RoR: Forum

"No longer finding value in a relationship is ample reason in itself to step away. Neither side needs to seek permission from the other to end something they have stopped enjoying."

Seems simple enough. We make it more complicated than we have to.

Good article JJ.

regards
John

Post 1

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 8:24am

The bad thing about relationships is that you can start them for free.
Ciro D'Agostino.

Post 2

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 9:23am

Yes Ciro, and the exit fee is often steep.

Post 3

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 10:32am

John, I think insurance companies should start offering insurance coverage to people for what they do or say. Just like for doctors in case of malpractice.
CD

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 4/06, 10:44am)

Post 4

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 11:16am

> No longer finding value in a relationship is ample reason in itself to step away. ...Otherwise, we may one day find ourselves in the unenviable position of fantasizing about being beaten, in exchange for a chance at ending self-imposed lifelong misery.

Thanks, JJ, for this excellent article. Most people's circumstances are not as extreme as those of your friend, but they "settle" in other or lesser ways. And not just in relationships: in careers and life directions as well. It's easier to stay where you are, in a rut, than to shake things up. Change involves risk.

Post 5

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 3:51pm

John, Phil, thanks for your comments. I'm glad you liked it.

Yes Phil, change involves risk and it's understandable to be afraid of the unknown. But often people are so focussed on the unknown costs of making a change, while ignoring the possible benefits, that they choose to do nothing, even when their current situation leads to definite unhappiness. When known costs are mounting, the risk of making a change may pale in comparison.

I am reminded of an interview I read of a Pier One executive when they changed their spokesperson to Thom Filicia from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. A reporter asked him if he thought there is risk involved in such a big change. To which he astutely replied, "Absolutely. But there's much more risk involved in not changing things." Same applies to relationships. When the cost of making no change is high and sure, the risk of making a change for the better may well be worth it in perspective.

JJ

Post 6

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 4:46pm

John,

Yeah, it is really simple. Yet I've known people who really believe that they cannot leave unless the other person does something unforgivable. I've heard more than one person actually say, "I can't break up with him because he hasn't done anything wrong." They hope their spouses would beat them, cheat on them, anything to provide an excuse that's enough of an offence to justifiably break up. They hope they would have terminal illness themselves to have the "courage" to be able to break up just because they want to, breaking from convention.

I've known people who have said that getting a divorce would make their marriage seem like a failure, when the fact is the marriage is already a failure. Instead of righting the wrong by getting a divorce, they'd rather perpetuate the failure by staying married to keep up a "successful" appearances to others at the cost of their own happiness.

I've known someone who is staying with his marriage because it has all the elements of a successful marriage that his friends envy, from their beautiful house to their educated in-laws, except for the fact he has nothing to say to his wife in his picture-perfect life. He cannot bring himself to give all that up just because his relationship with his wife chronically depresses him. The worst part is, given his belief, the better things are appearance-wise, the harder it is for his happiness to matter.

JJ

Post 7

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 5:48pm

Great article!

I actually met a girl in the same situation. When she got into an argument with her husband, he pushed her out of the way, and she pretended it was abuse. She was so happy for a short period of time, because she convinced herself she could leave him now. It didn't last, though. Since he wasn't really abusive, and he apologized sincerely afterwards, she couldn't really convince herself or others that he was abusive. So she stayed with the marriage. It's just sad that someone would feel a sense of relief when they get physically attacked. I think that's a strong indication that there's something wrong with their moral theories.

Also, I've heard many people say they can't break up with someone because that other person didn't do anything wrong. It's as if breaking up is a kind of attack on them, and something you should only do if they've done something to deserve it. Somehow it's considered kinder to stay in a relationship with someone you don't like than to break up with them. I wish I understood this better. I could see part of it coming from altruism, staying in the relationship for the other person. And part of it might be the fact that people tie their self-esteem to their relationships, and being "dumped" is an insult. It's just all very strange that the burden is on the person who wants to break up to prove they have just cause.

A quick random aside. I was thinking about the strikes in France right now. The laws make firing an employee so difficult that nobody is hiring. You'd think that considering how tough it is to end a relationship in our culture, people would avoid getting in one the same way. I haven't really noticed any of that, though.

Post 8

Thursday, April 6, 2006 - 7:20pm

Joe,

I know a brilliant guy whose quite good looking girlfriend, now wife, is a dull, tantrum-throwing, bottle-a-night whack job.

I asked Andy why he didn't break up with Liz. He wouldn't answer the question but there seemed to be a couple of reasons. First, they'd been together three years and she'd fall apart if he he gave her the chop (all the more reason she wasn't a good long term relationship partner). Second, he had low self esteem and didn't think he could get another girl as hot as Liz and he would lose the ready supply of sex for a long time. Third, he liked the idea of his friends seeing him with Liz.

I was blown away by the tragedy of watching this guy sacrifice his future happiness for other people's happiness.

Altruism and a lack of self esteem are just so destructive.

Great article, JJ. [Sanctioned last night, the one with bugger all Atlas Points.]

(Edited by Andrew Bates on 4/07, 12:03am)

Post 9

Sunday, November 30, 2014 - 7:26am

You're not bored, you're boring.

To the woman who evidently felt bored with her husband I might gently suggest:

Did this woman insist on having her way all the time at the expense of her husband and hold him responsible for her happiness a la Lillian Rearden?

Is she just a demanding and self-entitled little shrew who thinks her man should orbit his entire life around her whims?

I know two women who divorced their husbands for reasons similar to those cited in the article. They later regretted that choice. So please pardon my skepticism aimed at anyone who thinks her partner's sole purpose in life should be to make her "haaaaaappy" rather than accepting the sacred responsibility of performing the hard work necessary to make her own damned self happy!

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 11/30, 7:55am)

Post 10

Wednesday, January 4, 2017 - 9:00am