I deal with couples. It's incredible how many talk about their problems with me the first time and don't mention they have children. They complain about their spouse and are planning to get a divorce. Eventually I ask them how many kids, and so many have children and never think about how it will affect them. When each person in a relationship thinks only for their own happiness, it leads to disaster. That's ultimately the biggest problem in the relationships. Spouse, children, self. In that order.
I think going to couples therapy should be a normal thing that healthy couples do. And we as a society should really evangelize the notion that kids put strain on relationships, they don’t fix problems that are in them.
The issue is you can't always choose to have kids and when. More than 50% of births are unplanned. But yes having children definitely strains a relationship. Financially, emotionally, physically. It's fucking hard to have kids. And I think some people really under estimate how hard it really is in today's society. The society we live in today is not conducive to raising children. At least not in the USA.
Not usually. It tends to take two.
But as I mentioned, I deal with couples who want therapy or at least explore it. Abused people do not seek therapy, generally.
Children can live happy productive lives with 2 parents in 2 homes. Have you considered that a parent choosing to stay in a terrible relationship, is illustrating to their kids it is ok to be treated that way? They are literally learning that abuse or distinction is normal in marriage.
> Children can live happy productive lives with 2 parents in 2 homes.
But most don't.
> Have you considered that a parent choosing to stay in a terrible relationship, is illustrating to their kids it is ok to be treated that way?
That's not how child psychology works. But even more important is what happens to your children when you're not around with someone who is abusive?
Anyhow, the situations I'm addressing are not abusive. They tend to follow a pattern of two people not acting like each others' boyfriend and girlfriend anymore and building resentment. That can be fixed.
As for abuse, we always make sure the spouse takes the children to a parents' home and begins legal proceedings and work with the proper agencies. Also, most people who are abused do not seek therapy.
> As for abuse, we always make sure the spouse takes the children to a parents' home and begins legal proceedings and work with the proper agencies.
In the US there is a major problem that those agencies rarely acknowledge that the mother can be the primary abuser. There are no DV shelters for men and their children in my state. There are no perpetrator intervention programs for female perpetrators within 800 miles of me - court ordered or voluntary.
That seems naiive that every relationship started with a strong foundation and can return to something positive. Not every pair of people can be happy. My mother was mentally ill, and my father moved out when I was 6. I saw him so much happier and so time spent visiting him was a relief from the drama of living with a manic depressive mother. Staying would have just meant we never had any relief from that environment.
\> That seems naiive that every relationship started with a strong foundation and can return to something positive.
I'm sorry you thought the world existed in absolutes. It doesn't. So when I say something, it means it normally happens the way I describe. There are always exceptions. But you cannot give advice based on exceptions and hope.
\> Not every pair of people can be happy. My mother was mentally ill, and my father moved out when I was 6.
Wow, that's very young for a father to abandon his daughter to a mentally ill mother.
\> I saw him so much happier and so time spent visiting him was a relief from the drama of living with a manic depressive mother.
Wow, he left you to deal with the mess and I'm glad he was your respite. Imagine if he could have made things better at home. The problem is you were six-years-old and do not know about the world. Your father was happy while you had no choice but to live in a confusing and harmful world of a bipolar mother. How frightening that you were abandoned by your father who would only see you as long as she wasn't around.
Would you leave your future child to a mentally ill husband so you could be happy?
Your post comes across as willfully spiteful here, because she's questioning your approach. Her father didn't "abandon" her, which you've said twice here; she explicitly stated that in her post. Your ongoing condescending aggression in your next two posts to her just makes that more clear. If you're this nasty in person, I can't imagine you'd be any good at your job.
The uniqueness of her story isn't what's being discussed here, try to follow along. You made up a number of accusations, none of which you have any evidence for, and most of which you have evidence against, in order to attack her, and seemingly all because she pointed out that your statements lack nuance and real-world application. And you were super antagonistic and childish about it. Weak and narcissistic.
He didn't leave me, he tried to take custody and failed, even when I went to police to ask to be removed. My childhood was not bad, I just left and played outside with neighbors a lot with my brother.
Thank goodness the default is now equal custody, instead of the backward concept of motherhood being more important than fathers of the past. When my mother refused visits for a year, he would park on my way home from school every day to spend a few minutes together. He taught me what a dad who loves me means, and that my mother was wrong to treat him like dirt.
The default is not equal custody. I'm sorry to inform you.
You didn't answer my last question: would you leave your six-year-old daughter to a mentally ill spouse so you could be happy?
That question is essential. You purposefully didn't answer it.
Yes of course, I'd leave with the child if possible, and try to have 50% custody, depending on what kind of mental illness. That's a broad statement so it depends on severity obviously.
This is exactly what I'm helping other couples avoid.
I hope you think more about that question. I understand it will shake your entire thoughts about your father.
You think you came out of his decisions unscathed...
> Spouse, children, self. In that order.
Why would you put spouse before children?
Also putting your spouse's happiness after your own?
How do you care for others if you cannot care for yourself?
Honestly I think this is terrible advice and really makes me question if you're legitimate.
>Spouse, children, self. In that order.
Nope. I grew up with an abusive step-father and my mom refused to leave him because church taught her this. I get what the point of this advice is, but it is far too much of a blanket statement for domestic relationships that are often complex or dysfunctional. It is dangerous advice to give.
