Can attraction be forced/willed?

[EasterJoy]

I suppose some of my comments may come across as excessively negative toward this idea and maybe I’m just looking at this through 21st century glasses. I also realized that I may not have considered the grace to endure that people may gain from prayer.

However, I personally would not rather marry at all then have to marry someone I need to “endure”; I understand marriage has ups and downs, storms and sunshine, etc. but if I know walking into it that it will be stormy 80-90% of the time, I don’t see the point. While I don’t call myself a feminist I AM quite happy that I am able to support myself without a husband, and don’t need to force myself to be attracted to someone just to leave the nest.

It would be foolish to forget that we do live in the 21st century. In another century, our spouses might not be offended to find we don’t hold them in favorable comparison to an unreachable cultural ideal that didn’t even exist in former ages. Really–how many people would be mortally offended these days if their spouse didn’t think they were “sexy”? How many people in former ages would have that exact idea even cross their minds?

If you marry someone suited to marriage and pleasantly disposed to being your spouse–not to mention vice versa–it is not likely to be stormy the majority of the time, let alone 80-90% of the time. Am I saying you should marry just to be marrying? No. Thank goodness we do have choices other than marriage or the convent, because not all of us are suited to either one. No, all I am saying is that we ought to be on guard against expecting our ideal spouse to meet ideals that were invented to sell books or tickets to romantic comedies. That level of “chemistry” is not necessary except for those who decide they can’t be happy without it. The truth is, “chemistry” of the kind that grows into a happy old age is more likely to grow between people who are secure that they are chosen for their normal everyman or everywoman selves instead of held to striving for a romantic ideal that only happens in the movies, and then only after several “takes” per scene.

I don’t think you and I are on different pages on this. Choose someone you can like and be a person who will choose to keep liking them even when they drive you crazy on occasion. Look at the unromantic things that will operate in your marriage–the equivalent of checking out the engine rather than just going for the vehicle with the flashiest paint job. Don’t try to do someone a “favor” by “marrying down” when you choose them, though. That is not going to work. You will be cherishing them for life. You’d better be able to cherish them on Day 1.

 

[bitterhope]

What do you think? I think it’s not something that you can force, but perhaps some think otherwise. I also think that while attraction isn’t the only important thing of course, it is important right? I mean, that’s what makes it different from all other relationships.

I don’t think attraction can be forced, but it does grow over time. I personally don’t believe attraction is all that important. Many things are much more important in marriage.

My prayer is that all spouses can grow into a love that goes beyond externals. That’s when true joy and happiness fill your home

 

[ToeInTheWater]

No, all I am saying is that we ought to be on guard against expecting our ideal spouse to meet ideals that were invented to sell books or tickets to romantic comedies. That level of “chemistry” is not necessary except for those who decide they can’t be happy without it. The truth is, “chemistry” of the kind that grows into a happy old age is more likely to grow between people who are secure that they are chosen for their normal everyman or everywoman selves instead of held to striving for a romantic ideal that only happens in the movies, and then only after several “takes” per scene.

I agree with this, I think what I find concerning is this nostalgic idea that there ever was some kind of Golden Age of marital bliss. While this may be more an evangelical Christian issue than a Catholic one, as most of the courtship material out there is not Catholic, it seems that the whole movement is essentially a reaction to the excesses of the modern dating culture, but winds up excessively idealizing and romanticizing their vision of the past, almost as much as a Hollywood movie idealizes a modern notion of romance.

A lot of courtship propaganda almost guarantees to bring about better marriage outcomes than dating, and I don’t think the movement has actually delivered this.

Also, while I agree physical attraction by itself does not guarantee a happy marriage, I’m really not convinced that physical attraction is completely irrelevant to it, or that people from past generations were somehow above such a petty concern.

For example, unless I’m missing something, it seems Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah mainly because he found Rachel to be more attractive. He certainly was able to “will” some level of attraction to Leah, enough to father several children on her. Not to mention the handmaids. He may even have “grown to love” her more than he did when they married, which was not at all. But that doesn’t mean he ever grew to love Leah anywhere near as much as he loved Rachel. And I don’t think Jacob is presented as being wrong in that.

