Grounds for divorce?

My focus changed.
All of a sudden :-)
With good reason too.


This was to be the second part of a look at M3's post from JV's point of view...
But I think I have found something else to discuss.
At least, I found another angle from which to approach this topic.

To this end, I shall divorce (heh!) both M3 and JV from this post.

But the origin of this post did come from JV's second parallel to look at how a woman might get to the depths of despair that M3 describes.

Once again, just to re-iterate the point that JV was not saying that this was exactly comparable to M3's story. I hope we have firmly established that by now.

As it turns out, the story itself (that JV describes) is not required here, in this post. Just a small part of it.


Just a quick 'declaration' of sorts before I continue.

I am still as divorce-phobic as ever, no matter how much it might seem that I am now an apologetic for divorce, in this post.

But, in a flurry of maturity that I have never experienced before, I am willing to take a quick look at a deeply pertinent subject before I have to deal with it head on.

I am in some sort of race against time to clear my head of all falsehoods, inaccuracies, 'pretty lies', ugly lies, partial truths and downright porkies.

So my usual plea of 'explain it like I am a 6 year old' applies here, ever more than before :-)




In short, JV describes a woman in a marriage where the other party is addicted to pills. This renders him unable to function in all ways including, um...an important marital way.

Well, the word 'addiction' always makes me want to flee. It's one of my 'fight or flight' words.

I occasionally have the 'pleasure' of encountering people with serious addictions, for example during the course of my work, (but not exclusively).
Believe me when I say that 'pleasure' is a measured word here.

Let's just say that from what I have noticed, these people have checked out of their own lives (leaving their friends and family to pick up the pieces) but because they haven't exactly 'left the building', people see the lights on and assume there is someone home.
No, there is no-one home.

Someone married to a person in this category is effectively single.


And so I ask myself, on what grounds is divorce justifiable?

Serious question.

For me, the reference point for a question like this would be The Church. I bet their answer (if I knew it) would be better than a secular answer.

On searching a few sites (and I cannot be sure of their authenticity), I find that The Church believes divorce to be wrong, on principle, but 'civil' divorce is acceptable under the following circumstances (with the caveat that re-marriage is still not 'allowed' because despite a 'civil' divorce, one is still spiritually married to the original spouse, and so remarriage constitutes adultery:


"The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”


I don't really understand this. Anyone care to explain it in simple terms citing examples?

Perhaps looking for 'grounds for annulment' might help? Afterall, many people see annulment as the equivalent of divorce for Catholics. Not true, but there we are...


"The Catholic Church can, however, annul a marriage if there is sufficient proof that the marriage was invalid to begin with. Grounds for annulment include being forced to marry someone, not having enough information about that individual – as an example – if the party was an abuser, a convicted rapist and if the individual lied (about wanting children as one example). A marriage can also be annuled by the Catholic Church if the sexual act was not consummated."


Hm, I think I have an answer to a question I didn't really ask, but wanted to, with regard to the above scenario.


In terms of 'legal rights' and annulment, what about a crime committed during the marriage, after vows have already been taken? Can one spouse claim, 'but I didn't know he was going to turn out to be a murderer?' and win a divorce/annulment case?

I mean, of course, if one spouse killed the other, then the marriage is technically over (!)...but what if one spouse killed a third party closely related to both parties, eg. one of the kids, or the mother-in-law? Is the Church going to push for saving such a marriage??

Serious question, believe it or not.
(If you don't believe me, know that at least three of the seven sacraments are granted one by the Church after one passes a 'test' of some sort (um, with the exception of Baptism and 'Last Rites'.

I may have to prove that I know the answers to some of the above answers, otherwise, I may not be granted a certain sacrament I seek.
And I ain't talking 'Holy Orders' :-)

Extreme examples only bring out the complexities of a situation. That's the extent of their usefulness.

Here is another.

This woman speaks of a phenomenon that TPM brought to our attention.
I was stunned to realise that this woman divorced her husband because (after having been 'alpha' once), he turned into a 'lapdog'.

Not wishing to sound insensitive, I don't wish to dissect this too much...

