in courting we are advised to truly....

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Mrs Alkili

No, but selfishness is. people blame their divorces on money and sex and Irreconcilable differences, but they can all mean one thing. You're selfish. as far as i understand, there are very few circumstances where a church leader would recommend divorce.

if what you are most worried about in picking a spouse is your own sexual gratification, then maybe you should save some poor girl from marrying you and never meeting up to your expectations.

You've unfairly mischaracterized fusnik's concerns. I don't believe fusnik ever said that sexual compatibility was the most important thing to look for in a spouse. There are many things that iare mportant. Sexual compatibility is just one of them. It's tough enough to be married to someone with whom you are compatible, heaven forbid you end up with someone with whom you are incompatible.

With regard to selfishness being the root of all problems, that's far too facile of an explanation. If lack of selfishness is all it takes to make a marriage work, then what difference does it really make who we choose to marry? Is it selfish to want to be married to someone who is good looking? Is it selfish to want to be married to someone who is intelligent? Is it selfish to want to be married to someone who shares your interests? Is it selfish to want to married to someone that will be able to support a family? If not, then why is it selfish to want to be married to someone with whom you enjoy being intimate?

[Archaea]

Balance of both proportions is important.

Once you've found somebody who meets your reasonable expectations, most divorces are rooted in selfishness by one, but in most instances, both partners.

For example, if both partners love each other, they can and should be able to work out problems of intimacy, even if not totally compatible. Now this is an optimistic view, and in reality, most couples just suffer through it.

[Mrs Alkili]

You've unfairly mischaracterized fusnik's concerns. I don't believe fusnik ever said that sexual compatibility was the most important thing to look for in a spouse.

I think I was pretty fair in representing his concerns. I think claiming that sex is the 2nd biggest reason for divorce is saying it is one of the most important things.


If lack of selfishness is all it takes to make a marriage work, then what difference does it really make who we choose to marry?

It doesn't really matter who you marry if both are willing to work out their problems and willingly compromise.


Is it selfish to want to be married to someone who is good looking? Is it selfish to want to be married to someone who is intelligent? Is it selfish to want to be married to someone who shares your interests? Is it selfish to want to married to someone that will be able to support a family?
If not, then why is it selfish to want to be married to someone with whom you enjoy being intimate?

Its not selfish to look for someone with the qualities you want, but if you do marry someone and find that they don't meet, or stop meeting your expectations in one of these catagories it setting yourself up for failure if you make your love conditional because of that aspect.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Mrs Alkili

Its not selfish to look for someone with the qualities you want, but if you do marry someone and find that they don't meet, or stop meeting your expectations in one of these catagories it setting yourself up for failure if you make your love conditional because of that aspect.

If spouses stop meeting each other's expectations, what is the point of staying married? I can understand if there are small children involved, but otherwise why is it so noble to stay married simply for the sake of staying married?

[Archaea]

Yours is the contemporary answer:

Treat marriage like a contract, which if the benefits of bargain no longer outweigh the detriments of the deal, get out.

My answer is different than some or most. Marriage is a covenant, and bond, which I do not have the right to break regardless of most actions of my spouse.

Just because a person stops meeting your expectations isn't a reason to get out. In fact, when a person stops meeting your expectations, that is a test of your or my commitment, whether I really meant what I said so long ago.

Granted, many of us fail, and actually do NOT work through the problems, we just suffer along or trudge along. However, why is that not better than just cutting and running?

And the upside is, you fight through the crap to make yourself and your spouse better.

I see marriage as a covenant where we have people on the sideliness pulling for and against us. Our Heavenly Families are pulling for us; whereas the adversary cheers as we rip ourselves apart. Why would I ever knowingly give in to the Adversary even if things aren't any where near what I want them to be?

I'm just too stubborn to give in, no matter what. Giving up would mean defeat and defeat isn't an option.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Granted, many of us fail, and actually do NOT work through the problems, we just suffer along or trudge along. However, why is that not better than just cutting and running?

And the upside is, you figh through the crap to make yourself and your spouse better.

If people are able to work through their problems, that is admirable, but to just suffer along through a bad marriage out of stubborness seems foolish. I went to law school for a year and realized after a year that I had no desire to be a lawyer the rest of my life. It was a difficult decision to quit law school, because I didn't want to be a quitter, but it would have been stupid to stick with it if it wasn't going to make me happy.

Ending a marriage should never be entered into lightly, but at some point you owe it to yourself and to your wife to allow yourselves to be happy. If you and your wife can be happier apart from each other, then it doesn't make a lot of sense to stay together.

[Archaea]

Never understood, "owe it to myself" concept.

You struggle throught it no matter what.

I don't have preconceived notions what life will offer me; well if I did, they were soon dashed.

I became a lawyer cuz I needed something useful to do. Is it okay? Well it doesn't suck as much as other jobs.

Our marriage has many struggles, and we could call it quits any time, but we haven't. It may be imposed upon me, hopefully not, but I just can't see "owing it to myself" to be happy.

First, what is happiness? The absence of conflict? Well then I should give up being a lawyer.

Second, achievement of mutual goals?

Third, satisfaction of wants and desires?

Fourth, lack of sin?

I dunno. This "she doesn't make me happy" doesn't make sense to me. I suppose, relief can be provided from stress for those who are in a contentious, stressful marriage, but if they don't change how stress arises, the next relationship will be more of the same. The way I see it, is odds are you will make the same mistakes with the next spouse, so you might as well fight through the problems with the existing spouse. It's just pragmatic. Of course, I realize my viewpoint is very, very unusual and rare. My spouse doesn't even fully agree with it. Perhaps I'm just a stubborn ass, but you already knew that.