Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Divorced? Would you re-marry?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CynthiaSM
Joined: 2/24/2012
Msg: 127
Divorced? Would you re-marry?Page 6 of 21    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Yes, I want to marry again. I don't want to cohabitate.

We were more worried that marriage would ruin our blissful relationship, and were very relieved that it did not.

This is what I hope for myself. Nice to know that it's possible.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/23/2012 7:06:58 PM
So then why not start at shared custody and shared cost and if one or the other doesn't want custody then give custody to the other along with child support.

Good idea, if it would work. I have 8 grandchildren out of three families. Five of those grandchildren have a disinterested bio-dad, none of them have a disinterested bio-mother. All of the men (4) were offered part-time custody and unlimited visitation but they weren't interested. One bio-father said he wanted full custody, and the mom agreed; that lasted about 3 months, and mom now has full custody. I know there are lots of men who would be happy to have custody and care of their children, but it seems there's even more who do not.

VVVVV

That's terrible. It's the bad dads that make it harder for the good ones.

Yup, and maybe the courts see that so often they simply assume the mother really is going to be the better, or at least more reliable parent? If I were queen of the world, I'd definitely implement licensing for having kids and make sure both parents knew and accepted their responsibility when it came to their offspring. Any shenanigans would get the offending parent some serious consequences.
 Helloitsmeyourlookingfor
Joined: 7/23/2009
Msg: 129
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/23/2012 7:39:52 PM

Message: you mean that kind of relationship between two reciprocal givers. Where the guard is let down, and the giving is done open-handedly, without either keeping score. Without the watchful, wary, world-weary walls of self-protection that got built after having been taken advantage of previously .
.

I have often stated that you do have to let your guard down and let the "stranger" Billy Joel talks about be known. You have to be able to trust your partner with your deepest darkest secrets. Not an easy thing to do when you have had that stranger pranced before you in divorce court.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 6:16:54 AM
So then why not start at shared custody and shared cost and if one or the other doesn't want custody then give custody to the other along with child support.

Instead of making the father the absent parent from the get go only allowing minimal time with his children.
I mean the husband and wife are divorcing not the father and his children.

And really the name calling is childish can't we move beyond third grade and discuss things like adults?
Just because we are calling the system unfair and would like to see the rules be equal does not make us bitter.

Maybe you are projecting your own feelings on to us if you see it that way?


I don't recall calling anyone names, and I don't get your last statement, given that I have stated that what I feel, what I actually SEE is that the majority of us do the right thing, despite the unfairness of our personal situation.

I imagine that most parents, when going through a divorce, realize that in their particular situation shared custody is difficult in practice, hard on the children, and downright near impossible once the kids are older & more social without parental involvement. In any case, "making a father an absent parent" is up to BOTH parents, not the courts and not only one of the parents; it is far from the basis of custody and/or cs statutes. Unless the father chooses to be absent, or a mother is hell bent on destroying the relationship between father & child, this isn't the case. Certainly it happens & it is not right, but neither is anything else that happens in life that it outside of what is morally correct. In truth, is not the norm, either. Every situation is different, but as far as the courts go, they tend to push the parties to come to an agreement, not make decisions for them. It is the individuals (and I've seen my share, having spent quite a lot in the courtroom over a five year period) whose anger & bitterness prevent them from seeing a situation clearly.

Shared cost, btw, doesn't mean dollar for dollar, as it addresses the sacrifice of a primary caregiver that results in their reduced income. Shared cost means that if expenses directly related to the raising of children represent a specific percentage of income, that percentage is assumed for both parties. The fact that the income of one parent far exceeds that of the other is no fault of the courts. If the financial implications of raising children are paramount, then that need be addressed by the parents whilst still together, not suddenly the most important issue only after a split, that's all I'm saying. To agree that one parent should, for example, remain at home full time, earning nothing & inhibiting their ability to earn income equal to the parent who chooses to forfeit the care of and time spent with their children, then to turn around & cry foul ten years down the road when they are not able to enter the job market at a salary equal to the parent who worked, is what is illogical. That this is a gender issue at all is due to what is factual, not what is determined by the system. Things are changing for sure, but it is still the truth for most who collect cs/have primary custody that men earn more & have spent less time taking care of their children. It is also still the truth that the absent parent is absent by choice more often than not. Let's deal in facts, not the exceptions. Standing in front of a judge, one's true character is more likely to come out than not, and decisions that are made by the courts where the parties can not agree are more often than not correct.

