I find it hard to believe that all of these separations ended so glowingly - is the author trying to appeal to her audience?

Ditto. I've heard MANY a woman who did leave very much regret it-the man they left their husband for is now the boring lazy guy farting on the couch, just like their old guy. And while a wealthy man can always get a woman, I really doubt your typical older divorced dude has them knocking down his door. What I can believe is that the women who just don't want a man anymore are happy. THAT I can see easily.

I have to admit that I know quite a few bitter divorced people. Usually the ones who are bitter are the ones who didn't want out and they aren't always the innocent parties. My divorce was very difficult and my ex made my life hell trying to get it, but I've never had any regrets other than being foolish enough to marry him in the first place. That being said, I do know quite a few people who have gotten divorced and managed to not only keep it very civil, but very friendly. One couple in particular had no kids and realized that they were not suited in any way but maintained a friendship which was nice. I asked my brother once why he was getting married to his then girlfriend who had gained 50 pounds, they never had sex, and they didn't seem to genuinely enjoy each other's company. He told me, "we've been together for 5 years. Isn't it the next step?" Of course I told him no, but that didn't stop him from walking down the aisle with her. He is now miserably married with three kids.

Kristen, I'll bet they divorce after the kids are grown. Most of the later-in-life divorces that I know of are ones where the couple had long since ended any romantic relationship, and were only staying together for the kids. As soon as the last child is out of the house, they head to divorce court.

``...men were tired of working to support wives who they felt did not appreciate them and children who did not respect them.``

Divorce doesn`t solve that one.

>> women who wanted new partners had them within two years.

Sure isn't what I have observed over the years, unless he means the three month "relationships" we read about here. At least not the older women.

Cousin Dave, I don't know that they'll divorce. They both seem pretty comfortable with just settling. I can't figure out why she married him either. He is an alcoholic, drinking through all his days off, drinking till he passes out on work nights, and playing video games and going to the bar with friends in between. He has a so so job that doesn't pay well and will never really take him anywhere. This was all during the dating. She is a teacher. I just don't see her leaving him after the kids are grown if that wasn't enough to stop her from accepting a proposal, planning a wedding pretty much on her own, and then having kids. What will he have to do to make her leave? I love my brother, but just can't imagine that he would attract a quality person in his condition.

> I find it hard to believe that all of these separations
> ended so glowingly - is the author trying to appeal
> to her audience?

What Jello said.

Amy, there's a doth-protest-too-much thing happening here, something sour-grapesy. People who marry well and live their lives together and care for each other all the way home have much to teach. It's starting to seem like you resent them.

Have you ever read of Coach Wooden's devotion to his bride?

I think that there are probably some differences between the couples that divorce after 20yrs versus 30 or more, because these are more likely to be ones that were held together by kids. When the kids leave the house, they split up. When older couples split it usually seems to be because one of them goes wacko. Its a midlife crisis, or menopause craziness, or some other issue. Truthfully a lot of people just don't age well, either mentally or physically. They can become very selfish and erratic.

Winston Rowntree nails how people get into and out of trouble of all sizes.

And it has a spiffy kick at the end.

Every human being has a horse in this race: What's the best way to live?

People make stupid, implusive mistakes at every age. Just because you're 60, doesn't mean you can't go through a moron phase.

Yes, some people need to split up. But I think most of these late in life divorces are done because someone got selfish and bored with trying to keep the marriage together.

My friend Katie's parents divorced after 26 years of marriage. It was as amicable as it could have been. Dad remarried a trophy wife. Thanksgiving 2008 Dad gets completely drunk and tells Katie "I never should have left your mother. I was so stupid and selfish and it's the worst mistake of my life."

Bet he's not the only man or woman who felt this way after throwing away a lifetime with someone.

"My friend Katie's parents divorced after 26 years of marriage. It was as amicable as it could have been. Dad remarried a trophy wife."

Last sentence explains the problem there.

The common thread? In today's world it's always all about me, me, ME, MEEEE! It makes little difference that in some relationships, BOTH parties are selfish narcissists. F the family. F the community. F society in general.

Divorce is a failure, no matter what. And, like suicide, it is often a permanent solution to a temporary problem. What is thrown away can never be regained.

When children (of ANY age) are involved, divorce is a tragedy. Who benefits from divorce? The State, which then has an open invitation into your formerly personal life. You might as well invite Dracula over the threshhold.

What I really wonder is, why are so many folks putting so much energy into trying to put lipstick on the pig?

Come to think of it, why would anyone, a man especially, ever want to get married in this society that has become so blase' about divorce that many seem to actually ENCOURAGE it?