But...

I must say, it's a scary thought that this can happen.

As a woman myself, I know what extreme and permanent 'betatude' can do to a woman. I often describe this feeling as 'getting hives', but I can well imagine that it is even worse for other women, and I have heard of this phenomenon inducing an extreme kind of 'nausea' in a woman, followed by a revulsion which engulfs her until she is rid of the source of this 'maladie'.

This must be a painful experience for all concerned.
Especially if one is married to said source of maladie.
Evidently.
So much so, that a man might find himself 'friendzoned' after he has said 'I do'.

I honestly feel that no matter how much a man may become a 'lapdog', he should not be divorced for this.

There HAS to be a solution to this problem.
Anyone know?

'Inside' (as I call her) could not suggest any to me, on TPM's blog when I asked her.
But I am sure there must be something that can be done.

Surely if a man has been 'alpha' enough to attract a woman to the point of marriage, he can't be hopeless.
He can return to his alpha self from time to time, surely!

What can a woman do to help this process along, if like Inside's husband, he just won't do it by himself?
How to prevent her seeking the contact details of a lawyer?

If divorce is out of the question (eg. viewed as some sort of 'sin'), what can a woman do to ensure she is never going down that path?

Here's a challenge:

Let's say you know a young woman. She is as divorce-phobic as I am.
She is at a church.
The church is full.
The bells are ringing.
Groom's at the altar, wondering what her dress is going to be like.
She is at the front door of the church, on her father's arm.
Priest is approaching her, about to make the sign of the cross.

You have eaxctly two minutes to divorce-proof this imminent marriage, before it even starts.

What do you say to the blushing bride?
So that she will remember you and your words on her 30th wedding anniversary :-)

(Please don't say to her: 'don't do it', lol.
NB: You could have had a chance speaking to the groom, but he is now at the altar already, having cleared his head of the hangover from last night following his stag-do, and is hellbent on marrying this woman :-).
How can you help him avoid deep regrets twenty years down the line?
By speaking to the woman...



Is it all down to luck, or are there ways to efficiently prevent divorce?
I am prone to believe the latter... but I don't know why.

Prove me right :-)
Educate me.


And you don't have to be married to participate in this conversation.
All ideas welcome and appreciated.

 

 

 

How does one avoid ever seeing this piece of paper?

 

 

The big brother of PVC

I need help...

No, no! Before you start sending me the phone number of your therapist, I don't mean that kind of help :-)

It is more a literary kind of help.
I am searching for a word.

And so far, my cerebral 'Google' says, 'No results found'.

So I seek your help.


I have recently taken a step or two back from this blog.
Whilst I could use laziness/'busy, busy busy' as my excuse, this would not be the whole truth.

I have been doing what Danny asked me to do almost a year ago.
Which is to spend less time blogging and more time perusing other people's blogs.

This
1. Gives my blogging cortex a rest.
2. Gives me material to blog about.
3. Helps me establish that I am part of a blogging community and not an island.

Ahem!
That's the last time I listen to a man...

Just kidding, Maestro :-)

Me getting into a bit of trouble was not your fault :-) But thanks for saying that if you coulda, you woulda sat me down and given me some advice as to how to proceed...i.e. with caution, lol.

And your blogpost earlier today reminds me of an encounter with my big brother when I was about 5.

I got erm...beaten up by a boy of about 6 (yup, little ST got beat). I had no fighting skills, and even though I was bigger than him, the boy beat me up good.
I went crying to my big brother later.

Sympathy? Are you joking me?
This was my big brother's response:

"You allowed yourself to get beaten by a boy smaller than you? For sure, you deserved to get beat!"

My brother was treating me as though I were a boy. Always has, always will.
At least now I can have a sense of humour about it.

And after dusting myself from the latest clash with the Titans, in which my hamster got shot at point blank range, said hamster is now fully resuscitated and is ready to do business again, and I am back with you with a smile :-)

And to those men who are opponents of The Manosphere who would no doubt say the same thing my brother said and start off by saying, "What did we tell you about playing with those boys...?"
:-)
I know, I know, I got no right to come crying to you...