In any case, I'll accept my reality, you can live in yours. I am fully cognizant of the fact that my personal circumstance is a result of my choices or misfortunes, and I live my life thusly. I accept financial responsibility for the children I chose to bear, sacrifice accordingly so as to do so, and leave the gender blame game to others. As I said before, with every choice comes consequence.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 6:26:29 AM
The rules of the court are not based on gender, that is merely your stated perception.




Not true!!! I got the stats to prove it. Don't make me break them out!!


Statistics don't prove the basis of legislation, they are merely measurements of results, collections of data. In truth, they are far too often skewed in order to make a point & are meaningless as far as providing an answer as to why something is as it is, so you needn't bother breaking them out.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 132
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 8:04:30 AM

So what is the point of being a stay at home parent if the kids are in school? That's 8 hours a day of siting on the couch eating bon bons if you ask me.

That would be six hours a day sitting on the couch eating bon-bons, with such activity regularly interrupted by pro-d days, school holidays, sick kids, and calls from schools due to some infraction, not to mention an occasional call from the working parent to see if their partner can run some errand for them. If the kids go to a school close-by, the parent may even have to move off their a$$ to make lunch. Now, regardless of how much time the stay-at-home parent spends eating bon-bons and watching daytime television, some parents - moms and dads - think its in their kids' best interest to have a parent at home when the kid gets there and not 2 or 3 hours later. This means that the stay-at-home parent will sacrifice getting ahead in their career. On the plus side, avoiding child-care costs saves the marital unit several thousand per year. These are agreements parents make when they are together; making those agreements, and accepting the implied consequences and then crying "foul" a few years later, when those consequences arrive, is hardly mature behavior.


So when you equalize the house holds like your talking about and the lower income parent who is receiving all this extra in the name of equalization finds a new partner making as much as the payee of cs now what?

The kids are still the offspring of the NCP and regardless of the income of the CP, the NCP should have some financial responsibility toward their kids. IMO, they also have a moral obligation toward their kid, but thats quite difficult to legislate, so we're stuck with legislating financial responsibility, and a significant portion of NCPs (male and female) default on that, as well.

If NCPs really want to avoid any financial obligation, they should give up their parental rights to the kids - let the stepparent adopt and take on that responsiblity. That happened to my sister and I, as well as to two of my grandchildren.


the lower income parent who is receiving all this extra

All what extra? CS isn't a gravy train, unless the NCP is in some stratospheric income level. For most people, it's about as much as a car payment per month. And again, what does the CPs income (household or personal) have to do with the NCPs obligation to support his/her kids financially?

I agree with the poster above: most parents, male or female, do the best they can for their children and come to a resolution both can live with without any court intervention (stats back this up, if you care to look them up). Certainly the "system" fails everyone, moms, dads and kids, from time to time, and that's extremely unfortunate. Still, the goal is to provide the best possible outcome for the kids, regardless of how "fair" or "unfair" an individual might find that resolution. Being personally involved makes it really difficult to see one's own situation objectively and I think that goes on a lot on these forums.
 Helloitsmeyourlookingfor
Joined: 7/23/2009
Msg: 134
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 9:17:48 AM

So then why not start at shared custody and shared cost and if one or the other doesn't want custody then give custody to the other along with child support.

Instead of making the father the absent parent from the get go only allowing minimal time with his children.
I mean the husband and wife are divorcing not the father and his children.


NOW WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE TELL THE DAMN JUDGES THIS LOGIC!!!!!

