This is well stated. However, I think the reason that second marriages (and third and fourth) divorce rates continue to climb is that most people do not put the work in to change themselves for the better. We are seeing a spat of that on this site right now. Where LBSs that struggle with GAL and detachment, turn around and jump right into another R with someone new. When that happens they are really setting themselves up for a future BD, and the divorce stats for 2nd marriages and beyond bear that out.
If people would take the time to learn from their mistakes, correct them, and move forward, they still may not save their first MR, but they will certainly set themselves up for the potential for a successful second marriage. What Michelle says is dead on accurate....when the LBS does the work required they will make a fantastic spouse for someone.
Steve, the context for Michelle's quote was that some men appear to be -- or just downright ARE -- so stubborn and set in their ways that their wives think they are hopeless. The men refuse to go to counseling, refuse to communicate or relate to them, refuse to be different at age 55 or 60 than when they were at 25 or 30. The wives give up and walk. Who can blame them?
But Michelle is saying that the husbands ARE recoverable, and can change, but only when they are brought to the depths by the real chance of losing the woman they love. It's just that some of the women wouldn't believe it to be possible after a 20- or 30-year marriage.
This is well stated. However, I think the reason that second marriages (and third and fourth) divorce rates continue to climb is that most people do not put the work in to change themselves for the better. We are seeing a spat of that on this site right now. Where LBSs that struggle with GAL and detachment, turn around and jump right into another R with someone new. When that happens they are really setting themselves up for a future BD, and the divorce stats for 2nd marriages and beyond bear that out.
If people would take the time to learn from their mistakes, correct them, and move forward, they still may not save their first MR, but they will certainly set themselves up for the potential for a successful second marriage. What Michelle says is dead on accurate....when the LBS does the work required they will make a fantastic spouse for someone.
Steve, the context for Michelle's quote was that some men appear to be -- or just downright ARE -- so stubborn and set in their ways that their wives think they are hopeless. The men refuse to go to counseling, refuse to communicate or relate to them, refuse to be different at age 55 or 60 than when they were at 25 or 30. The wives give up and walk. Who can blame them?
But Michelle is saying that the husbands ARE recoverable, and can change, but only when they are brought to the depths by the real chance of losing the woman they love. It's just that some of the women wouldn't believe it to be possible after a 20- or 30-year marriage.
Agreed. What I am saying is the percentage of those men that do the work to be recoverable is low.
M(53), W(54),D(19) M-23, T-25 Bomb Drop - Dec.23, 2017 Ring and Piecing since March 2018
Tom, Maybe you can add the post pertaining to your daughters again. I missed it. I went back several pages in your last thread, but I couldn't find it.
Harvey, I talk about empathy in my reply to Spiral a couple comments ago. But let me add something here specifically about my daughters.
I always kind of believed in a yin and yang with my kids. They push, I push back, and we all laugh. They know the rhythm with me. That goes for politics or culture or even favorite foods. For example, they will be throwing something together for dinner -- maybe boba and something vegan. I will grumble, mostly in jest, "waiter, I'll have a hot dog and a coke!" Then look over at them and say, "normal food!" They will groan and we laugh together. In addition to the teasing element of the above, there is also something unyielding about it. Maybe to not concede that all new paths are better. Makes me sound old!
I don't do this anymore. I affirm just about everything they do or appreciate, even if I don't prefer it. I find it to be very sacrificial, and not the way I always was. But ... as I told them ... now that Mom is gone, all the old rules are out the window. We have to recreate how to be a family of four, not five. They have noticed. I will watch movies with them that previously (and even now) find immensely boring or inconsistent with my values. I let them make nearly all decisions about social matters. I am not a wallflower but I am also not head of household anymore. The only thing I insist on now is equal contribution to keeping the house together.
I like the fact that this is making me more vulnerable. I don't think it is necessarily good long term, however, as I seek out a new relationship. I agree with the others here (perhaps you included) who say that while being vulnerable is important, women don't respect it in a mate. Yes, it sounds contrary and I'm not sure how to reconcile the two. Maybe I need to be vulnerable but not be a wimp. I suppose I have to figure that one out. Any perspective is appreciated.
I do not want to spend the rest of my life alone. But even more than that, I do not want to ever be divorced a second time. Steve's statistics, that 50-60% of 2nd marriages end in a divorce, terrifies me.