Joking aside, I want to do 2 things with this post:

1. Outline certain lessons I learned from my interaction with people on that post at TPM's.

(And I promise, no more rants from me. I got their message and I am cool with everybody involved. Honest. If you detect a rant, tell me and I shall give my hamster a slap).

2. And this will spill into the next post on this blog, where I shed some light on why I think JV's contribution to that post is important, even if not to the men on that post.

(Now, whilst it is no secret that I rather like JV (no homo), this is not the reason I supported one or two of her comments on that post about M3. I shall do my best to explain it as clearly as possible...).


Well, I told you I was slow...
The thought to bring the topics of interest (to me) that occurred to me when I read M3's post should have passed through my mind much earlier than it did.
In many ways I forgot I have a blog! I was so used to being a 'commenter' lately :-)

I like to make parallels between male and female 'ways'. I have previously done this with the hamster and 'frame' using the 'brother-sister' analogy.
I am about to do it again.


One of the lessons I learned on my recent brush with the Manosphere law is that sometimes, even good intentions from a woman can be viewed as BAD BAD BAD by a man. This can be so frustrating for a woman. But in the same way as women cannot expect men to act like a woman, I guess I can only expect a man to act like a man.

I, like most women will soak up empathy whenever and wherever I can get it :-)
This is closely linked, I think, to (in a nice way) our tendency towards what I call 'Perpetual Victim Complex' (PVC). Not all women have this problem, but I think the majority do. Now, what one does with this complex is up to the individual woman. I know some women, for instance, who only use their PVC not for themselves, but for others :-)

But some men (and definitely not all) prefer to stew in their own pain and exclude everyone from it. I guess this is part of the 'Quiet Man' phenomenon, although I must say, I have never encountered a man in real life, 'Quiet Man' or not, who didn't make it known that he appreciated genuine empathy when it was offered.

So this episode on TPM was 'virgin territory' for me.

The man is so deeply buried in his problems that he refuses any displays of affection. Even from a woman who is standing well outside of his 'cave' (like miles away) and waving a white flag and not offering anything remotely resembling 'help'.

To the man, all of that is 'noise'....? (Yes, someone used that word).
Anyone know how to better define this phenomenon in one or two words?
I was thinking...maybe 'leave-me-alone!' complex' or even 'stay away from me!' phenomenon, but that's more than two words...


Well, it helps to know. Lesson learned.
If the point of this blog is to understand a bit better about men, then here is a lesson from the College of Manhood. (Oh, I was so tempted to say 'University of Man', but they are no longer with us...).

And...very importantly, I think it is wise to know a particular man's tendencies when it comes to this.
As I found out, the men at TPM were polarised on this 'empathy' issue, some refusing it (which is fine) and some welcoming it (which is fine). But the problem was, I was not to know who wanted what, so I was like a reed in the wind...
Luckily, M3 himself was a 'yes please, I'll take it' kind of man in this respect.
Phew!

I think it would be a shame for a woman to provide it when it is not wanted, and to not have it handy when it is needed.


Anyhow, now I move onto JV.

But before I do, a quick word about 'solipsism'.

As with 'hypergamy' and 'preselection', I have my own take on this.

The Manosphere view this as a predominantly female disease. I don't.
It cannot be.
Whenever we encounter a situation, we judge it by making it 'about us'.
Case in point:  many men responded to M3's post by starting off saying something like.
'Man, this is so what I went through...'
'God, this is so familiar...'

The only reason they are not judged for their reaction is that their reaction is identical to M3's (or similar enough) and therefore deemed acceptable, on a forum that deals with men's issues. Which is fair enough. I get that.

M3 gave a wonderful analogy to explain why he thought (as JV and I did) that it is indeed possible to empathise with someone even if you don't have an identical experience as them.

"Very few people on this planet had someone they’re related to die on 9-11. But for a day, the whole world stopped. Empathy brought the planet to a halt."

As someone who was neither anywhere New York nor knew someone who was, how can I 'make this about me'?
Easy. Find something similar that I can relate to.