I am not going to beat the dead horse of the man vs. woman thing, but I was told by my attorney that the courts in general feel that it is bad for the children to be split between households. Problem is the courts are full of old men and women that don't have children in the house. They also hear the worst of it.... this one is in jail, this one is on crack, this one is leaving the kid with the mother while going out and doing drugs..... by the time you get up there (even though your the only one aside from the lawyers that showed some respect and put on a nice shirt and tie if not a suit), the Judge looks at you like.... really??? Did you hear the cases before you??? The father/mother before you is on crack and he doesn't know where the next meal is coming from, and you are here to argue this petty BS?

They get burned out.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 10:46:23 AM

Your right it's so tough.

Where did I say it was "so tough"? I merely pointed out that even if the STAHP did nothing else, they'd still have some duties to perform. My ex-daughter-in-law was the type who did sit on the couch eating bon-bons while she watched the kids (they were pre-school age). My son worked two jobs, and when he got home, he fed the kids, cleaned up the house and put the kids to bed. She "needed a break" and went out visiting, or partying, or toward the end, cheating. When they split, he got the kids - most likely because she was more interested in doing other things at that time. She's straightened up since then, is in another relationship with a new baby, and sees her other two regularly.

As a single parent for the last 11 years to two children that I recieve little of nothing in cs for it's a wonder me and my children survived without the person sitting on my couch eating bon bons. How on earth did we ever make it.

Yes, many single-parents of both genders are able to do this. But that doesn't make a different arrangement any less valuable. For the first time in my life, I have a partner who is not working and is able to do things for me while I work. He's the reason I can have a dog, years before I thought I'd be able to, because he's available to take the dog for mid-day outtings. He makes dinner for me several nights a week, and takes care of some basic housework. I really appreciate this, it adds value to my live even if it's not monetary and even though I know I could certainly manage without it, and probably wouldn't be any less happy (unless I had to give up the dog). I also know two-income parents manage just fine without the person on the couch with bon-bons, though if they can afford it, they often hire a nanny. At the very least, they have to put out actual cash for child-care.

This entire arguement is a joke. If you want to work then work. I can't make someone work any more than I can make them not work. If you don't work accept the consequences of that choice. To cry foul a few years latter when you can't find a job cause you weigh 300 lbs. from all the bon bons is hardly mature.

For some parents, it's not a matter of "wanting" to work or "not wanting to work"; it's making a decision that one parent will be stay at home because both parents believe its in the best interests of their kid(s). That decision has consequences for BOTH people, not just the one who's career and earning power is affected. Just because child and home care do not have monetary value attached doesn't mean they are valueless in terms of quality of life for the entire family. And while staying at home may not match the income a person could bring in, there are also costs associated with working that are avoided when one parent is able to be at home to take care of kids.

Even if there are no kids, and a man believes he should "take care of his woman" (and there are still a few of those around), I think he needs to accept that there are consequences that may extend past the actual length of the relationship and take steps to mitigate those consequences if it's a concern for him.


I agree that some finacial responsibility is required. What's wrong with reasonable?

What's reasonable? How do we all agree on that? I think that basing CS on the cost of raising a kid and some percentage of the NCPs income is a good idea, but I think there should be more willingness or ability to take the payer's change in financial situation into account, which often doesn't happen because too many parents lie about their actual income and as someone said "the courts just get burned out". I personally don't think it's unreasonable that the higher-earning parent pays child support to the lower-earning parent, even if the lower-earning parent has a job and/or is in a new relationship, or even if they share custody 50/50. I think unconscious or conscious bias does exist in the people that apply laws that are intended to be fair, and I think that is something that needs to be addressed more within the legal system. I also think that our current "confrontational, win/lose" system needs to disappear and be replaced by collaboration and/or mediation. Do you agree that this is all "reasonable", or do you think I'm blowing smoke out my a$$?

Does the atorney general know about this goal? They sure act like they don't.

Yes, I agree- there are sometimes very sad/heartbreaking cases. My two-year-old granddaughter suffered for over a year because the system that is supposed to 'do what's best for the child' failed her and her mother. That was one of the hardest times in my life, never mind how terrible it was for them.

