Chris...
Certaintude... is mired in mathematical inexactness...
...but is a rainbow colored faithfulness.

We will never do the 'right' thing 100% of the time.

But when we are afforded the opportunity to hear from others on this (and other good forums)...
...over and over again...
...the wisdom of experience...

...it's disheartening to see someone/anyone choose the 'wrong'... or worse yet... to claim there is no 'wrong'.

--------

There will be many relativist who will claim the the 99.99% is one shade of gray...
and the 0.01% is just another shade of gray.

...what we need is distinctive colors...
...bright reds, blues, yellows and greens...
...and even the absolutes of black and white.

To say that truth is a sort of gray...
...is to voluntarily loose sight of the beauty of truth...
...and step so far away... as to see all as colorless gray.

---------

Feeling a red/white/blue philosophical experience on a quiet 4th of July

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Jim/NSR

Recently a man called Dr. Laura’s to ask her advise because his brother was getting a divorce. The brother’s was had left the marriage to live with the OM. The divorce was taking a while. (Some do, mine took almost 2 years.) The caller was upset because his brother was technically married but had recently started to date a woman.

Dr. Laura told him that if the marriage was really over in all ways and the brother was only waiting for the mechanism of the courts to finalize his divorce, then she saw nothing wrong with his brother dating. That the marriage was over. I would think that the people of biblical times had no way of knowing that not, these many centuries later divorces would become such convoluted legal actions that no matter how badly a spouse had wronged the other, the innocent spouse could get caught in a legal gray area for months and even years. I was very surprised to hear Dr. Laura say this.

I do very much agree with Dr. Laura, and many other people, who say that a parent should not introduce someone they are dating to their children for a very long tile. I also believe that a person should not rush into dating right after a divorce because in most cases they are an emotional basket case.

I don't understand how people can object to waiting "months or even years" for a divorce to be final. Why shouldn't something with such far reaching impacts take a very long time? Two years is nothing. Why would it be considered a hardship to wait a couple of years to date? Maybe if divorce took a decade or two, the BS might have reason to complain about having to wait, but a couple of years? No one "needs" to date. One's children do need to have their welfare be paramount, however.

My WW now my ExW tries to drag it ... do not want to settle. In CA ... regardless your Dv preceeding, you could pettition to the Judge for change of status after 6 months regardless who filed. I still have part of financial settlement to be worked out but my status is Dv, the judged grant my petition and my ExW didn't contest it.

Pain is given but misery is optional .... -rh-

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't understand how people can object to waiting "months or even years" for a divorce to be final. Why shouldn't something with such far-reaching impacts take a very long time? Two years is nothing.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I do not think that ‘instant’ divorces are a good thing. Some states have a 1-year waiting period as they are hoping the couple will reconcile in that time… some do. But beyond that there is a legal limbo that causes a particular set of problems that can make life rather hard to live. A person going through a divorce can have a hard time renting an apartment, buying a house and on and on. It also runs up bills for attorneys in having to deal with being separated, with child custody issues, and on and on.

Two years may be nothing to you… But after being married 14 years to a man who was emotionally and physically abusive, SF’less (the last 7 years, his choice), and who was a habitual adulterer two years was a big thing to me. In this situation no one was served in the divorce taking months… well except for the attorneys who made 10 of thousands of dollars off my ex and I. And my ex who used the courts and his attorneys to try to perpetuate his control and abuse.

Sometimes we ought to trust the person who has been through a bad situation to make their own choice of calling it quits, getting a divorce as quickly as possible and getting on with their lives.

No one is served by making an injured party (BS/Abused spouse/etc.) have to wait in limbo for months and years.

I do not think it is wise or morally right to date when a person is still married. I’m not advocating that. But…

Does someone “need” to date? No. In the same light nor does anyone ever need to be married, have children, or even have friends for that matter. Humans can live with out these things. But it is not much of a life by most people’s standards. Dating fill EN’s that our children can never fill. A person can date after a divorce and still put their children’s needs paramount. It does not have to be one or the other.

Wanting to date, to find someone is a normal human desire and need. Wanting to get on with one’s life when the marriage is over, really over, is also a very normal human desire.. I’d even say a need. There is nothing shameful about it.

QUOTE]I don't understand how people can object to waiting "months or even years" for a divorce to be final. [/QUOTE]
Actually, I think this personifies the original question Chris was asking!

I do think there are people who can't stand to be "alone." They MUST be "attached" to someone. Anyone.

If they suddenly find themselves "alone" - due to A and/or Div. they feel they have to go out and immediately find a replacement mate!

This is the practice I think Chris was mostly alluding to.....that one needs to take some time for oneself, to heal, before one is emotionally healthy enough to have anything (but vitriol) to bring into another relationship.

Good discussion, everyone, although it seems SNL has changed identities and has joined in with his circular, irrational rationalizations again. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

God Bless,

Lupolady,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I don't understand how people can object to waiting "months or even years" for a divorce to be final. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> that one needs to take some time for oneself, to heal, before one is emotionally healthy enough to have anything (but vitriol) to bring into another relationship.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It seems that there are several issues being discussed here:

1) Is it categorically wrong to date after the divorce papers have been filed when a person feels/knows that there is absolutely no chance for recovery of the marriage.

2) How long should a person wait, after their divorce is final to date so that they have time to heal and be in a better place emotionally?

3) Should a person who is divorced ever again date or be married because for some dating and second marriages constitute adultery.

I agree that a person should not date until their divorce is final. They are, after all still married. But I also understand the legal gray area of divorces that go on and on and on. I found it very interesting that Dr. Laura would say that.