IRA bombings in London, for example...

I HAVE to first make it about me, in my head, before I can relate.
If I can't, I'm done. It won't be possible to relate. If I tried to, it would come across as fake. Which would be clear for all to see.

JV and I tried to do that. Solipsism, yes. But necessary solipsism in this case.

I provided an example of a good woman who couldn't get a commitment from a man she loved.
PVW, you are right, I didn't make this analogy tight enough, and the picture you provide on Danny's blog is exactly what I would have said, if I had had a chance to.
But as you can see, it would have been the wrong time and place :-)

JV gave two examples, bless her :-)

The first one really ruffled feathers.
It was the example of a bad woman who was suffering the consequences from one too many 'pump and dumps'.
The unfortunate thing about this was that many commenters made the assumption that JV was equating M3's situation with this female situation.
I know she wasn't - like me before her on that post, she was simply saying that the way these women feel is similar to how M3 felt, and not that the path that took those women to where they were presently is similar to how M3 got to where he was - but it is a hard case to argue, especially when the issue of 'choice' came up.
So in fact I saw a reason to abandon this analogy.

The second analogy is much more apt.
For two reasons:

Because it is more an appropriate analogy for JV to have used, because it was her experience. Which means it is the best analogy she could use to help her see M3 as 'fellow sufferer'.

I shall go more into that analogy in Part 2. Because I think there are other aspects to it that deserve to go under the microscope.

With this solipsism in mind, I can now say that this suggestion by someone, cannot work, for the target audience intended:


A woman who wants to understand it better can imagine how she’d feel like if
* Men stopped paying attention to her
*To get any sex, she has to ask 100 men before one says yes, and a lot of rejections are brutal. Some express disgust.
*Guys she likes fuck anyone but her
*She is constantly horny like during ovulation, just constantly.

This would not work because women simply do not live this experience. If to understand M3, a woman used this strategy, it would be no more than an intellectual exercise. It would NOT take her to the place of pain that she needs to go to (that is still nowhere near M3's place of pain, granted - but is better than nothing).

I agree better with that same commenter's statement (elsewhere):

"Using parallells to understand how someone might feel is the only way we can understand anything. Were they asking you to imagine a color you’ve never seen before? Of course you can only imagine something with things you already know about/experienced."

Solipsism. We need it. All of us. And it ain't a bad thing if used correctly.


The third and final lesson is....
As ever....

Vive la différence!

La mia santa Mamma!

I had meant to write about something else this week.
But a number of recurring themes kept distracting me.

And I realise now that the one thing in common with all these themes is...motherhood.
This post should really be called 'Motherhood: the good, the bad and the ugly'.

Or rather, 'Motherhood:the beautiful, the sad, and the downright confusing'.


No-one is surprised to hear that a major part of femininity is being a wife and mother. If women are honest, this is what they seek, even without the social pressures.
It is an innate thing, and is stronger than the need (of men) to become a husband and father, evidently :-)

And this is why it is so frustrating for me to hear women who have jumped eagerly on the feminist bandwagon proclaiming that they are so jolly happy being single and childless when the reverse is true. It is deeply upsetting for me to witness people trying very hard to lie to themselves. It should be OK to wish for something. No-one should be brainwashed into believing what they should or should not want.

Because I know that those who actually are happy to be single and childless, are not trying to convince anyone that they are. They simply go about their lives in a quiet manner, and only defend their stance when challenged.

But I mustn't get distracted.


I addressed motherhood before, where I painted a pretty bleak picture of obviously bad, sad and complex motherhood, with the caveat of course, that we all know pretty well what bad fatherhood looks like, because we are fed this image in a never-ending campaign against fatherhood - for who's benefit, I am not entirely sure.

But anyway, must not get distracted again.


In two directly opposing 'verdicts' of the children, I present to you, the saint and the (d)evil.


First the saint:

This woman refers to her mother as My saint Mamma :-)
(Which I guess could also be translated as 'my holy Mamma', but I do believe she intends the first meaning).