Nowhere have I said that things couldn't be better, but the reality is that in the majority of cases the parents either work things out without the help of any outside agency, or at most they use a mediator. The court only actually sees and decides on less than 10% of all divorce and child support/custody arrangements - and these people are the ones who are the most unhappy about how things turned out - and apparently post on POF forums.
 Helloitsmeyourlookingfor
Joined: 7/23/2009
Msg: 136
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 10:49:22 AM
And to all you gay people that want the right to marry.......... Why don't you petition Congress for the right to be bitter and miserable like everyone else.... I am sure it will fly with flying rainbow colors.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 10:54:55 AM
With this statement it would seem you are saying it is okay for the mom not to pay as long as she disappears .... One can plainly see though she is okay with a dad not receiving support while cries foul if the mom doesn't get it.

Yawn ... I mean, Cap'n, how many times have I said in this and other threads that BOTH parents should be financially responsible when it comes to their kids? And did you miss my little "Queen of the World" fantasy where I said I would support consequences for any parent who indulged in shenanigans of this (or any other) sort?

You were not 'ripped off' in terms of having to pay alimony or child support, because you have custody of the kids. That is what I meant. You ex's should, absolutely, pay. They are no better than the men who run out on their kids.

Ok? Happy now?


Why don't you petition Congress for the right to be bitter and miserable like everyone else....

Haha, too true! :)
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 12:31:57 PM
^^ agree with Moonbeam above.

Anyone ever watch "TED Talks"? Watched a few last night, on "Love and Sex", and one of the speakers was Helen Fisher, who is a biological anthropologist. She made some interesting assertions, one of which is that way back, women were as valuable or more valuable than men in terms of keeping the tribe fed; women as 'gatherers' brought home 80% of whatever was eaten. Women had more sexual freedom and social power and rights than they have had for the last 2000 years, at least. She believes that will be true again in the future as women become more powerful in the workforce and that eventually, marriage will be made up of two equals and will be entered into for companionship rather than financial reasons.

She also stated that while the divorce rate rose steadily for a number of years, it has recently stabilized and even begun dropping. Part of this is because the population as a whole has aged, and as people age they are less likely to get divorced.
_________________
Some interesting information about men, marriage and families:
A 2011 study of 5,200 singles in America (done by Match.com and based on the US census to accurately represent the US population) showed that men are just as eager to marry as women. Among individuals between the ages of 21 and 34, 62% of both sexes said they were eager to wed. In some cohorts, women were slightly more eager to marry, while in others men were slightly more eager, but the differences were not significant. In a study done in 2000, more men than women reported that marriage was their “ideal lifestyle.”

The 2011 Match.com study of 5,200 singles in America also found that more men than women are eager to have children in every cohort between ages 21 and 65+. In the age group 21-34, 51% of men were eager to have children, while 46% of women reported that they were eager to have children. When asked whether women should be the primary caregivers, 38% of men agreed, while 49% of women agreed. Men are also more willing to be the primary caretaker for their offspring.

Today men are much more likely to seek women who are closer to their own age, with the same level of education and the same earning potential. Moreover, in a 2011 sample of 5,200 single Americans, only 20% of men (as opposed to 29% of women) said they “must have” or regarded it as “very important” to have a partner of the same ethnic background; and 17% of men (as opposed to 28% of women) said they “must have” or regarded it as “very important” to have a partner of the same religious background; 23% of men had also dated a woman 10 or more years older than themselves.

All from the website "Man of the House", an article by Helen Fisher: http://manofthehouse.com/relationships/communication/8-surprising-truths-about-men/s/8
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 139
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 1:11:37 PM
@cap_n_mORGAN :

Are you proud of yourself now ? you won!

The very definition of a Pyrrhic victory.
 Helloitsmeyourlookingfor
Joined: 7/23/2009
Msg: 140
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 1:40:38 PM
<---- Tossing popcorn in the mouth watching the drama unfold.... asking why you two dont just get married to each other.