Now of course, Jacob was a man and had more freedom to pick a mate compared to women, even back then. As you mentioned, men have always had more sexual freedom than women and had fewer consequences, both physical and social. But that doesn’t mean that was right. (Neither is the feminist reaction that “women can use men for sex and it’s just as fine as men using women for sex”. No, it’s not fine for ANYONE to use another person for sex.)

I don’t think you and I are on different pages on this. Choose someone you can like and be a person who will choose to keep liking them even when they drive you crazy on occasion. Look at the unromantic things that will operate in your marriage–the equivalent of checking out the engine rather than just going for the vehicle with the flashiest paint job. Don’t try to do someone a “favor” by “marrying down” when you choose them, though. That is not going to work. You will be cherishing them for life. You’d better be able to cherish them on Day 1.

I have certainly noticed that condescending “I’m doing them a favor” vibe in some of the “I’m not really attracted to this person but he/she is a good decent Catholic, should we marry” topics I’ve seen on CAF throughout the years. Also, it seems usually, people in that predicament, do NOT actually disclose that lack of attraction to the prospective spouse. While we may disagree about the value of attraction, if “having a mate who is attracted to me without having to force it” is important to someone, then it’s unfair to deprive them of the chance to choose NOT to marry into that situation.

 

[Jared2914]

I think it’s fine to initially pursue a relationship without physical attraction if there are other things you are attracted to. For example, you might find a person is a strong believer in the faith, kind, and many other good qualities but isn’t very attractive to the eyes. It’s okay to just try things out. Sometimes physical attraction will come later. For marriage, I do believe there must be some amount of physical attraction. It shouldn’t be the only thing, but there should definitely be something about their looks that is pleasing to the eye (subjectively, “eye of the beholder”). Being a Catholic many times involves patience. If you never give someone a chance, you might miss out on a potentially great marriage partner. At the same time, you need to know when a relationship will not go anywhere and be able to move on.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think it’s fine to initially pursue a relationship without physical attraction if there are other things you are attracted to. For example, you might find a person is a strong believer in the faith, kind, and many other good qualities but isn’t very attractive to the eyes. It’s okay to just try things out. Sometimes physical attraction will come later. For marriage, I do believe there must be some amount of physical attraction. It shouldn’t be the only thing, but there should definitely be something about their looks that is pleasing to the eye. Being a Catholic many times involves patience. If you never give someone a chance, you might miss out on a potentially great marriage partner. At the same time, you need to know when a relationship will not go anywhere and be able to move on.

I agree, and I think the important part of your post is that you mentioned “some amount of physical attraction”, not that you have to find your spouse to be the most attractive person you’ve ever met in your life. I think at the bare minimum it’s important to not find the spouse repulsive.

Somewhat ironically, I personally don’t find looks to be that important, don’t really have a particular hair color, height, or physical “type” that I’m attracted to, and I am somehow NOT attracted to many popular celebrities that are considered to be “hot” per conventional wisdom, such as Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Tom Brady, etc.

However, I do find it important that a man has a voice I find to be pleasing to the ear. Maybe this is my ASD but there are some voices (and other sounds) that actually are so dissonant to me that it causes physical discomfort.

I’ve certainly had many cases of meeting a man, not finding him attractive at first, and finding him more attractive as I got to know him better. Or vice versa, that I find a man attractive at first, but I find out things about him like “he’s lazy” or “he’s immature” and then I find him less attractive.

But, I have never managed to will myself to overcome an actual repulsion, especially to a voice, and I don’t think this somehow makes me a shallow, selfish person. At least, I hope not.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agree with this, I think what I find concerning is this nostalgic idea that there ever was some kind of Golden Age of marital bliss. While this may be more an evangelical Christian issue than a Catholic one, as most of the courtship material out there is not Catholic, it seems that the whole movement is essentially a reaction to the excesses of the modern dating culture, but winds up excessively idealizing and romanticizing their vision of the past, almost as much as a Hollywood movie idealizes a modern notion of romance.