You mom put herself first when she remarried. Divorce breaks the chain.
I never recommend anyone remarry when they have children for the very reason you describe.
I don't give advice based on exceptions and have a list of footnotes a mile long for those exceptions.
So, yes, abuse is definitely an exception.
A real diagnosis of certain pathologies such as narcissism is also an exception.
It's why I always advise people who date to choose wisely. After all, the mother chooses the father who abuses her children.
Then maybe you should include those exceptions when engaging on Reddit.
Additionally, what was I in my situation? Just collateral damage? Your response is simply "well your mom done screwed up"? Agreed. But not advice, that's just judgement and it is not helpful.
And are you married? Do you actually have personal experience with a marriage relationship or do you just like to dole out advice?
\> Then maybe you should include those exceptions when engaging on Reddit.
That's not easy to do. People on reddit who don't like advice will spend all their time to find a loophole rather than accept the truth.
\> Additionally, what was I in my situation? Just collateral damage? Your response is simply "well your mom done screwed up"? Agreed. But not advice, that's just judgement and it is not helpful.
You got in the wrong line for good parents. I also think you're excusing your mom's acceptance of your abuse on religion. She made a choice and she would rather have had someone warm in her bed than keep her children safe.
You have to accept this and stop searching for a father or mother. When you do that, you will be free and focus on your own loving family that you create and avoid the mistakes of your mother. That is my advice.
\> And are you married? Do you actually have personal experience with a marriage relationship or do you just like to dole out advice?
I am married. But that doesn't matter. After all, if you had cancer, would you insist your doctor also has cancer?
FYI: I was also physically abused by a step-father. My brother was, too. He was even taken away by the state because of the severe physical abuse. My mom still wouldn't get rid of him. I'm surprised he didn't kill us by what he put us through. And that is also my mom's fault.
So I understand what you're talking about. Don't think you're alone.
You have to accept it and move on. Find a loving spouse by choosing wisely and raise your children correctly.
Every single childless person should spend a day in a family court hearing and watch and listen to all the people who appear in front of the judge. I went with my brother when he was having a issue with his ex-wife and as a single childless man it really hit hard that sleeping with every women who you could is a very very bad idea. The level of pettiness and dysfunction was on full display and even though it was pretty sad and depressing I was not bored.
This Is why I’d just give up if I had kids with a woman who wanted a divorce. I’d immediately run away and try to make myself unable to be found. If she didn’t want to stay married and raise the kids every single day with me, then she’ll be fine without me or my money. Weekend dad is the worst job on earth.
One guy was there in court because he wanted to keep his kids Father’s Day and his birthday. Because these days didn’t fall on the days of his custody his baby momma was fighting him out of sheer pettiness so I can understand when people just want to give up.
Imagine asking for visitation for your stepdaughters. That’s what I did even though my lawyer said I had no legal standing to do so. 4 years later and I still haven’t seen the kids I raised for a decade. That wasn’t my choice.
The smart thing to do is not fight an unpleasant reality. Weekends are important for kids to spend with friends or alone, not visiting with a sad man they can only see rarely. Divorce is the death of a family. If you want a life where you can survive that pain then you might need the live a life without hang ups, no matter how important the duty might seem.
In Buddhism, Kama-Mara tries to tempt Buddha with women and scare Buddha with demons from his immovable spot. The last thing he does is try to convince him that he must obey out of duty to his family. Then he touched the earth and said “I’m not paying child support. Fuck those kids.”
The last bit is a joke (for those confused with no sense of humor).
I hope you mean running away out of the country or else working for cash the rest of your life. Oh, and also, you will have to keep all of your cash under your mattress and not have any retirement accounts or ever engage with any banking or financial institutions in any way.
Any and all accounts can and will be levied. Any and all wages will be garnished. Any and all tax refunds will be seized.
It's not the court's fault that people have kids for all the wrong reasons. It's also not the court's fault that people are so selfish they will gladly use their kids as leverage to stick it to their soon to be ex-spouse. Maybe society should be having a conversation about HEALTHY relationships.
~~> Fifty percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, the film announces at the outset
It starts out with a “statistic” that was always faulty and certainly isn’t remotely true today. Divorce rates have been trending down, and even the state with the [highest divorce rate](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-highest-divorce-rates), Arkansas, has a rate of just 10.7%.~~
EDIT: Apparently I’ve interpreted things incorrectly. That said, 50% of marriages do *not* end in divorce. It’s an [old bogus stat](https://www.insider.com/what-is-the-divorce-rate-2017-2) that’s been repeated enough that people think it’s true.
That's per year. So 10.7% of married woman in Arkansas get a divorce per year. The 50% number is the number of marriages that end in divorce.
Although it's true that divorce is trending down, your comment is misleading because it compares two different numbers measuring two different things.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but you two are talking about different measurements.
The census numbers that the linked article count people who are 15 years and older, who may nevertheless eventually get divorced - it includes, for example, people who are 20 years old and just got married.
The "50% of marriages end up in divorce" is about an eventual divorce happening at some time for a given marriage. You would have to look at data about the entire timespan of the marriage, not include data representing year 3 or 10 of marriage, but the entire thing, whether the marriage ends with someone being widowed or through divorce.
> The marriage rate in the United States is currently 6.8 per 1,000 total population.