I think at the end of the day, a few bad apples (it always comes down to that damn woman giving the man the apple) women and men skew everyones perception.

The judges just plain suck.
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 141
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 2:17:19 PM

in my recent meltdown post which I am not proud of, but even us kindhearted Scandinavian/Irish women have our limits I guess)

Hey, you said what I've tried to say more than once in the past, he simply cannot hear it. But I certainly appreciated it, so thanks! :)

I tried to email you privately, but the system said "Moonbeam does not want to talk to you. Go back to your inbox". I felt slapped! :)
 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 142
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 3:03:50 PM

I would rather be hated standing up for the truth than loved for agreeing with what I know is wrong.


Truth isn't defined as "what you believe".

Wrong isn't defined as "what you don't believe".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added:

Truth isn't defined as "statistics".

Statitics:




the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.


The keyword in that definition is "aggregates". Which means that statistics are neither unique truths nor unique wrongs. They cannot be used to claim "truth", they can at most be used to show tendencies.

Are we to understand that you base your "truths" on statistics ?
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 3:07:30 PM
He has been trying to build a legal case to take custody from me, because when my eldest turns 18 in a little over a year, he WILL have to start paying.

That's what my niece's ex had planned; he had a male friend who had all the angles figured out and was tutoring him. Anyway, what he wanted was to have custody of the two eldest (13 & 11), while my niece had the younger two (4 & 3) - guess he figured this would relieve him of child support obligations. To achieve this, his friend audited the company business and tried to find ways to "prove" my niece had mismanaged funds. They also tried to demonstrate that she was an unfit mother by taking perfectly normal things out of context. The father also did things like tell his kids that he had cancer and was going to die - and didn't they want to live with Daddy before he died? Or he'd tell them he was going to commit suicide because "nobody loved him". The kids had seen him physically attack their mother, and the oldest was dead set against living with him at first, but after a few months of his manipulation even she was starting to think she should go live with her dad.

Anyway, all 4 kids went to stay with him for two weeks. By the end of the first week, he was saying to my niece "I don't know how you do it this is way harder than I thought it was going to be". So I guess no more talk of the kids coming to live with him. :) Still no child support from him, either, but at least he's stopped those stupid games.
_____________________________________

Truth isn't defined as "what you believe".

Wrong isn't defined as "what you don't believe".

Where's the applause icon when you need it??? :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------

If these stats were to prove the points you have been trying to make,

They weren't specifically; it was merely information that I thought relevant to the discussion shared.

From your response, I'd suggest a little less Cap'n Morgan in your life, though. You're getting pretty confused.

 justlookingvt
Joined: 5/8/2010
Msg: 144
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 3:44:23 PM
capn_morgan, just in case you missed it:

Statitics:



the science that deals with the collection, classification, analysis, and interpretation of numerical facts or data, and that, by use of mathematical theories of probability, imposes order and regularity on aggregates of more or less disparate elements.


The keyword in that definition is "aggregates". Which means that statistics are neither unique truths nor unique wrongs. They cannot be used to claim "truth", they can at most be used to show tendencies.

Are we to understand that you base your "truths" on statistics ?

vvvvv



I would try not to, unless it was the girl from the recurring dream.


Now... that is smooth. :-)
 larissan04
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 145
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/24/2012 6:12:17 PM
i don't know if i'd remarry, but i'd definitely want someone with whom to grow old. that being said, if i loved a man and it was important to him that we got married, then yeah, i'd have no problem doing it.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/25/2012 2:00:11 AM

What kind of point is the national census trying to make? Your full of it and you know it.


I know no such thing. Where is there evidence that the national census is the basis of legislation?


Far as dads not spending time with their kids I say no SH*T when dads have to work 24/7 to support 2 house holds instead of 1. A person can't make another person work or not work. So what is the point of being a stay at home parent if the kids are in school? That's 8 hours a day of siting on the couch eating bon bons if you ask me. So when you equalize the house holds like your talking about and the lower income parent who is receiving all this extra in the name of equalization finds a new partner making as much as the payee of cs now what? Nothing that's what that couple mommy and step daddy or daddy and step mommy are banking on the payees out rages high child support. Wheres the equalization in that? Mean while the payee is constantly broke and looks like the poor person for the next 18 years. God help you if the payee of child support has children from a previous relationship that they are the custodial parent of. IT ISN'T RIGHT AND IT ISN'T FAIR. That's the bottom line.