A lot of courtship propaganda almost guarantees to bring about better marriage outcomes than dating, and I don’t think the movement has actually delivered this.

Also, while I agree physical attraction by itself does not guarantee a happy marriage, I’m really not convinced that physical attraction is completely irrelevant to it, or that people from past generations were somehow above such a petty concern.

For example, unless I’m missing something, it seems Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah mainly because he found Rachel to be more attractive. He certainly was able to “will” some level of attraction to Leah, enough to father several children on her. Not to mention the handmaids. He may even have “grown to love” her more than he did when they married, which was not at all. But that doesn’t mean he ever grew to love Leah anywhere near as much as he loved Rachel. And I don’t think Jacob is presented as being wrong in that.

Now of course, Jacob was a man and had more freedom to pick a mate compared to women, even back then. As you mentioned, men have always had more sexual freedom than women and had fewer consequences, both physical and social. But that doesn’t mean that was right. (Neither is the feminist reaction that “women can use men for sex and it’s just as fine as men using women for sex”. No, it’s not fine for ANYONE to use another person for sex.)

I have certainly noticed that condescending “I’m doing them a favor” vibe in some of the “I’m not really attracted to this person but he/she is a good decent Catholic, should we marry” topics I’ve seen on CAF throughout the years. Also, it seems usually, people in that predicament, do NOT actually disclose that lack of attraction to the prospective spouse. While we may disagree about the value of attraction, if “having a mate who is attracted to me without having to force it” is important to someone, then it’s unfair to deprive them of the chance to choose NOT to marry into that situation.

I won’t spend time on the marital or sexual climate of ages past. Suffice it to say that even though fairytales have always been in the oral tradition, people did used to have far lower expectations about what they were owed in life. Life is a vale of tears, but there are some these days who think the right marriage will bring paradise to earth. It never has, and it never will.

I haven’t read a lot of those threads, but it can hardly be stressed how arrogant and inappropriate it would be to marry someone out of a sense of pity.

Marrying someone because of their obvious virtues, because those virtues are both rare and tend to last and even increase over a lifetime, instead of choosing someone who brings out a more visceral reaction that is recognized as likely to be transitory, though, that is another thing. It is possible to over-romanticize even romance itself.

Here is the big note of caution: A person must be honest with themselves about how much he or she really values virtue. You don’t marry someone you think you “ought to” prize. You ought to marry someone you truly prize. It is OK to opt out of the romance you can see has all its strong points in the realm of the transitory in favor of the one that is built on a foundation of virtue that is unlikely to fail. You had better not fool yourself into thinking you have a romance with virtue that you do not actually have, though, simply because you fancy yourself a “better grade” of Catholic who therefore does prize the things you “ought to” prize.

No, we agree on this much: Realizing that people have their ups and downs, it is wise to marry someone *you *truly see as a prize. Not someone that everyone else tells you is a prize. Not someone you think you could do a favor by pretending to prize them. You don’t have to prize physical attraction or some other attraction above everything else, but you had better be honest about what boat you’re willing to cast your lot with. When the surf gets rough, you need to stick with that boat, so choose wisely.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have certainly noticed that condescending “I’m doing them a favor” vibe in some of the “I’m not really attracted to this person but he/she is a good decent Catholic, should we marry” topics I’ve seen on CAF throughout the years. Also, it seems usually, people in that predicament, do NOT actually disclose that lack of attraction to the prospective spouse. While we may disagree about the value of attraction, if “having a mate who is attracted to me without having to force it” is important to someone, then it’s unfair to deprive them of the chance to choose NOT to marry into that situation.

“En amour, il y a toujours celui qui donne les baisers et celui qui tend la joue”
(Roughly: In love, there is one who kisses and one who offers the cheek to be kissed.)

