Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Krisvertelo

When your marriage is on the rocks!

Recommended Posts

When your relationship or marriage is on the rocks and your parents didn't like your partner even from the start, to whom will you confide? To your friends or parents? Or better yet, keep it yourself? We know that the right thing to do is to seek for your parent's support but how could you do that if they don't even like the man you love? It's just difficult, isn't?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SEOPress WordPress SEO plugin

If your marriage "On The Rocks" senario leads to a breakup then all will eventually know. Your parents are probably going to be a bit "told you so" and judgemental but if they love you then they are still your parents and will give you help and support after the fact. Your friends reactions may be mixed but if they are true friends they will support you anyway.

Seeking advice about a possible ending to the marriage is a bit different. Your parents will be rooting for it to finish and will be biased to that end. Your friends may give you better insights as their views will be mixed but a more balanced view may come from them. Ultimately it is your decision though. As long as your parents love you and your friends are true and put your happiness and well being first, you will hopefully have the after support you need.

I'm not a marriage counselor though, just my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why people would try to fix a marriage.

You can't pick your parents of kids...except for adoption. But you choose your marriage partner.

If you don't like this one, get a better one. If you aren't both absolutely in love with one another...and happy....get someone you'll be happy with. And if you're the problem, and you love the other one...let them go to find someone they will like better. 

 

Unless you look like Dan Riffle,  then stick with anyone that will have you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

I never understood why people would try to fix a marriage.

You can't pick your parents of kids...except for adoption. But you choose your marriage partner.

If you don't like this one, get a better one. If you aren't both absolutely in love with one another...and happy....get someone you'll be happy with. And if you're the problem, and you love the other one...let them go to find someone they will like better. 

 

Unless you look like Dan Riffle,  then stick with anyone that will have you.

Clear cut views like that have no place here 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The AMOL said:

If your marriage is on the rocks, you have but one certain course of action: rejoice!

I mentioned that your parents may have biased views. I would like to add Frank to that list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Claude Whitacre said:

I never understood why people would try to fix a marriage.

You can't pick your parents of kids...except for adoption. But you choose your marriage partner.

If you don't like this one, get a better one. If you aren't both absolutely in love with one another...and happy....get someone you'll be happy with. And if you're the problem, and you love the other one...let them go to find someone they will like better. 

 

Unless you look like Dan Riffle,  then stick with anyone that will have you.

Marriages should always end because of the following, you have fallen out of love, you hate each other, you don't do anything together, no common interests etc, it is abusive, physically or mentally. Any considerations to familiarity, lifestyle, kids, status etc should be discarded and just have to be dealt with. An unfortunate consequence but must be done.

Marriages where the above does not apply usually have conflict over money, possessions, untidiness, chore allocation, breadwinner conflicts, laziness of one partner etc, all those little domestic things that become really irritating and cause rows can be fixed by structure and compromise. That's where a marriage counselor or a life coach can come in handy, third party arbitration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lanfear63 said:

Marriages where the above does not apply usually have conflict over money, possessions, untidiness, chore allocation, breadwinner conflicts, laziness of one partner etc, all those little domestic things that become really irritating and cause rows can be fixed by structure and compromise. That's where a marriage counselor or a life coach can come in handy, third party arbitration. 

I understand why you say that. And the view is thought out.

But in relationships, to me, it's pretty simple. "money, possessions, untidiness, chore allocation, breadwinner conflicts, laziness of one partner etc".? Do you love your partner more or less than these things? A marriage counselor? To me, if you are seeing someone to save a marriage, it's already over. 

You save the marriage by being a better person and loving your partner more than yourself. You don't fix the marriage. If you drink......fix that. If you gamble......fix that. If you can't hold a job...fix that.  Are you abusive? Fix that.  If they are abusive, leave.  You don't need to fix the marriage. You need to fix the problem. If your partner finds someone else, move on. Trade up. 

This is just my view. A bad marriage is a living hell to all concerned, especially to kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Claude Whitacre said:

I understand why you say that. And the view is thought out.

But in relationships, to me, it's pretty simple. "money, possessions, untidiness, chore allocation, breadwinner conflicts, laziness of one partner etc".? Do you love your partner more or less than these things? A marriage counselor? To me, if you are seeing someone to save a marriage, it's already over. 

You save the marriage by being a better person and loving your partner more than yourself. You don't fix the marriage. If you drink......fix that. If you gamble......fix that. If you can't hold a job...fix that.  Are you abusive? Fix that.  If they are abusive, leave.  You don't need to fix the marriage. You need to fix the problem. If your partner finds someone else, move on. Trade up. 

This is just my view. A bad marriage is a living hell to all concerned, especially to kids.

I agree with some of what you say. A couple will always have very different views and prior experience of the material side expectations though. Learning to mix the two and compromise on it comes after all the lovey dovey dates and vacations together are over. I think that it should be mandatory (unless you are wealthy and have a housekeeper/cleaner and someone to run the finances for you) that a couple should live together for a couple of years before getting married and not have kids.  That's enough time for these sorts of things to come to light and if they are intolerable, then you can just walk away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mike Friedman said:

You realize that you just insinuated that people would pay Claude for sex?

You assume Claude didn't give away his services for free. Or at least try to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mike Friedman said:

That's not being a hooker. That's just being everyone else.

OK, here's the story. I was an unemployed gigolo. My wife worked at the unemployement office. When I told her that I was fired from being a gigolo...for non-performance of my duties...she insisted on proof. After a hot steamy 3 minutes...she said "I believe you. I believe you were fired as a gigolo....for your terrible performance".

Her complete lack of empathy with me is what I found irresistible, And so we worked out a deal. She said "I'll let you buy me a home, and I can furnish it any way I want. I drive the newer car, we see the movies I like, we spend the weekend the way I want...and it will never include sex. Ever."

