw that.


----------



## Maricha75

ladymisato said:


> Fozzy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to understand the point of the thread here. OP, please explain for us dummies what exactly is at the root of your admittedly extreme opposition to divorce. Is it religious? ethical? what?
> 
> 
> 
> It is many things: religious, moral, ethical, and cultural.
> 
> *But in addition to that, I have seen many divorces in my lifetime that I was convinced were fixable. I'm not saying all of then needed the fix I found. But fixable.*
> 
> This is perhaps the most emotional driver for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes divorce more evil in and of itself than, for example, subjecting yourself and your children to an abusive husband/father?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, of all the divorces I've known, I've never seen that. I know it happens but it's not the kind of divorce that I'm thinking about.
> 
> But even so there is a difference between divorce and separation. Separation, not to mention jailtime, can resolve such problems without resorting to divorce.
Click to expand...

This is your OPINION, as an OUTSIDER. But they weren't YOUR marriages. Thus, you have no clue what was going on, day to day, hour by hour. You think the marriages could have been fix because of what was presented to the world. Behind closed doors is a whole different story.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## samyeagar

Perhaps rather than divorce, since separation is a viable option for you, we should enable multiple marriages and the one that takes precedence, the active one if you will, is the one most currently filed...no divorce, but people are still allowed to move on since separation, and/or jail is viable.


----------



## Fozzy

samyeagar said:


> Perhaps rather than divorce, since separation is a viable option for you, we should enable multiple marriages and the one that takes precedence, the active one if you will, is the one most currently filed...no divorce, but people are still allowed to move on since separation, and/or jail is viable.


Or perhaps termed, renewable wedding licenses? I first saw that idea in a Robert Heinlein book (Puppet Masters?) when I was a teenager. I was like "HOLY COW, this guy is ON to something!"


----------



## ladymisato

Fozzy said:


> Jailtime could potentially end abuse (at least temporarily), but prevents the abused from moving on with his or her life. Financial devastation is likely in this scenario, imo.


I don't really see the point of focusing on this extreme example but jailtime would be the start, not the end.



> I think you'd have an easier time convincing people to "think creatively" if you could help people understand why divorce is the more unsavory option in what are commonly perceived as "unfixable" scenarios (adultery, abuse, etc). Why would abused or betrayed spouse, who may not even love their spouse - who may even in fact HATE them, why would they go out of their way to remain leashed to someone who causes them misery? To fit cultural norms? To satisfy religious doctrine?


Granted, which is one of the reasons I started this thread. I wanted to understand better why people seemed to be pushing divorce so hard.


----------



## ladymisato

Maricha75 said:


> This is your OPINION, as an OUTSIDER. But they weren't YOUR marriages. Thus, you have no clue what was going on, day to day, hour by hour. You think the marriages could have been fix because of what was presented to the world. Behind closed doors is a whole different story.


None of us do, and yet, here we have forums offering advice on marriage and divorce.

I am as confident in my opinion as others.


----------



## SCDP Joan

Someone mentioned pancakes? Blueberry?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Regret214

SCDP Joan said:


> Someone mentioned pancakes? Blueberry?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm going with chocolate chip. Because I'm a woman. We love chocolate. Cocoa is much better for the libido. Blueberries are fine, but I find myself thinking of an old man who's wife refuses to service him. Call me silly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hope1964

Shrove Tuesday's not till next year.

I'll give you a waffle though.


----------



## Regret214

Hope1964 said:


> Shrove Tuesday's not till next year.
> 
> I'll give you a waffle though.


Belgian are great!! Blue ones not so much.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Almostrecovered

you ladies should avoid the carbs

(ducks)


----------



## Hope1964

One year for Shrove Tuesday I used my erotic power and seduced my husband by covering myself in saskatoon syrup.


----------



## Almostrecovered

sounds like it could have been a sticky situation


----------



## SCDP Joan

I make some awesome blueberry ricotta pancakes. Very tasty and rich.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Davelli0331

Sometimes I'll use my erotic power on myself


----------



## samyeagar

Great, now my wife is going to have to use her erotic jedi powers on me and take the sheets off the waterbed so we can roll around, slipping and sliding in caramel syrup.


----------



## Regret214

Almostrecovered said:


> you ladies should avoid the carbs
> 
> (ducks)


But they're soooo good.

I get my protein elsewhere.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Regret214

Davelli0331 said:


> Sometimes I'll use my erotic power on myself


Dig did that a lot when he was flying for 10 years. I know because he'd text me after to cuddle.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Davelli0331

What I like about using my erotic power on myself is WHO'S EROTIC POWERING WHO NOW

OH HOW THE TABLES HAVE TURNED


----------



## Hope1964

Daveroni, I like your signature.

Joan, what does SCDP stand for?


----------



## samyeagar

Regret214 said:


> But they're soooo good.
> 
> *I get my ummm...protein...winky winky...elsewhere.hmmm....no?*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


There...I elained..err..fixed it for you. It doesn't count unless you add some winks and a few ummmmm's and hmmmmmm's...


----------



## Davelli0331

samyeagar said:


> There...I elained..err..fixed it for you. It doesn't count unless you add some winks and a few ummmmm's and hmmmmmm's...


ahhh genuine snort

we have fun here


----------



## Regret214

samyeagar said:


> There...I elained..err..fixed it for you. It doesn't count unless you add some winks and a few ummmmm's and hmmmmmm's...



Oh, my. That sounded sexual and I didn't mean it to. What I meant was I like lean, white meat.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Regret214 said:


> Oh, my. That sounded sexual and I didn't mean it to. *What I meant was I like lean, white meat*.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Original post edited to just this...

Oh my...no...just no.


----------



## Hope1964

I do not think cross gender flirting on TAM is an appropriate use of your erotic power, people.


----------



## samyeagar

Hope1964 said:


> I do not think cross gender flirting on TAM is an appropriate use of your erotic power, people.


We aren't the droids's you're looking for...oh wait you said EROTIC powers, not Jedi powers...sorry...move along...move along.


----------



## GTdad

Hope1964 said:


> I do not think *cross gender* flirting on TAM is an appropriate use of your erotic power, people.


You want Sam to start flirting with Davelli? 


Sicko.


----------



## SCDP Joan

I am a big Mad Men fan. SCDP is a reference to one of the agencies and Joan is my fave character.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

GTdad said:


> You want Sam to start flirting with Davelli?
> 
> 
> Sicko.


Nah, I think she wanted me to flirt with you.


----------



## GTdad

samyeagar said:


> Nah, I think she wanted me to flirt with you.


:smthumbup:

Careful, I'm an expensive date.


----------



## Davelli0331

Yeah, you gotta take me somewhere *really* nice

In fact I'm *especially* susceptible to erotic power that somehow involves buying me a new luxury car


----------



## Dollystanford

I wish you guys would take your feminist crap down the hall


----------



## Hope1964

OK back to pancakes how bout. Or better yet, syrup.

Since I live in Canada I have access to unlimited real maple syrup.


----------



## samyeagar

Dollystanford said:


> I wish you guys would take your feminist crap down the hall


----------



## SCDP Joan

Mmm real maple syrup is so yummy. I also love those maple sugar candies. So good!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Regret214

Yeah, sorry, but SomedayDig is my guy. He's been getting quite lean since he's been working out being a cop.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Regret214

As for syrup, we used to live 15 miles from the Vermont border. Canada has great donuts with Tim Horton's, but Vermont has you beat with syrup.

Oh, maple syrup candies!! How I miss thee!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