But then again, not many of us have mothers who have actually been canonised as saints by the Catholic Church (even if we feel they deserve that accolade anyway :-). So she is in a unique position, and her amusing and endearing way of talking about her mother is perfectly justified.

Dr. Gianna Emanuella Molla would not be alive at all if her mother Saint (also Dr.) Gianna Beretta Molla hadn't opted to exchange her life for hers. It was a simple choice in that sense. Despite her doctor colleagues' advice, she went ahead with her high risk pregnancy and lost her life as a result.

Her (youngest) daughter, who never knew her, as she died soon after her birth in 1962, is her biggest fan. As are her other children who of course lost their mother as young children.

She has an unusually high-pitched voice for a 50 year old :-)
(I am not sure there are videos of her speaking english, although I am pretty sure she does speak english).

It is obvious that The Church agrees with her that her mother is a saint.
But I am slightly uneasy about this one, and have been for a long time: The elevation of one child (albeit unborn) over all the other children and spouse (not to talk of self, which happens to be responsible for all the already born children) seems a bit...not correct, no?
But I can see why St. Gianna Molla is a saint nonetheless.
As is this Australian woman:

However I feel about the dilemma St. Gianna Molla undoubtedly faced with bravery, it has to be said that at least she is a thousand times better than this woman, whose own 10 year old child refers to her as 'evil'.

 This should never be a word that a child uses to describe his mother.

And yet, and in increasing numbers, I am coming across many comments by Manosphere denizens (and they are not the only ones!) who have nothing but disdain for their mothers.
And it is the same disdain that dissatisfied men have for women in general. One would presume that their own mothers would be 'immune', right?

Apparently not so fast.

I choose not to post the comments here, because they really are filled with 'choice' words that make one uneasy when it is known that someone's mother is the subject thereof.

Other than the more usual complaint that their mothers 'divorce-raped' their (beta) (sorry Bob!) fathers, these men also have a new complaint that I am only now beginning to get wind of:

One man's complaint could be summarised thus:

'My (expletive) mother wanted me to 'man up and marry a single mother'.

Now, this complaint is different from the usual 'man up' one. Because at least that is an (albeit thinly veiled) attempt by mothers to get their sons to produce grandchildren for them. I understand this completely, although I also of course 'get' the frustration that this elicits in the young person.
If it is any consolation, we women have to face this on a daily basis too :-)

But what I don't understand (and clearly neither does the man who makes this bitter complaint against his Mum) is how a mother would not only be happy with seeing her son commit to a woman who already has a child or children by another man (and it certainly is not rare, this phenomenon - just ask Queen Sonia of Norway), but is actively pushing her (unwilling) son into such a situation.

It really does not make sense to me.

And I can see why the son feels his mother does not have his best interests at heart. If the woman who should love you the most does not have your back, you are truly doomed.

Interestingly enough, I don't think I would necessarily feel the same way if my father wanted me to marry a man with children.
Sure, that wouldn't be my first choice of marriage partner, but I imagine there's a real difference in judging this sort of situation by the different genders.

I would however feel as this man did, if my father encouraged a PUA to 'pump and dump' me.
So perhaps this is the kind of equivalent level of betrayal, that this man feels from his mother.
Seen from this angle, I can very much feel his pain.




It is deeply worrying to me that the reputation of motherhood has sunk this low. It used to be that motherhood was sacred.
Now I am not so sure it has the same 'sparkle' it used to.
Respect seems to have flown out the window quite a bit. Thrown out, seemingly by mothers themselves.

Is this a new phenomenon?
Am I imagining this?
I sure hope so...
But something tells me I am not.

It is bad enough that women are getting such bad press in the SMP from men.
It is infinitely worse that these same men are not impressed with their mothers.

In ten years' time, that ten year old who described his mother as 'evil' will be encountering women as romantic partners. How tragic that his experience so far with women has been less than sterling.

And sadly, the growing army of single mothers who are giving themselves medals for being 'brave' will be forced to look at themselves hard in the mirror when their children who would undoubtedly have harder lives than would have been the case fail to be impressed at their 'bravery' and question their choices instead.