When gays get the "treasured" right to marry, they will be sharing only in the shat-upon remnants of a shattered institution -- an institution upon which the preservation of a decent, stable society depends.

> For whom?

For EVERYONE, Amy. I'm asking what's the best way to live for ALL people, not just for ourselves... Couples who carry each other the to grave in marriage save the rest of us a lot of trouble.

Oh... That's all.

One of the saddest things you can dwell upon is the idea that no one will go to bat for you, no matter what.

Although lots of people make a vow without thinking about what it means, and many people break it without having the first idea what it meant, having no one at all, no matter how strong you are, is a dire thought.

I've seen a picture taken literally as an old man dies. His wife of decades is in a hospital bed next to him, holding his hand to the last moment.

And I don't want to go first. I don't want to be last, should we see that situation, either, but I'm trying to do my job and I'm not using Two Wrongs to get out of it. I'm not going to get a choice because life isn't fair, and it never has been.

Robert Heinlein said that love is that condition where another's happiness is essential to your own. I suggest that if you can't pass that test, you need to think about your situation, and think hard.

People who marry well and live their lives together and care for each other all the way home have much to teach.

And envy.

I don't have much to add to the Heinlein quote which is a good one other than to say that love is over rated as an emotion and under rated as a series of actions. My husband treats me in a loving manner and I try and do the same for him. If we didn't do these things on a daily basis then him telling me that he loves me would be pretty meaningless. If you and your significant other don't treat each other in a loving manner, what you have is a marriage of convenience and that person is unlikely to be there for you when times get tough.

> love is over rated as an emotion and
> under rated as a series of actions

Yes! Yes yes yes!

My grandparents were married for 69-and-a-half years, from 1935 until Grandpa passed away in 2005. Grandma followed in 2007. I don't think either of them would have contemplated doing such a shitty thing to the other person.

@Jay R: What you said!

@Radwaster: What YOU said!

More on this—

Amy says:

> For some, breaking up is the best way.
> For others

And Isabel says:

> love is over rated as an emotion and
> under rated as a series of actions

I think one of the indisputably great advances in human development came when women (and others) gained a measure of independence in the conduct of their romantic lives, and partner selection came to be recognized as being about more than village political alliances, feuds with tribes in adjacent valleys, and the avoidance of poverty. Women's power to choose their own path through life has probably done more for civilization than has germ theory or broad literacy.

And I can see how women like it on a personal level... I think many women don't recognize that the giddiness they feel in deploying this authority is an expression of release from a torment that dates back through human prehistory. I even think women are biologically designed to focus on their interests in this intensely personal way... You said this yourself in a post a few weeks ago, about how women are so often inclined to describe their loves lives as theatrical narratives, full of sturm und drang. 'Free at last, free at last....' People can't tell you who to fuck any more, and that's great.

But this screechy independence can be ugly, even when disguised as faux-cynicism about the tenuous nature of deep romantic love. It's inherently selfish. It's a selfishness that can encourage courtesy, thrift, industry, grooming and host of other virtues, but it appeals to the grim side of human nature as well. Fools and vipers want to believe their own twitchy feelings are the center of Creation anyway... The worst thing that can happen them is to hear street chatter that says 'It's OK if this doesn't work for you... You can just do something else.'

Y'know, considering all that it's done for them, there are very few alert young women who'd choose to be identified with aggressive feminism nowadays... And I'd like to think that's because they recognize that this popular eagerness for endless choice and opportunity doesn't describe the world correctly. It asks too little of women.

You don't have to be a hooded southern Klansman or a toothless medieval cleric to hope that people consider the effects their choices will have on the rest of society.

Crid, I think you vastly understate the amount of female choice traditionally governing human procreation.

Nonetheless, clearly today women's power over mating and reproduction is absolute -- and so women have increasingly, and inevitably, corrupted that process.

The truest characteristic of power is the ability to destroy. With their never-ending lust for personal, individual "empowerment," including the right to both disfunctional single motherhood as well as casual abortion within marriage, Western women appear well on their way to achieving the degradation and demographic death-spiral of the society which enables their "empowerment."

Perhaps the dynamic will be self-correcting -- as women's choices to always put themselves first leads to social collapse, deteriorated conditions will lead to the situation where things are so "bad" for women that their reproductive power is again regulated for the common good.

We'll see, I guess.

> you vastly understate the amount of female
> choice traditionally governing human
> procreation.

Evidence? Reasoning? Anything? I never said women's reproduction was "regulated for the common good": I said (or should have said) it was deployed by command of those with more authority in the clan. Let's not pretend their were committee meetings with Powerpoint the night before the prom.

Some really fantastic work on behalf of the owner of this internet site , dead great articles .