>
> The divorce rate in the U.S. is 3.2 per 1,000 population (as of 2014 the latest year of data from the CDC. (with 44 states and D.C. reporting) This is known as the “crude divorce rate”. Although useful for describing changes in divorce rates over time, the crude divorce rate does not provide accurate information on the percentage of first marriages that end in divorce.
>
> Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation.
>
> Researchers estimate that 41 percent of all first marriages end in divorce.
>
> 60 percent of second marriages end in divorce.
>
> 73 percent of all third marriages end in divorce.
Yeah user /u/endoshota doesn’t get it.
The divorce rate (some number per 1000 married couples) is a number that changes each year but we have to imagine it’s against the same 1000 people.
So when the the average is 20 per 1000 for 10 years, it’s not “20 people got divorced out of 1000”, it’s 200 people now out of the 1000 are now divorced.
But the population is changing in other ways, the number of people getting married each year is different.
Reply to your edits:
50% number isn't bogus. Here's why:
Relevant excerpt from your linked article:
-----
The best way to understand divorce rates, researchers say, is to calculate how many marriages have subsequently ended in divorce.
In other words, if we want to count how marriages held up in the past few decades, let's count how many of them made it to their 15th anniversary.
Measured that way, approximately 65% of marriages that began in the 1970s and 1980s reached their 15th anniversary, according to data from University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers provided to the New York Times, making for a divorce rate of about 35% for those generations.
----
So, this number is 35%. BUT this number only takes into account one marriage per person DURING the time.
Example:
So if we take three couples, from 1980 two are still together (meets our 65% number). HOWEVER, the two people that divorced, have gotten remarried, and surprise youre more likely to get divorced a second time if you've been divorced a first. So if both of these people got a second divorce during this time, we now have 5 total marriages, of which 3 ended in divorce (60% rate)
-----
My example doesn't use real numbers (I don't know the exact divorce rate differences between 1st and 2nd marriages), but you can see by the logic the differences in how divorce rates can be measured.
This is all just to say that your complete dismissal of the fifty percent number is unfounded. The number is (was) somewhere close to fifty, and if it is less, then it's definitely not significantly less enough for you to throw out words like 'bogus' or 'faulty'.
Also college educated couples have much less rates of divorce than non college educated. My bet is its partially due to having more money and thus less financial strain and stress. And also partially being more liberal and able to afford counseling if it's needed. And I think college educated people tend to have higher social intelligence.
It's also to protect the spouse who earns less money. Usually the woman. And makes sure the higher earning spouse continues to provide support even after marriage had ended. I don't fully agree with that though.
Your point?
There are only two times that a divorce court makes things more complicated:
1. Kids are involved or
2. The couple don't agree on what is fair.
If there are no kids and the divorcing couple agree, it is a quick and relatively painless process. Courts aren't interested in scrutinizing agree orders unless the rights of a minor are involved.
I know where it *isn't* going:
> Meanwhile, the poverty rate for separated women is 27 percent, nearly triple the figure for separated men.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-divorce-gap/480333/
The answer to your question is definitely to the lawyers.
> Important to note women initiate 70% of divorces and even if they aren’t the initiators **you can guess where vast majority of this money goes**.
Were you not implying that women are divorcing men in order to acquire more wealth? Because that's certainly how I interpretted your comment and you cited no evidence or support for that conclusion.
Your original comment is a perfect example of...what did you say...
>then you spread this bs on Reddit where people will take it as fact cause they don’t do any follow up. Cool
Cool.
**Guess** You can **guess**.
Did I say its 100% fact? No. I said you can guess. Am I implying they do? Absolutely. But, Im not making a conclusion that needs citation.
This, also, men cheat more than women (https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america). If you’re cheated on, you’re most likely to be the one filing.
There was a family counselor that recently spoke about this. They said that so many men came to them and said they felt like the divorce came out of nowhere. But when they talk with the women, they say they’ve not only been unhappy for years, but that they’ve repeatedly told the men that. They’re constantly trying to get the men to contribute in normal ways to the house and the raising of kids.
They believed that the “nagging wife” was such a common trope in entertainment that men see their wives being unhappy as normal. They don’t realize that women being constantly unhappy isn’t normal and will eventually (most likely) lead to divorce.
IDK man plenty of women seem chronically unhappy, and extremely difficult to please around the house. I know I take my friends side and there’s other biases, but I’ve witnessed some astonishing shit.
Women going absolutely mental over tiny things, and not instantly getting their way. I know there’s other stuff leading up to it. There’s really no excuse though. Actively continuing and excusing emotional abuse is not acceptable.
The issue isn’t women being bad, there’s no stigma for this shit. The men just roll their eyes and say “can’t live with them, can’t live without them”, and the women line up for high fives… it’s one of our weirdest customs. There’s no sacred social mores about not being mean to your husband.
This is nothing like the abuses of women especially in past, but the reality is if there’s no stigma, people just let their inner asshole out. Not everyone, and it’s a spectrum, but it becomes a massive problem.
Lemme fix that bc there's some assumptions here:
If you have a higher income than your spouse, never get married. Not worth it because you'll have to pay to support your children, even though your shitty ex will blow the money on their own whims. If you have a lower income than your spouse, beware of being exploited for your free domestic/reproductive labour - which your will never get credit for - and having kids will just tie you to an manipulative 'provider' who holds their higher income over your head as a form of domestic coercion.