Elevating child over spouse/'partner' is not the way (unless of course you are St. Gianna Molla).
After this 'rule number one', with respect to said child, having their best interest at heart always, should be 'rule number two'.

Everything else is just icing on the cake.



Is this a good way to go about things?
Or is this the rambling of a deluded soul who doesn't understand motherhood? :-)

Don't be kind on this post.
Educate me.
Especially if you are a mother, but not exclusively.

Loose terminology: a question of semantics? Or a concerted effort?

My first instinct was to give this post the title 'the loose terminology is killing us!'

Then I calmed down.
:-)

Then I picked what I believe is a better title, because it addresses wider issues.

I love to dissect 'language'. As is probably evident from my posts.
I spend hours looking for word associations and seeking the emotion underlying words.

I am not unique. I know that words mean a lot to women. We are indeed 'word-sensitive' creatures.
There is a  reason that many women are 'auditory'.
There is a reason that 'sweet nothings' work.
:-)

But the following is anything but 'sweet nothings'.

Because it is not 'sweet'.
And it is certainly not 'nothing'.

It is so much of a 'something', it is killing us.



Metak pre-empted me a little when he made this comment in a recent post:

From what I can see around me, most of those men enjoy sex and casual relationship while women believe it's a "relationship".

Even worse, there is a category on Facebook called 'it's complicated'.

The men who comment here might well say this is just hamster-spinning by women.
This may or may not be true.
But if this is true, then these hamsters are getting an awful lot of help.

This 'loose terminology' is institutionalised.

A change of definition is all it takes to allow a woman to destroy herself.

In the style of Metak when he is in advice-giving mode, here is an all too common dialogue:



The powers-that-be: Woman, press here on this button that says 'touch me and your head will explode in 50 seconds'.
Woman: Of course, not! I am not in favour of suicide.
The powers-that-be: Oh alright, why don't we call it 'touch me and see what happens'?
Woman: Oooooh, I am not sure...
The powers-that-be: Hey! It's a button that says 'touch me - complications might ensue...'
Woman: Complications?
The powers-that-be: 'Touch me and there will be fireworks...'
Woman: OK.
The powers-that-be: '...of the unpleasant kind...
Oops, too late.


Is this a conspiracy of some kind?

Fudge the edges so that the hidden dangers are smoked out of view for millions of unsuspecting people, especially women?

Is this something of our own creation or was this the legacy we inherited with feminism, I wonder?



In the UK, it is almost a crime to mention the word 'husband' or 'wife' anymore. Everyone is a 'partner'.
In the french-speaking world, everyone is a 'compagnon'.

Is this political correctness on speed?


Slowly but surely, the definitions of everything is loosened around the edges to give things of lesser value a status equal to the gold standard.
Which lets in practices that were deemed unacceptable a half-century ago into the mainstream via the back door when no-one was looking.

With the result that everyone gets confused, especially children.
And soon, the confusion is forgotten and the new status quo is accepted and assimilated.
And soon no-one feels the need to question the smokey atmosphere...



Are we being 'gaslighted' into accepting fuzzy definitions?

There is nowhere worse than in the SMP to do this.

There used to be clear distinctions of marital status. One was either single, married, divorced or widowed.

Some accepted 'courting' or 'engaged' as acceptable additional categories.

But now, the choices are endless.
But also more vague.

No-one has a standard definition of the term 'hooking up'.
I used to wonder why.

Then it became clear to me that there is an incentive to keep this expression deliberately vague.

But who does this benefit?
In the longterm, certainly not the women who get caught up in it.


So why is this happening?
In a feminism-ised state, why are there counterproductive strategies seemingly designed to harm the very women that feminism apparently wants to protect?

Who is saying, 'keep the language vague and the definitions broad'?

Anyone have a clever answer to explain this beguiling smokescreen puzzle?

Does this go beyond 'inclusivism'? Are we legislating well-defined terms out of existence on purpose?

If so, why?
I really don't understand this phenomenon.

It would be cool to get to the bottom of this...