Listen, I know this is biased of me: But if the woman requested the divorce, I would say a run. She’s the type whom can’t take accountability and won’t work hard on herself.
Unless she proved that she fought for her husband and he was the apathetic piece of ****, I would run. Women who give up on their marriages seem to be a dime a dozen. Playing house and not wo-manning up to life. Life isn’t likes and roses—it’s hard work. Coddled existence is not real—too many want to drink their wine and fvck who they wish when bored and “unhappy”, yet doing none of the work.
If she was the victim — he cheated or abandoned her despite her best efforts, than she might be legit. If she’s the “victim” of perceived emotional abuse and blah blah (unless *real*), please run from the succubus. It’s all manipulation, you’ll be the next harvesting and extraction.
Thanks for the reply and like.
Before I move on, I just want to say, I am judgmental, but withhold expressing judgment of other posters. I am not here for that, do not want to be unnecessarily offensive, and do not wish to engage in insult matches and e-beef. I am here to talk about ideas, perspectives, and if requested, advice.
I intensely frown upon divorce, and believe it should be done only for serious transgressions.
Here they are:
Abandonment
Abuse
Dereliction of duties
Withholding sex
Adultery
I am married, but if I were single, I would not deal with a woman who divorced for anything other than the aforesaid reasons. As you and everyone else here already knows, women initiate 70% of divorces, and we know many, maybe even most, of those, are “no-fault” . And I do not know how many male-initiated divorces were because of women intentionally transgressing to push men to divorce. Roger Devlin discusses this seldom mentioned occurrence in his essay Rotating Polyandry.
I'm not fond of what I consider a boomer meme: "You shouldn't try to work it out just because of the kids." What the hell was the point of getting married in the first place if not for child raising, knowing that there would likely be conflicts in most marriages that people should work to resolve. If people are not receptive to conflict resolution generally, should they be married?
Perhaps I am archaic, but I don't see marriage as a union of solely two individuals and consider what marriage was originally for, in no particular order:
1. Family and political alliances
2. Child raising
3. Resource accrual
4. Forming bonds with other people
Of course there is romance and love in marriage, but for me, those are only two elements that cannot make marriage last or consequential.
Divorce has serious ramifications throughout entire families, and I think some people overlook this because in the modern day, we look at marriage as a union of solely two individuals, who oftentimes, in my opinion, were a poor fit from the start. Judging from the divorces I am aware of, in most cases, I could see the divorces coming from the start. And likewise, I can usually tell who will not get divorced.
There is no in-between with me on the female question. Although I am not religious, I sympathize with what Martin Luther said about women: "The word and works of God is clear, that women were made either to be wives or prostitutes." Hence I am against "dating" and "boyfriend and girlfriend" as we know these practices past the age of 25 or so. Either a woman is going to be a wife and mother or provide the same favors as prostitutes with no financial reward, what we call casual sex. That requires no emotional or financial support, no involvement from extended family members, and no "hanging out"!
In many cases, though not all, being a boyfriend is being a woman's court jester/entertainer and/or employee. And I think that's why we get these stories of men being driven up walls by "girlfriends".