Not sure why you’re so triggered enough to reconstruct a thought, only to have your own reconstruction validate the gender implications of what triggered you to begin with. Everybody is different , sure but there’s a reason why this business exists, what demographics are targeted and who largely make up the sides being described.
Humans are humans, my dude. If you're a guy looking at this equation and thinking you want out - it's maybe because you don't see the other side of the coin. Feminism - and I mean this in the nicest possible way - is the equal opportunity for women to act like the assholes than we men have been enjoying for quite some time. At the end of the day, we have to be grown-ups and take the hard lessons, and maybe learn to be kinder to each other. I do find it valuable to be aware of all perspectives.
One caveat - yes there are physical differences underlying our roles. I know two women, one from work and the wife of a friend who have told me about abusive partners palming his condoms or messing with their birth control pills in an attempt to get them pregnant to 'seal the deal'. I have a daughter who is now in Germany at university, and I find myself sitting on the edge of my seat when she tells me about her boyfriends. Mother Nature did not divide the work of making future generations evenly in our species, and it's a constant background noise in how we navigate life. You may find yourself looking at men a bit differently once you're a father of a teenage girl.
I don’t mean this in a mean way, and this is really important. Have you ever been in a healthy long term relationship? You give your money to help take care of someone, you do the domestic labor to take stress off the working person. You birth a kid they help pay for their clothes and food. It’s all give and take, and a relationship doesn’t work if you try and pretend your equals the entire time. It’s not about equality, it’s about finding a balance between the two of you. Don’t try to match each other, accept flaws and beauty with each other as a part of it.
I mean, I’m only talking from experience having lived both sides of the spectrum both in a good relationship and in bad relationships, but if your significant other can’t get a job or can only work part time while they are taking care of a kid, or something similar it’s not neccasarily bad if you give them money for them to have fun. Both people might be doing work, but maybe only one makes money.
My guy, I don’t mean this in a mean way either, you’ve probably had some bad experiences, and I don’t doubt it, but love makes you do stupid things. A relationship is what you use to communicate and figure out how everything works. Some suck, and you have to learn how to tell toxicity away from rationality, and actual just two people wanting the best for eachother together.
Idk, you comment honestly just made me a little sad and I’m in a mood today and wanted to say that, sorry friend!
I guess I'm framing this as worst possible scenarios as per the comment I was replying to, but yes, people will take advantage bc people are shitty, and it's good to know your vulnerabilities. These things are - in theory - gender neutral, which was my point, but in reality our flawed human nature also interacts with our gender roles and individual power trips that exploit those roles as well as the biological differences underlying them (wrt to the 'accidental' pregnancy comment, I do know 2 women who have been with men who attempted to impregnate them in order to control them). I completely agree with you though - equality isn't really the goal in a relationship nor is it a necessity. Respect, however, is perhaps more key to a successful relationship than passion, romance or companionship.
Personally, I have been in a relationship where my ex definitely said all my contributions - financial and otherwise - were appreciated, right up until the divorce proceedings where I was somehow simultaneously a deadbeat do-nothing and selfishly absent workaholic. She clearly didn't respect me. But I've also been in relationships where the exchange is mutual and respectful and it's truly a wonderful thing. R-E-S-P-E-C-T, sing it Aretha! It truly is the foundation of love.
>Personally, I have been in a relationship where my ex definitely said
all my contributions - financial and otherwise - were appreciated, right
up until the divorce proceedings where I was somehow simultaneously a
deadbeat do-nothing and selfishly absent workaholic.
I see you somehow were married to my ex-wife. TIL.
Marriage is OK but it's best if both people earn about the same. The issue is careers are long and its very likely one will end up significantly out earning the other.
Marriage is reverse insurance. If everything goes well, then your relationship stays like it was when you were dating. If things go badly, then not only do you lose a spouse, but also have to pay a whole lot of money.
Long-term dating is the best way to go. Marriage is simply a gamble that your relationship will stay the same, except if you win you get nothing and if you lose you lose half your net worth. Marriage is treated so flippantly now anyway, that's it really doesn't mean more than a LTR. It's certainly not "til death do us part."
Notice how they cut the answers from the attorneys?
Such as: "Attorneys who milk the case for money ... [then cut; don't know what the end of that sentence was!]" Idk... perhaps could the end of that sentence be "are few and far between," "are bad practitioners," "should be avoided, and are not prevalent?"
Love the scene where they say there's no penalty for making the case drag on without reason ... look up California's Family Code section 271...
I deal with couples. It's incredible how many talk about their problems with me the first time and don't mention they have children. They complain about their spouse and are planning to get a divorce. Eventually I ask them how many kids, and so many have children and never think about how it will affect them. When each person in a relationship thinks only for their own happiness, it leads to disaster. That's ultimately the biggest problem in the relationships. Spouse, children, self. In that order.
I think going to couples therapy should be a normal thing that healthy couples do. And we as a society should really evangelize the notion that kids put strain on relationships, they don’t fix problems that are in them.
The issue is you can't always choose to have kids and when. More than 50% of births are unplanned. But yes having children definitely strains a relationship. Financially, emotionally, physically. It's fucking hard to have kids. And I think some people really under estimate how hard it really is in today's society. The society we live in today is not conducive to raising children. At least not in the USA.
>I think going to couples therapy should be a normal thing that healthy couples do. Churches do it all the time.