I could see she was a shrewd negotiator...so I countered with "Sure. But can I have a cat?"  And she said "Stop crying, and you can have one cat"

The fool! I now have two cats! I win.

 

(Yes, I read this to her before I posted it, to make sure it made her laugh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/2/2018 at 2:52 PM, Mike Friedman said:

That's not being a hooker. That's just being everyone else.

Not the way Claude did. (Unless you, too, hung out in open sewer pipes and behind the dumpster at Chuck E. Cheese.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Claude Whitacre said:

OK, here's the story. I was an unemployed gigolo. My wife worked at the unemployement office. When I told her that I was fired from being a gigolo...for non-performance of my duties...she insisted on proof. After a hot steamy 3 minutes...she said "I believe you. I believe you were fired as a gigolo....for your terrible performance".

Her complete lack of empathy with me is what I found irresistible, And so we worked out a deal. She said "I'll let you buy me a home, and I can furnish it any way I want. I drive the newer car, we see the movies I like, we spend the weekend the way I want...and it will never include sex. Ever."

I could see she was a shrewd negotiator...so I countered with "Sure. But can I have a cat?"  And she said "Stop crying, and you can have one cat"

The fool! I now have two cats! I win.

 

(Yes, I read this to her before I posted it, to make sure it made her laugh)

I know this is complete bullshit. Cheryl doesn't really like super-hero movies and those are the only one you see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Claude Whitacre said:

"I'll let you buy me a home, and I can furnish it any way I want. I drive the newer car, we see the movies I like, we spend the weekend the way I want...and it will never include sex. Ever."

So your son was adopted then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dan Riffle said:

Not the way Claude did. (Unless you, too, hung out on open sewer pipes and behind the dumpster at Chuck E. Cheese.)

If you remember, that's where I met you. The only difference was, you were naked. And you looked at me with those "Dear God, please don't call the police" eyes of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dan Riffle said:

Not the way Claude did. (Unless you, too, hung out on open sewer pipes and behind the dumpster at Chuck E. Cheese.)

Well Dan, you have done it again. It was always Chuck E Cheese was it not? I remember it as that. But no, Nelson got his hands on this one too and made it always having been historically: Chuck E Cheese's You see..Nelson mostly takes the S away, but he felt like adding one in this case. Not just "Shall we go to Chuck E Cheese's for a meal" He made it the name, so on all storefront's going back to it's inception, it was called "Chuck E Cheese's" Check it: http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Chuck_E._Cheese's

Dan Riffle: The man who remember's history the way it was but always denies it when it's pointed out to him that it's changed, simply because he think it's impossible and does not trust his good memory.

Found this on a forum discussion from 2011. Talking about Chuck E Cheese tokens and not a mention of Cheese's. Quite a bit of evidence for this one.

attachment.php?attachmentid=602759&stc=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lanfear63 said:

Well Dan, you have done it again. It was always Chuck E Cheese was it not? I remember it as that. But no, Nelson got his hands on this one too and made it always having been historically: Chuck E Cheese's You see..Nelson mostly takes the S away, but he felt like adding one in this case. Not just "Shall we go to Chuck E Cheese's for a meal" He made it the name, so on all storefront's going back to it's inception, it was called "Chuck E Cheese's" Check it: http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Chuck_E._Cheese's

Dan Riffle: The man who remember's history the way it was but always denies it when it's pointed out to him that it's changed, simply because he think it's impossible and does not trust his good memory.

Or I simply forgot to make the name possessive?

Or I felt the possessive form threw off the cadence of the joke?

Or I just never paid that much attention to Chuck E. Cheese?

Or nobody pronounces it correctly because English doesn't typically add an s sound to possesive words that already end in an s sound?

Or the Multiverse has Super Galactic Gonorrhea and is melting parallel universes into each other. That has to be it. 

If only we had a Multiverse-sized dose of antibiotics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dan Riffle said:

Or I simply forgot to make the name possessive?

Or I felt the possessive form threw off the cadence of the joke?

Or I just never paid that much attention to Chuck E. Cheese?

Or nobody pronounces it correctly because English doesn't typically add an s sound to possesive words that already end in an s sound?

Or the Multiverse has Super Galactic Gonorrhea and is melting parallel universes into each other. That has to be it. 

If only we had a Multiverse-sized dose of antibiotics. 

Unfortunately for you this is one of the most hard fought Mandela Effects in existence. I have seen quite a few pictures of storefronts without the possessive 's of which you can argue for all you like as being just that, no, it was part of the name, "always", according to history. It was always the "Brand Name"

So head office creates tokens in their hundreds of thousands for distribution in 2011 and does not call it by the brand name that's supposed to be on all their merchandise and store fronts and always was according to official history.

Another Or you missed..

Or i'm in denial of a perfectly good memory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lanfear63 said:

Unfortunately for you this is one of the most hard fought Mandela Effects in existence. I have seen quite a few pictures of storefronts without the possessive 's of which you can argue for all you like as being just that, no, it was part of the name, "always", according to history. It was always the "Brand Name"

So head office creates tokens in their hundreds of thousands for distribution in 2011 and does not call it by the brand name that's supposed to be on all their merchandise and store fronts and always was according to official history.

Another Or you missed..

Or i'm in denial of a perfectly good memory

Or the tokens were labeled with the name of the mascot as opposed to the name of the restaurant? Is it possible including the "'s" would have required shrinking the font on the token to a size the designers didn't like? Hell, the website is chuckecheese.com. Is that an ME, too?

And I never said the possessive form wasn't the name. I alluded to people not using the correct name because it's awkward, much like most of these name issues you come up with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.