Is it better to marry someone you are smitten with, or to marry someone who is smitten with you?

I’d say it is OK to marry someone who is clearly more or less smitten with you than vice versa. If the difference in affection is too great, though, it is a bad idea. When one gives too much more than the other, it often breeds resentment and contempt. A person can find themselves in an “uneven” marriage and make a go of it, since these levels can and do change over the course of a marriage, yet marriage can fairly be expected to be made a lifetime commitment.

Marriage is hard enough, though. Don’t buy yourself trouble. You ought to feel very good about the person you marry, even if you don’t think you’re a couple who’s likely to have a romantic comedy written about you. The person you marry deserves to be held in your high regard. Make sure that is a pose you can strike for a lifetime without breaking under the pretense of it.

 

[RomanoAmerio]

I’m very fond of this duet, too, from Fiddler on the Roof:

(Tevye) Golde, I have decided to give Perchik permission to become engaged to our daughter, Hodel.

(Golde) What??? He’s poor! He has nothing, absolutely nothing!

(Tevye) He’s a good man, Golde.
I like him. And what’s more important, Hodel likes him. Hodel loves him.
So what can we do?
It’s a new world… A new world…Love…

Golde…Do you love me?

(Golde)
Do I what?!?

(Tevye)
Do you love me?

(Golde)
Do I love you?

With our daughters getting married
And this trouble in the town
You’re upset, you’re worn out
Go inside, go lie down!
Maybe it’s indigestion…

(Tevye)
Golde I’m asking you a question…

Do you love me?

(Golde)
You’re a fool

(Tevye)
I know…

But do you love me?

(Golde)
Do I love you?

For twenty-five years I’ve washed your clothes
Cooked your meals, cleaned your house
Given you children, milked the cow
After twenty-five years, why talk about love right now?

(Tevye) Golde, The first time I met you
Was on our wedding day
I was scared

(Golde)
I was shy

(Tevye)
I was nervous

(Golde)
So was I

(Tevye)
But my father and my mother
Said we’d learn to love each other
And now I’m asking, Golde
Do you love me?

(Golde)
I’m your wife

(Tevye)
I know…
But do you love me?

(Golde)
Do I love him?
For twenty-five years I’ve lived with him
Fought him, starved with him
Twenty-five years my bed is his
If that’s not love, what is?

(Tevye)
Then you love me?

(Golde)
I suppose I do

(Tevye)
And I suppose I love you too

(Both)
It doesn’t change a thing
But even so
After twenty-five years
It’s nice to know

Great minds think alike! My own post was a link to that very song.

 

[chevalier]

*Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as “one flesh”. He did not lay “a happily married couple” or “a couple who married because they were in love”, but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes “one flesh”. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of “being in love” what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear, and desire which they call “being in love” is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because “being in love” does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemy’s designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. **In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to regard as the basis for marriage a highly-coloured and distorted version of something the Enemy really promises as its result. ***Two advantages follow. In the first place, humans who have not the gift of continence can be deterred from seeking marriage as a solution because they do not find themselves “in love”, and, thanks to us, the idea of marrying with any other motive seems to them low and cynical. Yes, they think that. They regard the intention of loyalty to a partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion. (Don’t neglect to make your man think the marriage-service very offensive.) In the second place any sexual infatuation whatever, so long as it intends marriage, will be regarded as “love”, and “love” will be held to excuse a man from all the guilt, and to protect him from all the consequences, if marrying a heathen, a fool, or a wanton.

Letter 18, The Screwtape Letters

Ah Screwtape, ever the proper post-Hellenic Thomist gentleman.

 

[chevalier]

“En amour, il y a toujours celui qui donne les baisers et celui qui tend la joue”
(Roughly: In love, there is one who kisses and one who offers the cheek to be kissed.)

That honestly sounds like a world-weary cantankterous Polish stickler taking advantage of the best-matched language for that sort of thing.

Is it better to marry someone you are smitten with, or to marry someone who is smitten with you?

