bluntlysaid

I just finished reading this month’s issue of Elle Magazine, which must have been written during the peak of the Elliot Spitzer scandal because 85% of the articles were about infidelity, infidelity in politics, and divorce laws.

One particular article got me thinking. It gives what may well be a one-sided version of one couple’s very acrimonious divorce in the State of New York. See, and I didn’t know this, New York is one of three states that does not allow no-fault divorces. If a divorce is not mutual in these state then the partner that wants out must prove to a judge that one of four things happened:

Are there grounds [for divorce]?” He then listed the four legally sanctioned grounds in New York, one of only three states that do not confer unilateral or one-party divorce (the others are Mississippi and Tennessee) and the only state that doesn’t provide a “no-fault” ground (i.e., irreconcilable differences). Rather, one must be able to prove one’s spouse guilty either of “cruel and inhuman” treatment, adultery, abandonment for one year, or having spent at least three years in prison. The only exception is if a couple mutually consents to the divorce and all financial and custody terms, which in acrimonious, contested situations—about one fourth of cases—just does not happen.

The article paints a grim and probably common picture. Girl meets boy. Girl gives career up to raise a family while the boy’s career flourishes. Both work long hours, one at home the other in an office. Girl asks boy to help out with daily chores. Boy gets mad; “I don’t ask you to help out with my financial models at work do I?! Deal with it!!” Girl gets resentful, stops making boy food, and sleeps in a separate room.

It seems like there’s lots of money in this case, so perhaps the man doesn’t want to “give” the divorce to his wife because that way she will not have a stake in “his” money.

Whatever. The details of the story don’t really matter, it’s the sentiment that worries me.

1. It’s probably a good thing that divorce laws have slackened over the years. Although NY State’s grounds for divorce should always be no brainers (he hits you? OBVIOUSLY get divorced) I think that an emotionally barren marriage is pretty bad too. Both parties should always have the option of leaving the marriage if it becomes emotionally unbearable. I’m not saying that marriage should be easy, or that rough patches shouldn’t be suffered through; but divorce should be permitted if the relationship is only going south AND you are >50% that living alone is a preferable alternative.
2. I think back to a random conversation one of my study abroad teachers in Barcelona initiated in class. She admitted to living with her boyfriend. In fact, she was on her 8th year with this guy and had lived with a former boyfriend for 7 years (something like that). “You Americans seem to judge me for this, but the same thing happens in your country. Your parents get married and divorced before they hit their tenth anniversary. A few years later, they re-marry and perhaps divorce again. Is living with a series of boyfriends not the same thing, minus the official paper?” She has a point, and I think it’s the following:
3. Life is long. I have cycled through several versions of “me” shedding each former identity/phase/preferences/etc like (oh my god, what shitty simile) a snake shedding its skin (told you so!). It’s true. I was an insecure basket case during high school. I’m still a basket case sometimes, but I know that I’ve led a more interesting life than the people I used to compare myself to, nor do I have any interest in studying law anymore, nor is the criteria that I look for in men the same. I’ve had several boyfriends in the last decade and each one has been completely different, yet complimentary to the version of me that they happened to date. The point is—Will the man that I meet in my late 20s, the man I will likely marry, be the right man for me in my 30s? 50s?
4. In fact, science has extended life expectancy beyond anything experienced by previous generations. Would the idealized couples of our past have made it through their 60s, 70s and 80s?
5. Is being alone once the two personalities diverge a preferable alternative to being together? Does a 40-year-old have the same dating options as a 20-year-old (hell no). Is being alone the optimal way for socializing in your adulthood (hell no). With the exception of big city life (i.e. NY), I think that society is built for couples. Plus, raising a family single handed is expensive and probably not good for children. This other article says that divorce correlates with higher levels of poverty in single-mother households. Poverty = less opportunities for children = even worse than living in a house where mom/dad get along but are not in love?

It seems like I just did a full circle. I argued that having the option to divorce is good, that perhaps long term relationships are not ideal, yet living alone is definitely not a good thing.

My bottom line is that I hope to marry someone who is like a best friend to me. My definition of a best friend is particular (phenomenal conversations, tons of respect, and unconditional support among other things). I figure that if you have these things nailed, then one or both partners in the marriage can continue to evolve without posing major damage to the marriage. Why? Because the changes in the person will only spur great conversation (an elixir, in my case) and the underlying foundation of respect and support kind of serves like muscle memory….you just know what to do, you know to keep on “being there” because that’s what you’ve done in the past. That’s my conclusion…marry someone that also plays the role of a (best) friend and you may be able to avoid the pitfalls of change.

What can I say—The Elle Article freaked me out.