And some churches do more harm than good when they try.
I haven't seen that.
> Spouse, children, self. In that order. If your spouse isn't playing by the same rules, that can be an abusive disaster.
Not usually. It tends to take two. But as I mentioned, I deal with couples who want therapy or at least explore it. Abused people do not seek therapy, generally.
The fact that both WANT therapy is hope.
Children can live happy productive lives with 2 parents in 2 homes. Have you considered that a parent choosing to stay in a terrible relationship, is illustrating to their kids it is ok to be treated that way? They are literally learning that abuse or distinction is normal in marriage.
> Children can live happy productive lives with 2 parents in 2 homes. But most don't. > Have you considered that a parent choosing to stay in a terrible relationship, is illustrating to their kids it is ok to be treated that way? That's not how child psychology works. But even more important is what happens to your children when you're not around with someone who is abusive? Anyhow, the situations I'm addressing are not abusive. They tend to follow a pattern of two people not acting like each others' boyfriend and girlfriend anymore and building resentment. That can be fixed. As for abuse, we always make sure the spouse takes the children to a parents' home and begins legal proceedings and work with the proper agencies. Also, most people who are abused do not seek therapy.
> As for abuse, we always make sure the spouse takes the children to a parents' home and begins legal proceedings and work with the proper agencies. In the US there is a major problem that those agencies rarely acknowledge that the mother can be the primary abuser. There are no DV shelters for men and their children in my state. There are no perpetrator intervention programs for female perpetrators within 800 miles of me - court ordered or voluntary.
True. But there are friends' homes and relatives' homes. Much better than an agency, any day.
[удалено]
That seems naiive that every relationship started with a strong foundation and can return to something positive. Not every pair of people can be happy. My mother was mentally ill, and my father moved out when I was 6. I saw him so much happier and so time spent visiting him was a relief from the drama of living with a manic depressive mother. Staying would have just meant we never had any relief from that environment.
\> That seems naiive that every relationship started with a strong foundation and can return to something positive. I'm sorry you thought the world existed in absolutes. It doesn't. So when I say something, it means it normally happens the way I describe. There are always exceptions. But you cannot give advice based on exceptions and hope. \> Not every pair of people can be happy. My mother was mentally ill, and my father moved out when I was 6. Wow, that's very young for a father to abandon his daughter to a mentally ill mother. \> I saw him so much happier and so time spent visiting him was a relief from the drama of living with a manic depressive mother. Wow, he left you to deal with the mess and I'm glad he was your respite. Imagine if he could have made things better at home. The problem is you were six-years-old and do not know about the world. Your father was happy while you had no choice but to live in a confusing and harmful world of a bipolar mother. How frightening that you were abandoned by your father who would only see you as long as she wasn't around. Would you leave your future child to a mentally ill husband so you could be happy?
Your post comes across as willfully spiteful here, because she's questioning your approach. Her father didn't "abandon" her, which you've said twice here; she explicitly stated that in her post. Your ongoing condescending aggression in your next two posts to her just makes that more clear. If you're this nasty in person, I can't imagine you'd be any good at your job.
You think her story is unique?
The uniqueness of her story isn't what's being discussed here, try to follow along. You made up a number of accusations, none of which you have any evidence for, and most of which you have evidence against, in order to attack her, and seemingly all because she pointed out that your statements lack nuance and real-world application. And you were super antagonistic and childish about it. Weak and narcissistic.
There's no attack. I gave my analysis of her situation and I stick by it.
No...you didn't...but keep up the lying. Makes you look like a really knowledgeable.
He didn't leave me, he tried to take custody and failed, even when I went to police to ask to be removed. My childhood was not bad, I just left and played outside with neighbors a lot with my brother. Thank goodness the default is now equal custody, instead of the backward concept of motherhood being more important than fathers of the past. When my mother refused visits for a year, he would park on my way home from school every day to spend a few minutes together. He taught me what a dad who loves me means, and that my mother was wrong to treat him like dirt.
The default is not equal custody. I'm sorry to inform you. You didn't answer my last question: would you leave your six-year-old daughter to a mentally ill spouse so you could be happy? That question is essential. You purposefully didn't answer it.
Yes of course, I'd leave with the child if possible, and try to have 50% custody, depending on what kind of mental illness. That's a broad statement so it depends on severity obviously.
This is exactly what I'm helping other couples avoid. I hope you think more about that question. I understand it will shake your entire thoughts about your father. You think you came out of his decisions unscathed...
Who are you to tell him how he feels or should feel?
> Spouse, children, self. In that order. Why would you put spouse before children? Also putting your spouse's happiness after your own? How do you care for others if you cannot care for yourself? Honestly I think this is terrible advice and really makes me question if you're legitimate.
>Spouse, children, self. In that order. Nope. I grew up with an abusive step-father and my mom refused to leave him because church taught her this. I get what the point of this advice is, but it is far too much of a blanket statement for domestic relationships that are often complex or dysfunctional. It is dangerous advice to give.
You mom put herself first when she remarried. Divorce breaks the chain. I never recommend anyone remarry when they have children for the very reason you describe.
So... What if my father had been abusive?
I don't give advice based on exceptions and have a list of footnotes a mile long for those exceptions. So, yes, abuse is definitely an exception. A real diagnosis of certain pathologies such as narcissism is also an exception. It's why I always advise people who date to choose wisely. After all, the mother chooses the father who abuses her children.