The two issues of the amount of time it takes to get a divorce and the amount of time one waits to date are distinct issues. I agree that a person should wait to date until they have had time to heal. The general rule of thumb I’ve heard is that a person should not date for 1 year after the divorce is final. I think this is a healthy prescription. If a person who is not ready emotionally, enters into a relationship too quickly after a divorce that the new relationship is what we call a ‘transitional’ relationship. They seldom work out because the person in transition basically uses the relationship (and therefore the person they are with) as a way to heal. It’s not nice to use people.

The assumption in the quote about waiting "months or even years" for a divorce to be final is that the end of the marriage and the healing started at the time the divorce papers are filed. This is very often not the case. Sometimes the WS has been gone for months and even years.

If a person goes through the MB process of Plan A and then Plan B before filing for divorce, by the time they file they are well on their way to a healthy recovery from their marriage breaking up. A large part of Plan B is to let the BS’s love die slowly and to recover from the marriage. If the WS comes back during Plan B then the BS can choose to work on the marriage. But Plan B is risky for exactly the reason that the BS will eventually fall out of love and move on with their life.

There are also many people who become emotionally healthy even while still in a bad marriage. I did not this. During the last 7 years of my previous marriage I had no marriage. For child custody reasons I stayed in the marriage. There was no way I would give an abusive man primary custody of my child. So I stayed until he agreed to give me custody. I tried to get my H to work on rebuilding our marriage but he would have nothing to do with it. Instead he continued to date outside of the marriage while living with our son and me. During those years I worked on me. I went to IC, did what amounts to a several year Plan A, etc. By the time I filed for divorce I had pretty much healed from it all. Even with this I did not start to date until about a few months after my divorce was final. And did not date ‘seriously’ for quite some time.

After those 4 years on working on myself and doing a lot of healing even while still married, I had an almost 2 year period while waiting for my divorce to be final. 6 years is enough time to put into this and put my life on hold.

The above demonstrates what I meant when I said the following:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sometimes we ought to trust the person who has been through a bad situation to make their own choice of calling it quits, getting a divorce as quickly as possible and getting on with their lives.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Remember that this is a discussion of the topics in general and not any one person’s situation… So I am speaking in general. In general it’s good for a person to wait until a year after their divorce to date. But each situation is unique.. some people do not need to wait the year.

I too have the problem with dating before the divorce is final, there are just too many possibilities for problems. Sure as ‘friends’ we have an obligation to point out to them the pitfalls of dating too soon after their divorce. But in the end it is that individual who has to stand before the pearly gates and be judged. God will now what the situation was and what is in their hearts.

I get the impression that some people are harsher on a BS who just wants to have a life.. is judged more harshly then a WS who got on with their life behind the BS’s back. I see people all the time here telling WSs and OP how all they have to do is to believe to get forgiveness of their actions. Is it so hard to find such kindness for the victims for the WSs and the OP?

It’s very easy to look on and make judgments about another person’s life. In the end we all have to face our own judgment. That is a large part of what ‘free will’ is.

Not dating is in no way putting one's life on hold. There is far more to life than that - raising your children, career, education, civic activities, hobbies, etc. There are many people who never date again after losing their spouse, whether to divorce or death - I would not accuse them of having put their lives on permanent hold. I would agree that having friends or family is quite important in order for most people to feel content. Having a SO may (or may not) add something to one's life, depending on the circumstances, but it is far from a "need." It is far, far better to err on the side of waiting "too long" (if that is even possible), rather than not long enough.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There are many people who never date again after losing their spouse, whether to divorce or death - I would not accuse them of having put their lives on permanent hold.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes it is a choice to date or not to date. My point is that a person has the right to make that choice and not be judged for it either way. I see nothing superior about a person who chooses to not date. There is nothing wrong with a person wanting to date or wanting to find a SO.

How is dating being defined here? Is it going out and simply having a social life that includes people from the opposite sex without sex and with no expectations of exclusivity? In my experience, this is were most dating relationships fall… they never get to the sexual or the exclusive stage. Or is it having an exclusive sexual relationship? In my book it can be either.

You know, dating does not necessarily mean illicit sexual relationships. It means going somewhere with a person of the opposite sex. One of the first dates I went on after my divorce was to an astronomy meeting held in the mountains to star gaze. They had brought along huge telescopes. There we about 100 other people there. My date was a guy I’d known in high school (not dated), we ran into each other at our 35th class reunion a few weeks before. We went, my dog came too, talked about old times, old friends and where we’d been for the last 35 years, had a pick nick dinner, and met a lot of the others who were there, and learned a lot about the. No kisses, no handholding, no spending the night. For a few months after that we’d saw each other a few times, went for long walks, met some of his family, he re-met some of mine. We still run into each other from time to time. Now I just do not see how seeing this guy a few times caused my son or me any problems. If anything it enriched my life a little.

I have spent many years of my adult life single and many years married. I prefer to have a partner. Not because I am incomplete with out one. But because I like it. I come from a very large family and am used to having a lot of people around me. I really like that. And I like having someone to share it with.

At the time I met my husband I was not looking for a life partner. I really was not looking for anything except friends. I thought I’d never marry again. But we met and fell in love. Since I like being connected to someone special I married. That was my choice. Others may have made a different choice. That is OK too.

Neither choice is wrong and so neither should be criticized.

<small>[ July 07, 2003, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Zorweb ]</small>

I doubt you'll lose very many arguments arguing that dating after divorce is a viable choice and making it either way is generally not a wrong decision.