However, given as world-weary cantankterous Polish sticklers generally tend to be little deterred by such triviliaties as the laws of physics* or indeed logic, I, personally, usually insist on making the or an and.This is the conversation that reportedly took place between Napoleon Bonaparte and one of his aides (adapted for French English realism):

• ‘Mission impossible, mon Empereur! An homme can’t just take on ahtillehy by fhont chahge!’ :crying:
  ‘Kk thx Montbrun. Can I haz Poles now? (And some pasta later.)’ :yawn:

30 minutes later: ()

‘Excusez-moi votre majesté impériale la plus awesome tiphat, puissiez-vous pwner les Russes et les Allemands et les Autrichiens chaque jour pour toujours, le vallée est à vous, s’il plaît à Votre Majesté. Pouvons-nous avoir une petite citerne de vodka et un jour de congé grâce à Votre Majesté par hasard s’il plaît à Votre Awesomeness? Naturallement s’il n’ya rien à whacquer the heck out of grâce à Votre Majesté (…)’
‘…’ (Bonaparte opens Google Translate, then pasta can. )
Given as world-weary cantankterous Polish sticklers generally tend to be epically star-crossed and consequently get short-changed by world history, look what that gets me. :stretcher:

 

[EasterJoy]

Back to the original question:

CAN you force yourself into being romantically attracted to someone you aren’t attracted to in the absence of any effort?

The short answer is: You cannot force yourself to into genuine affection, but sometimes you can coax yourself into it over time. You cannot know until you try. The obvious question that follows from that, then, is this: Why would you want to do that?

If you have “fallen out of love” for your spouse or find yourself married to someone you were never “head over heels for,” of course it is worth it to try to kindle a warmer and more genuine affection for them. Yes, sometimes a genuine affection leads to a “head over heels” appreciation, even in mid-marriage. There are many such stories that come out of Marriage Encounter, for instance. Affection is more about your attitude than about anything else, after all. Certainly the validity of your marriage does not depend on whether you currently or have ever “liked” your spouse. It depends only on whether you both gave valid consent. Considering the demands that marriage makes on you both, though, why wouldn’t you want to cultivate the greatest amount of mutual affection you can have in your valid marriage? But should you give someone a chance in courtship even though he or she doesn’t make your heart skip beats from the start? Sure, that is OK, provided you *never deceive them *about your feelings towards them. Something may grow in as you get to know them better. Let’s face it: for some of us, that grown-in feeling of security is necessary before we ever allow ourselves to let go and hand our hearts over.

This proposition of bringing your emotions along in a chosen direction is difficult enough and chancy enough, though, that it would be very unwise, not to mention deceptive, to marry someone you have lead to believe you have stronger feelings for than you do (for instance, on the theory that your spouse will have attributes you “should” like, feeling certain that the affection part will grow in you). There is no guarantee that feelings of natural human affection that you start with in marriage will endure for the entirety of your married life. There certainly is no guarantee, then, that you will be able to kindle an affection that was never there except by pretense, even mutually-held pretense!

Should you marry someone you pity or whom you do not prize? Do not be an arrogant fool! Marriage is a sacred covenant, not a business contract. You ought to have enough affection to be able to maintain a concern for your spouse’s well-being that you consistently put ahead of your own, an ardent desire to see that person nurtured in this life and in Heaven after it. That means you ought to want your spouse to be truly cherished as a person. If you can’t give him or her that, let the person free to find someone to marry who deserves them more than you do.

What if you have never felt “head over heels” in your life and doubt that you ever will? Absence of “wild attraction” is not an impediment to marriage. No, you do not have to be brutally honest on that front, provided that you do not deceive. It is not necessary to be wildly passionately attracted to someone to still find them well worth cherishing, loving, and sacrificing for as your spouse. It is the chosen acts of cherishing, loving, and sacrificing that are among the duties of marriage, not a production of certain emotions. It is the acts and commitment of love that are the real foundation of a marriage, not “wild” feelings that are famous for subsiding over time. Do not make a marriage commitment with the idea that you will be able to manufacture feelings later, though. That is a very bad idea.