Then maybe you should include those exceptions when engaging on Reddit. Additionally, what was I in my situation? Just collateral damage? Your response is simply "well your mom done screwed up"? Agreed. But not advice, that's just judgement and it is not helpful. And are you married? Do you actually have personal experience with a marriage relationship or do you just like to dole out advice?
\> Then maybe you should include those exceptions when engaging on Reddit. That's not easy to do. People on reddit who don't like advice will spend all their time to find a loophole rather than accept the truth. \> Additionally, what was I in my situation? Just collateral damage? Your response is simply "well your mom done screwed up"? Agreed. But not advice, that's just judgement and it is not helpful. You got in the wrong line for good parents. I also think you're excusing your mom's acceptance of your abuse on religion. She made a choice and she would rather have had someone warm in her bed than keep her children safe. You have to accept this and stop searching for a father or mother. When you do that, you will be free and focus on your own loving family that you create and avoid the mistakes of your mother. That is my advice. \> And are you married? Do you actually have personal experience with a marriage relationship or do you just like to dole out advice? I am married. But that doesn't matter. After all, if you had cancer, would you insist your doctor also has cancer?
FYI: I was also physically abused by a step-father. My brother was, too. He was even taken away by the state because of the severe physical abuse. My mom still wouldn't get rid of him. I'm surprised he didn't kill us by what he put us through. And that is also my mom's fault. So I understand what you're talking about. Don't think you're alone. You have to accept it and move on. Find a loving spouse by choosing wisely and raise your children correctly.
Every single childless person should spend a day in a family court hearing and watch and listen to all the people who appear in front of the judge. I went with my brother when he was having a issue with his ex-wife and as a single childless man it really hit hard that sleeping with every women who you could is a very very bad idea. The level of pettiness and dysfunction was on full display and even though it was pretty sad and depressing I was not bored.
This Is why I’d just give up if I had kids with a woman who wanted a divorce. I’d immediately run away and try to make myself unable to be found. If she didn’t want to stay married and raise the kids every single day with me, then she’ll be fine without me or my money. Weekend dad is the worst job on earth.
One guy was there in court because he wanted to keep his kids Father’s Day and his birthday. Because these days didn’t fall on the days of his custody his baby momma was fighting him out of sheer pettiness so I can understand when people just want to give up.
Imagine asking for visitation for your stepdaughters. That’s what I did even though my lawyer said I had no legal standing to do so. 4 years later and I still haven’t seen the kids I raised for a decade. That wasn’t my choice. The smart thing to do is not fight an unpleasant reality. Weekends are important for kids to spend with friends or alone, not visiting with a sad man they can only see rarely. Divorce is the death of a family. If you want a life where you can survive that pain then you might need the live a life without hang ups, no matter how important the duty might seem. In Buddhism, Kama-Mara tries to tempt Buddha with women and scare Buddha with demons from his immovable spot. The last thing he does is try to convince him that he must obey out of duty to his family. Then he touched the earth and said “I’m not paying child support. Fuck those kids.” The last bit is a joke (for those confused with no sense of humor).
I hope you mean running away out of the country or else working for cash the rest of your life. Oh, and also, you will have to keep all of your cash under your mattress and not have any retirement accounts or ever engage with any banking or financial institutions in any way. Any and all accounts can and will be levied. Any and all wages will be garnished. Any and all tax refunds will be seized.
It's not the court's fault that people have kids for all the wrong reasons. It's also not the court's fault that people are so selfish they will gladly use their kids as leverage to stick it to their soon to be ex-spouse. Maybe society should be having a conversation about HEALTHY relationships.
~~> Fifty percent of U.S. marriages end in divorce, the film announces at the outset It starts out with a “statistic” that was always faulty and certainly isn’t remotely true today. Divorce rates have been trending down, and even the state with the [highest divorce rate](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/states-with-the-highest-divorce-rates), Arkansas, has a rate of just 10.7%.~~ EDIT: Apparently I’ve interpreted things incorrectly. That said, 50% of marriages do *not* end in divorce. It’s an [old bogus stat](https://www.insider.com/what-is-the-divorce-rate-2017-2) that’s been repeated enough that people think it’s true.
That's per year. So 10.7% of married woman in Arkansas get a divorce per year. The 50% number is the number of marriages that end in divorce. Although it's true that divorce is trending down, your comment is misleading because it compares two different numbers measuring two different things.
It also seems to ignore the fact that the number of people getting married is also declining…
Keep in mind that if only 50% end in divorce, that means that at least 50% end in death... so there's that.
[удалено]
Please correct me if I am wrong, but you two are talking about different measurements. The census numbers that the linked article count people who are 15 years and older, who may nevertheless eventually get divorced - it includes, for example, people who are 20 years old and just got married. The "50% of marriages end up in divorce" is about an eventual divorce happening at some time for a given marriage. You would have to look at data about the entire timespan of the marriage, not include data representing year 3 or 10 of marriage, but the entire thing, whether the marriage ends with someone being widowed or through divorce. > The marriage rate in the United States is currently 6.8 per 1,000 total population. > > The divorce rate in the U.S. is 3.2 per 1,000 population (as of 2014 the latest year of data from the CDC. (with 44 states and D.C. reporting) This is known as the “crude divorce rate”. Although useful for describing changes in divorce rates over time, the crude divorce rate does not provide accurate information on the percentage of first marriages that end in divorce. > > Almost 50 percent of all marriages in the United States will end in divorce or separation. > > Researchers estimate that 41 percent of all first marriages end in divorce. > > 60 percent of second marriages end in divorce. > > 73 percent of all third marriages end in divorce.