No one is argning that life is fair. Are you so deluded as to truly believe that a parent (either parent, cp or ncp) finding themselves in a better financial position due to divorce is the basis of court rulings or is the norm? Really? Let's at least be honest, here. Surely those who know how to work the system, use the legal forum to the detriment of the ex or even their offspring exist, but they aren't the majority & they are certainly not evidence of why there are cs laws in place to address the issue of a parent who does not financially support their child(ren).

Having been both a stay at home parent & a full time working mother it is quite clear that you are clueless as to what a stay at home parent actually does. You seem to miss the point entirely, choosing instead to hammer away on a tangent as you try to make a point which simply doesn't apply to parents who actually put great effort into raising their children & making an honest effort to make ends meet financially, acknowledging that the necessary sacrifices are theirs to bear despite the unfairness of it all.

This coud go on forever, but I find no reason to continue a discussion with one of such apparent short sight & narrow mind. Good luck to you.
 Maleman999
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 147
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/25/2012 7:01:13 AM

I would remarry if the guy was the right guy in every way because I made a vow that I would not get divorced again


Here we go again with someone looking for total perfection, a perfect knight in shining armor, and any flaws will be an instant deal breaker, followed by a lot of whining and the infamous question "Why aren't there any nice guys?". Be prepare to live your senior years alone with 20 "perfect" cats, since no guy will be perfect enough. Are you perfect in every way to meet a guy's standards of total perfection?
 4ms4me
Joined: 4/24/2010
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/25/2012 10:27:01 AM

I don't understand how someone can NOT care for their kids.

Me too, male or female. I can understand that sometimes seeing them regularly can be difficult (my ex and I had that problem for a while), but not caring? Beyond my comprehension. I also don't understand the following:
Paternity fraud
Having babies to garner income
Having babies to "trap" someone
Lying about or undermining birth control efforts
Deliberately becoming pregnant by AI or 'naturally', with no intention of letting the father/child know each other.
Dumping non-bio kids that you've loved/supported for years.
Using and/or hurting kids as part of punishing the other parent.
All of those things make me very angry, and I know they go on. I also believe such behavior is the minority, even though it seems to happen "all the time". I think most men and women are mature and compassionate enough not to go down those roads, and it is only the horror stories that get told and re-told, making them seem much more prevalent than they are.
Peace and good wishes to all the loving parents on this thread, even the ones I disagree with.
 bradchaz
Joined: 5/22/2012
Msg: 150
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/28/2012 5:42:13 PM
At this point, no. I would not re-marry. My ex was very controlling, verbally abusive, emotionally abusive, and never could admit she was wrong or say she was sorry about anything. The whole time we were together, I had to walk on eggshells every time that I was around her. We've been apart now for 3 years, but the divorce was finalized last summer. I'm just now getting the confidence back to go on these sites and look for companionship, and I really need to "play the field" before I even consider settling down again.
 cooldog65
Joined: 6/27/2011
Msg: 151
view profile
History
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/29/2012 12:46:45 AM

Why remarry? .........Lets ask that in a more honest way......Why sign another contract with the state that allows a person that has sworn to love you and stand by you forever to take half your assets and break their vows with little or no effect on their assets?



Excellent points cap_n. These are exactly the reasons I wouldn't get married again. The deck is stacked against us.
 Helloitsmeyourlookingfor
Joined: 7/23/2009
Msg: 152
Divorced? Would you re-marry?
Posted: 5/29/2012 6:59:34 AM
LOL.... it was my first wife that blew my socks off...... In my life I found the crazier they are in bed, the crazier they are in life.

Now my socks are scared and refuse to come out for a crazy woman again.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > Divorced? Would you re-marry?