 

[Bookcat]

Read the Jewelers shop.

One character in the work by St. John Paul says:

"Or love can be a collision
in which two selves realize profoundly
they ought to belong to each other, even though they
have no convenient moods and sensations."

ignatius.com/Products/JSH-H/the-jewelers-shop.aspx

Get the book and read it slowly and thoughtfully and prayerfully…and over and over…

I call it a magna carta of marriage…a must read.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Certainly the validity of your marriage does not depend on whether you currently or have ever “liked” your spouse. It depends only on whether you both gave valid consent. Considering the demands that marriage makes on you both, though, why wouldn’t you want to cultivate the greatest amount of mutual affection you can have in your valid marriage? But should you give someone a chance in courtship even though he or she doesn’t make your heart skip beats from the start? Sure, that is OK, provided you *never deceive them *about your feelings towards them. Something may grow in as you get to know them better. Let’s face it: for some of us, that grown-in feeling of security is necessary before we ever allow ourselves to let go and hand our hearts over.

Certainly, many people especially the not so young, would happily accept a marriage that is more about amiable companionship than an attempt to imitate Hollywood romance. I think that, much as sex drives themselves can differ among people, the “romance drive” can also differ and that doesn’t mean people are “right” or “wrong” but there needs to be a reasonable match and honest communication about the expectations.

Should you marry someone you pity or whom you do not prize? Do not be an arrogant fool! Marriage is a sacred covenant, not a business contract. You ought to have enough affection to be able to maintain a concern for your spouse’s well-being that you consistently put ahead of your own, an ardent desire to see that person nurtured in this life and in Heaven after it. That means you ought to want your spouse to be truly cherished as a person. If you can’t give him or her that, let the person free to find someone to marry who deserves them more than you do.

I completely agree with this. Many people who justly reject the idealized Hollywood romance sometimes do run to the opposite extreme of marriage as a coldly practical “business contract” and I do not think this is the right attitude either.

It is not necessary to be wildly passionately attracted to someone to still find them well worth cherishing, loving, and sacrificing for as your spouse. It is the chosen acts of cherishing, loving, and sacrificing that are among the duties of marriage, not a production of certain emotions. It is the acts and commitment of love that are the real foundation of a marriage, not “wild” feelings that are famous for subsiding over time. Do not make a marriage commitment with the idea that you will be able to manufacture feelings later, though. That is a very bad idea.

I agree with this as well. So it does seem we’re not as far apart as I first thought.

 

[chevalier]

Marriage is a sacred covenant, not a business contract.

Fun fact: There’s no termination for breach, but damages can be rather eternal.

 

[chevalier]

I completely agree with this. Many people who justly reject the idealized Hollywood romance sometimes do run to the opposite extreme of marriage as a coldly practical “business contract” and I do not think this is the right attitude either.

Third. Also, strictly speaking, one doesn’t have to be low on this, low on that. It’s possible to be high on both, as in both heart and mind. Many people are impatient, though, and that as well as low self-esteem causes them to settle.

So it does seem we’re not as far apart as I first thought.

That’s not a rare outcome at CAF.

 

[EasterJoy]

Fun fact: There’s no termination for breach, but damages can be rather eternal.

The pretense now is that termination is available unilaterally and at-will.

The euphemism for this is “no-fault” divorce.

Marry carefully, then. A spouse can divorce you or you can divorce them, but an ex is forever.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The pretense now is that termination is available unilaterally and at-will.

The euphemism for this is “no-fault” divorce.

Marry carefully, then. A spouse can divorce you or you can divorce them, but an ex is forever.

It occurs to me that, despite Hollywood notions of romance, in reality one can argue that the culture of “no-fault” divorce actually is closer to the idea of marriage as a business contract than even the culture of arranged or “practical” marriages both present and past. At least there was an understanding that the marriage was meant to last until death and could not be terminated merely because one partner felt their needs weren’t being met.