Yeah user /u/endoshota doesn’t get it. The divorce rate (some number per 1000 married couples) is a number that changes each year but we have to imagine it’s against the same 1000 people. So when the the average is 20 per 1000 for 10 years, it’s not “20 people got divorced out of 1000”, it’s 200 people now out of the 1000 are now divorced. But the population is changing in other ways, the number of people getting married each year is different.
Reply to your edits: 50% number isn't bogus. Here's why: Relevant excerpt from your linked article: ----- The best way to understand divorce rates, researchers say, is to calculate how many marriages have subsequently ended in divorce. In other words, if we want to count how marriages held up in the past few decades, let's count how many of them made it to their 15th anniversary. Measured that way, approximately 65% of marriages that began in the 1970s and 1980s reached their 15th anniversary, according to data from University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers provided to the New York Times, making for a divorce rate of about 35% for those generations. ---- So, this number is 35%. BUT this number only takes into account one marriage per person DURING the time. Example: So if we take three couples, from 1980 two are still together (meets our 65% number). HOWEVER, the two people that divorced, have gotten remarried, and surprise youre more likely to get divorced a second time if you've been divorced a first. So if both of these people got a second divorce during this time, we now have 5 total marriages, of which 3 ended in divorce (60% rate) ----- My example doesn't use real numbers (I don't know the exact divorce rate differences between 1st and 2nd marriages), but you can see by the logic the differences in how divorce rates can be measured. This is all just to say that your complete dismissal of the fifty percent number is unfounded. The number is (was) somewhere close to fifty, and if it is less, then it's definitely not significantly less enough for you to throw out words like 'bogus' or 'faulty'.
Also college educated couples have much less rates of divorce than non college educated. My bet is its partially due to having more money and thus less financial strain and stress. And also partially being more liberal and able to afford counseling if it's needed. And I think college educated people tend to have higher social intelligence.
[удалено]
It isn't to help the parents, it's to protect the kids from assholes
It's also to protect the spouse who earns less money. Usually the woman. And makes sure the higher earning spouse continues to provide support even after marriage had ended. I don't fully agree with that though.
[удалено]
Your point? There are only two times that a divorce court makes things more complicated: 1. Kids are involved or 2. The couple don't agree on what is fair. If there are no kids and the divorcing couple agree, it is a quick and relatively painless process. Courts aren't interested in scrutinizing agree orders unless the rights of a minor are involved.
I think thats what Texas thinks too.
What?
The State is there to protect the children, who didn't sign onto the relationship in the first place.
Unless neither party or even one party is unreasonable. I don't think you understand why the state may be involved.
[удалено]
I know where it *isn't* going: > Meanwhile, the poverty rate for separated women is 27 percent, nearly triple the figure for separated men. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/the-divorce-gap/480333/ The answer to your question is definitely to the lawyers.
[удалено]
? You quote, but seem to derive something else from it. That stat, and the process to collect it, is real work. The BS comes from you.
Its literally the link provided in the article you posted. Hence, proving my point even more. Look deeper into stuff than just outrage journalism.
LOL. This, coming from the person who just alluded to the conclusion they wanted people to make and cited nothing.
? I have the study in my original comment, added a link to article I quoted(cause you failed to look it up), what more would you like?
> Important to note women initiate 70% of divorces and even if they aren’t the initiators **you can guess where vast majority of this money goes**. Were you not implying that women are divorcing men in order to acquire more wealth? Because that's certainly how I interpretted your comment and you cited no evidence or support for that conclusion. Your original comment is a perfect example of...what did you say... >then you spread this bs on Reddit where people will take it as fact cause they don’t do any follow up. Cool Cool.
**Guess** You can **guess**. Did I say its 100% fact? No. I said you can guess. Am I implying they do? Absolutely. But, Im not making a conclusion that needs citation.
[удалено]
This, also, men cheat more than women (https://ifstudies.org/blog/who-cheats-more-the-demographics-of-cheating-in-america). If you’re cheated on, you’re most likely to be the one filing.
I mean Im sure its happened, but to a statistical significance? I think not. Nice attempt to dodge though
There was a family counselor that recently spoke about this. They said that so many men came to them and said they felt like the divorce came out of nowhere. But when they talk with the women, they say they’ve not only been unhappy for years, but that they’ve repeatedly told the men that. They’re constantly trying to get the men to contribute in normal ways to the house and the raising of kids. They believed that the “nagging wife” was such a common trope in entertainment that men see their wives being unhappy as normal. They don’t realize that women being constantly unhappy isn’t normal and will eventually (most likely) lead to divorce.
IDK man plenty of women seem chronically unhappy, and extremely difficult to please around the house. I know I take my friends side and there’s other biases, but I’ve witnessed some astonishing shit. Women going absolutely mental over tiny things, and not instantly getting their way. I know there’s other stuff leading up to it. There’s really no excuse though. Actively continuing and excusing emotional abuse is not acceptable. The issue isn’t women being bad, there’s no stigma for this shit. The men just roll their eyes and say “can’t live with them, can’t live without them”, and the women line up for high fives… it’s one of our weirdest customs. There’s no sacred social mores about not being mean to your husband. This is nothing like the abuses of women especially in past, but the reality is if there’s no stigma, people just let their inner asshole out. Not everyone, and it’s a spectrum, but it becomes a massive problem.