This is the crux in my opinion. People do not want to spend the rest of their lives alone, so they make shitty compromises that blow up in their faces. It is only when people get content with being alone and not act in desperation, they attract the right kind of people.
I do not want to spend the rest of my life alone. But even more than that, I do not want to ever be divorced a second time. Steve's statistics, that 50-60% of 2nd marriages end in a divorce, terrifies me.
This is the crux in my opinion. People do not want to spend the rest of their lives alone, so they make shitty compromises that blow up in their faces. It is only when people get content with being alone and not act in desperation, they attract the right kind of people.
Very wise words, Vapo.
But might there be another element to it? A friend of mine, mid-50s has been single for about 10 years. He actually hasn't been that interested in dating much. But he made a comment that was very poignant. He said for the single women he has dated, he finds two things. The first is that the divorced ones are pretty set in their ways. So once the relationship gets past the initial stage of romance and discovery, there are all sorts of roadblocks about behavior and personal preference. Maybe this is something that you don't have in your 20s, but gets baked in after 30 years. He includes himself in that category, by the way.
The second sich is the people who have never been married. He said that they are even more set in their ways, because they never had to compromise.
So I wonder if the reason second marriages don't work is, yes, a bad choice made too quickly, but also an inability to compromise anymore. Meaning, perhaps the best match are two people who both show an enormous ability to compromise on everything -- everything -- and less about the passion or shared interests. Or maybe we are discussing the same issue from different perspectives.
Thoughts? I would really appreciate hearing from someone who has been married the second time.
I think working on your #2 goal-- empathy-- might really help you in a lot of ways, and I think stretching your empathy muscles will also have a positive impact on pretty much every other one of your 180s ... And I will freely share with you that I am among those offended by some of the things you've said.
OK, May, I'll take you up on your offer. Why don't you start, and tell me what you are offended by about me.
hi Tom,
Sure. Though I'm not doing this to get into a debate about whether or not it was truly offensive or I'm overreacting and screaming at you, or something along those lines. Also, I am not offended at YOU, I'm offended at some of the things you've said... there is a difference there. I hope you can just listen and understand that I was offended by your words. Here is one example, on 1hedlite's thread:
Originally Posted by tom_h
Without complaining or expecting to be acknowledged for it, change your appearance, behavior, and attitude. Start dressing really well around the house, better than just your normal baggies or sweats. Wear perfume, do your hair nicely. [Stay-at-home moms tend to let things go.] Spend time making more elaborate meals. Pick up after him without complaining. Avoid the usual traps you have that lead to complaining and bickering. Stop talking about sex, and stop making overtures toward sex. Give him more of the sweet MTM kisses that you mentioned above (MTM = Mary Tyler Moore kisses, the kind of chaste sweet wifely kisses that you saw on the Dick Van Dyke Show). If you have daily or weekly routines, keep them up but maintain a positive attitude.
He will notice, of course. What you want him to finally do is, after a week or two, ask you "why are you so different?" Then you give him the truth. You love him and you didn't think you were honoring him, as a man, husband and father enough. So you decided to improve yourself a bit. And it's been fun, and I'm thrilled you noticed, you tell him.
I found this to be one of the most abhorrent and sexist things I've read on these boards (and I've read a lot). Stay at home moms tend to let things go? Honoring him as a man, husband and father enough? I had a visceral response to reading this.
Also, "let themselves go" in and of itself is offensive-- the idea that women need to live up to some standard, to be pretty and fit and dress nicely-- why? As long as they're healthy and happy, who cares? And while I don't know a ton of SAHMs, the ones I'm thinking of right now are far fitter than I am, and better dressers too.
Then, your response to Scout:
Originally Posted by tom_h
Scout, I touched a nerve and I didn't mean to set you off.
is dismissive and covertly sexist. It comes across as "whoa whoa whoa, don't get all emotional!" and plays into the idea that women are overly emotional, that she can't control herself. These kind of comments aren't far from the "it must be that time of the month" kind of comments. Maybe you didn't mean to come across that way. But you should know that comments like that make you sound sexist.
Also, the other two quotes LH called you out on as being sexist-- the "tasting of the wares" one, and the female sex drive being strongest when she wants a man or a child with a man-- are sexist and I was offended when I read both of them, though I chose not to comment. (It didn't seem worth it.) "Tasting of the wares" objectifies women, and the sex drive thing is ignorant and plays into the idea that women are out to entrap a H.