Note that while arranged marriage has long gone by the wayside in the USA and Europe, such is not the case for all countries, and I know many people who immigrated from Asian and Middle Eastern countries who are in such marriages themselves. However I also know their marriages are not automatically happier than “love marriages”. Some who post here really seem to have a “grass is greener” mentality towards such marriages and I think that’s also unrealistic.

 

[chevalier]

The pretense now is that termination is available unilaterally and at-will.

I’m afraid the Court of the Last Judgment might disagree.

The euphemism for this is “no-fault” divorce.

I read the **** they came up with to justify that. You could almost believe it was a pro-family move the way they wrote it. Possibly the same folks who drafted Roe v Wade.

Marry carefully, then. A spouse can divorce you or you can divorce them, but an ex is forever.

A lot of people, even Catholics, support the ‘right’ to disappear from the spouse’s life without even the courtesy of notice in case of death, let alone willingness to readmit the offending spouse to conjugal life, as is actually the obligation.

Some who post here really seem to have a “grass is greener” mentality towards such marriages and I think that’s also unrealistic.

Which is why one should want both, though the search and wait will take longer.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I read the **** they came up with to justify that. You could almost believe it was a pro-family move the way they wrote it. Possibly the same folks who drafted Roe v Wade.

. It’s not a mystery who “drafted” Roe v.Wade - the majority opinion was penned by Justice Blackmun and signed by 6 other (named) justices.

Likewise, the history of no fault divorce legislation in the US is equally transparent. Laws changed in all 50 states over the course of 4 or so decades, with the laws in each state varying. It started in CA (under Reagan), and ended in NY.

For the most part, it wasn’t pushed for by people wanting to leave their spouses, but by judges sick of having to humor couples as they perjured themselves to get out of marriage. The grumbling about this in the legal community started decades earlier.

I’m all for preserving marriage, I just don’t think the end of legal no fault divorce would make a whit of difference; it would just backlog courts and make divorce and custody even more contentious. (If someone is pushed to label their ex ‘cruel’ or ‘abusive’ in court just to get a divorce, good luck on joint custody). It’s not a moral issue, just a practical one from the perspective of the state.

 

[EasterJoy]

…no fault divorce…wasn’t pushed for by people wanting to leave their spouses, but by judges sick of having to humor couples as they perjured themselves to get out of marriage. The grumbling about this in the legal community started decades earlier.

I’m all for preserving marriage, I just don’t think the end of legal no fault divorce would make a whit of difference; it would just backlog courts and make divorce and custody even more contentious. (If someone is pushed to label their ex ‘cruel’ or ‘abusive’ in court just to get a divorce, good luck on joint custody). It’s not a moral issue, just a practical one from the perspective of the state.

I **do think **it is a problem that there is no business contract easier or more lucrative to get out of than a marriage contract, but I don’t think that going back to the previous system would be a cure for the divorce mindset. By "divorce mindset, I mean the mental reservation at marriage or during conflicts within marriage by which one spouse to himself/herself: “if it doesn’t work out for me, I’ll just leave and do something else.”

I don’t know if there is a “cure” for the no-fault divorce culture, because I don’t think it only has to do with marriage. Anyone who has ever been in charge of herding volunteers knows that there is a more fundamental lack of will to stick with even minor commitments that goes far beyond a legislative fix.

If people only do what they feel like doing, if they really do believe there is a “job you love” out there which will allow you to “never work a day in your life” or if they really feel that with a spouse who attracts them in the right way they’ll never selfishly wonder why they ever got married in the first place, there is no law that can magically give them a more faithful mindset. Those are people primed to fail at marriage.

Yes, you are right. While no-fault divorce might give people the unfortunate idea that there is such a thing as no-damage divorce, it is not the primary reason for the divorce rate. The kinds of things Americans were willing to do in order to get a divorce resulted in no-fault divorce laws more than the other way around.

I hadn’t thought about it that way before, but it is true.