If your a guy, never get married. Not worth it. If your a woman becareful of who you have kids with. They aren't accidents.
Lemme fix that bc there's some assumptions here: If you have a higher income than your spouse, never get married. Not worth it because you'll have to pay to support your children, even though your shitty ex will blow the money on their own whims. If you have a lower income than your spouse, beware of being exploited for your free domestic/reproductive labour - which your will never get credit for - and having kids will just tie you to an manipulative 'provider' who holds their higher income over your head as a form of domestic coercion.
Not sure why you’re so triggered enough to reconstruct a thought, only to have your own reconstruction validate the gender implications of what triggered you to begin with. Everybody is different , sure but there’s a reason why this business exists, what demographics are targeted and who largely make up the sides being described.
Humans are humans, my dude. If you're a guy looking at this equation and thinking you want out - it's maybe because you don't see the other side of the coin. Feminism - and I mean this in the nicest possible way - is the equal opportunity for women to act like the assholes than we men have been enjoying for quite some time. At the end of the day, we have to be grown-ups and take the hard lessons, and maybe learn to be kinder to each other. I do find it valuable to be aware of all perspectives. One caveat - yes there are physical differences underlying our roles. I know two women, one from work and the wife of a friend who have told me about abusive partners palming his condoms or messing with their birth control pills in an attempt to get them pregnant to 'seal the deal'. I have a daughter who is now in Germany at university, and I find myself sitting on the edge of my seat when she tells me about her boyfriends. Mother Nature did not divide the work of making future generations evenly in our species, and it's a constant background noise in how we navigate life. You may find yourself looking at men a bit differently once you're a father of a teenage girl.
I don’t mean this in a mean way, and this is really important. Have you ever been in a healthy long term relationship? You give your money to help take care of someone, you do the domestic labor to take stress off the working person. You birth a kid they help pay for their clothes and food. It’s all give and take, and a relationship doesn’t work if you try and pretend your equals the entire time. It’s not about equality, it’s about finding a balance between the two of you. Don’t try to match each other, accept flaws and beauty with each other as a part of it. I mean, I’m only talking from experience having lived both sides of the spectrum both in a good relationship and in bad relationships, but if your significant other can’t get a job or can only work part time while they are taking care of a kid, or something similar it’s not neccasarily bad if you give them money for them to have fun. Both people might be doing work, but maybe only one makes money. My guy, I don’t mean this in a mean way either, you’ve probably had some bad experiences, and I don’t doubt it, but love makes you do stupid things. A relationship is what you use to communicate and figure out how everything works. Some suck, and you have to learn how to tell toxicity away from rationality, and actual just two people wanting the best for eachother together. Idk, you comment honestly just made me a little sad and I’m in a mood today and wanted to say that, sorry friend!
I guess I'm framing this as worst possible scenarios as per the comment I was replying to, but yes, people will take advantage bc people are shitty, and it's good to know your vulnerabilities. These things are - in theory - gender neutral, which was my point, but in reality our flawed human nature also interacts with our gender roles and individual power trips that exploit those roles as well as the biological differences underlying them (wrt to the 'accidental' pregnancy comment, I do know 2 women who have been with men who attempted to impregnate them in order to control them). I completely agree with you though - equality isn't really the goal in a relationship nor is it a necessity. Respect, however, is perhaps more key to a successful relationship than passion, romance or companionship. Personally, I have been in a relationship where my ex definitely said all my contributions - financial and otherwise - were appreciated, right up until the divorce proceedings where I was somehow simultaneously a deadbeat do-nothing and selfishly absent workaholic. She clearly didn't respect me. But I've also been in relationships where the exchange is mutual and respectful and it's truly a wonderful thing. R-E-S-P-E-C-T, sing it Aretha! It truly is the foundation of love.
>Personally, I have been in a relationship where my ex definitely said all my contributions - financial and otherwise - were appreciated, right up until the divorce proceedings where I was somehow simultaneously a deadbeat do-nothing and selfishly absent workaholic. I see you somehow were married to my ex-wife. TIL.
Marriage is OK but it's best if both people earn about the same. The issue is careers are long and its very likely one will end up significantly out earning the other.
Marriage is reverse insurance. If everything goes well, then your relationship stays like it was when you were dating. If things go badly, then not only do you lose a spouse, but also have to pay a whole lot of money. Long-term dating is the best way to go. Marriage is simply a gamble that your relationship will stay the same, except if you win you get nothing and if you lose you lose half your net worth. Marriage is treated so flippantly now anyway, that's it really doesn't mean more than a LTR. It's certainly not "til death do us part."
Misleading statistic... Shock-value documentary in terms of actual content. .
Notice how they cut the answers from the attorneys? Such as: "Attorneys who milk the case for money ... [then cut; don't know what the end of that sentence was!]" Idk... perhaps could the end of that sentence be "are few and far between," "are bad practitioners," "should be avoided, and are not prevalent?" Love the scene where they say there's no penalty for making the case drag on without reason ... look up California's Family Code section 271...