When should a couple get divorced?

[Rose888]

It's funny how different people can be from each other. I find the differences in how people view marital commitments very important, yet I post it in the middle of an online community with people going through divorce and it is nearly crickets or 'what's the point of this?' I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with that, again, I really just find it curious. Either way it has been very helpful to me. I know when I started on these forums I just assumed that since everyone was here to save their marriages that everyone probably shared similar views and beliefs to me. I've learned nothing could be further than the truth.

The board has had these discussions before. The crickets might be because many of us already know there is a divide here that discussion never seems to cross.

Juju, I agree with everything you typed. When a person betrays their marriage and puts their family at physical risk then unfortunately it is necessary to part ways. I would imagine that means that anything short of that you grit your teeth and stick it out. Correct me if I'm wrong. You know, many people have tried to reduce the 'divorce stigma' or the shame that goes with divorce because we don't want people to feel trapped in a bad marriage. But I wonder if as divorce is more and more accepted if that has lead to more of these betrayals such as infidelity because there is less social consequence? I'm not sure, again, just me kicking around ideas.

I also believe that our society is in general too entitled to really make marriage work these days. I think that the bar has been set unrealistically high. I find the idea of compatibility to be a myth that contributes to dissatisfaction and divorce. For example, I am a hard working man that takes care of my family, doesn't cheat, beat, drink, and was ready to remain committed to my XW should she be hospitalized for years. There was a time when this would've been considered a catch. Now all of those other qualities are taken for granted or dismissed as unimportant, because we expect all of that AND 'compatibility'. I've joked in the past that I am not compatible with anyone that believes in compatibility. I haven't seen any evidence this leads to an increase in lasting happy marriages or fulfillment, quite the contrary.

These paragraphs seem to position marriage as exclusively for the physical protection of the individuals. You don't seem to acknowledge (at least in this post) that individuals have emotional needs and emotional health that are as important as physical needs and physical health. I don't think it's a bad thing that society has moved beyond thinking that providing physically and not physically harming is enough.

If anyone still is nodding along with me I can lose the last of those folks by saying I think that things may have worked better with arranged marriages. Oh, I know, many people were in marriages that by today's standards were horrible, and they were trapped because of the social stigma. But to me this seems more natural, to take what we are given and find ways to celebrate the good in it. There were many negatives about this but it seems superior to the destruction we bring on ourselves when we put ourselves and personal happiness as the goal for our lives and are willing to destroy our families and communities to pursue it. If what I see in the world is the best we can do, it's been proven to me that taking it on ourselves to navigate this piece of our life is beyond us, particularly when built on compatibility and romantic ideals.

In many societies with arranged marriages, women move into their husband's parents houses and suffer horrific abuse. They still burn widows in some villages in India. It's hard to find a way to "celebrate the good" in that.

I believe it is possible to be strongly pro-marriage while also recognizing that people have emotional needs that are important, even vital.