And, by the way... hearing these "quotes" from someone else does NOT absolve you of any responsibility when you repeat them yourself! That is a ridiculous excuse. It doesn't matter where you heard a sexist remark. You stated them yourself and you own them now. You can't pass off responsibility after the fact because you didn't think it up on your own. It is like repeating a sexist or a racist joke. Not okay.
So there are a few times when I felt offended by remarks you made. To me, they came across as sexist. Maybe you didn't mean them that way... okay, then great! An opportunity to improve your communication skills and edit sexist comments out of your repertoire so that folks no longer imagine you to be sexist.
Best, May
May, I just spent an hour browsing through your sich. Reading it, in light of your views above, has made me wonder.
My gut says that I should let sleeping dogs lie [whoops there I am again offending someone!], not reply to this, and just let you decide whether you want to engage anymore on my threads. However, upon reading your own threads (wow, there is a lot there and after figuring your husband out I just browsed fast to learn the milestones) I have a lot of respect for your situation and the trauma he's put you through. I also -- call me foolish -- want a chance to prove that I am not the b-stard you think I am. Why would I care? Mostly because I like people, all types of people, even the ones who disagree with me. I also enjoy a spirited discussion, although I'm not sure you necessarily do ...
Still, even if we did have this dialogue, I don't think it belongs here on DB. It would be a distraction.
He said that they are even more set in their ways, because they never had to compromise.
During my dating times, All the ladies over 40 that I met were either divorced or married (Yes some even hit on me). Most of the never-married ones were in their 20s.
What is currently working for me and my lady is we put the other persons needs before our own.
"What is best for my kids is best for me" Amor Fati Link to quotes: https://www.divorcebusting.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2879712
May, I just spent an hour browsing through your sich. Reading it, in light of your views above, has made me wonder.
My gut says that I should let sleeping dogs lie [whoops there I am again offending someone!], not reply to this, and just let you decide whether you want to engage anymore on my threads. However, upon reading your own threads (wow, there is a lot there and after figuring your husband out I just browsed fast to learn the milestones) I have a lot of respect for your situation and the trauma he's put you through. I also -- call me foolish -- want a chance to prove that I am not the b-stard you think I am. Why would I care? Mostly because I like people, all types of people, even the ones who disagree with me. I also enjoy a spirited discussion, although I'm not sure you necessarily do ...
Still, even if we did have this dialogue, I don't think it belongs here on DB. It would be a distraction.
So that's where I stand.
Tom, I don't think you're a b-stard. I also like just about everyone I meet and I recognize that in you too. And, I enjoy a spirited discussion as well-- though in this case, I'm not trying to prove you are sexist and looking for a spirited defense as to why you are not. I'm just saying that In the above situations, there are things you said that were offensive to me (and sounds like to others). You can do with that what you will.
My read is that you don't think of yourself as a sexist person and therefore don't think what you say should be interpreted as sexist... and I guess I'm just pointing out maybe you have a blind spot here. If it matters to you, maybe spend some time thinking about it and how and what you say, here or IRL.
BTW, I totally giggled at your description of what you would normally say when your kids cooked up a vegan meal. You remind me exactly of my FIL!! And I have great respect for you making those changes with your children and pushing outside of your comfort zone. And by the way, watching movies you wouldn't have before (would also suggest reading novels from the POV of someone unlike yourself) is also a great way to put yourself in someone else's shoes and stretch those empathy muscles. Keep it up.
(And also... my thoughts in light of my sitch made you wonder how? If only I'd worn nicer pants and been more respectful of my H he wouldn't have strayed? )
M
Me (46) H (42) M:14 T:18, D9 & D11 4/19 - 12/19: series of escalating BDs 9/20 - present: R and piecing
(And also... my thoughts in light of my sitch made you wonder how? If only I'd worn nicer pants and been more respectful of my H he wouldn't have strayed? ) M
I never said that and you know it! Haha
Besides, if you have a problem with the suggestion reach out to Nancy Missler. If I would have mentioned that to my ex she might have socked me, and I would probably have deserved it. She was the one who made the SAHM comment, not me; had I said it without her prompting, she might have socked me then too!
)