MM's D strategy unacceptable

[RecordProducer]

Even though what he is doing is nasty, it might be a valid reason to stay. Divorces should be 80% business and 20% emotional according to one of my teachers. She says that people get all wrapped up in emotions and don't take care of their financial affairs and then wonder why they got taken to the cleaners.

Your teacher is a lawyer, she votes for the practical part. People should NOT stay married or get married only for financial reasons. And if they do then they have no business asking for love when they show more love for the money than for their partners (in this case two partners).

 

He chose to stay. So much for his divorce.

[frannie]

Your teacher is a lawyer, she votes for the practical part. People should NOT stay married or get married only for financial reasons. And if they do then they have no business asking for love when they show more love for the money than for their partners (in this case two partners).

 

Oh... exactly what I was going to say.

 

Please save me from someone looking at a marriage with me as primarily a financial consideration

[pureinheart]

Your teacher is a lawyer, she votes for the practical part. People should NOT stay married or get married only for financial reasons. And if they do then they have no business asking for love when they show more love for the money than for their partners (in this case two partners).

 

He chose to stay. So much for his divorce.

 

Amen to that! That is the main reason ex-MM "said" he is staying with W....has to split up retirement, houses, ect...for the mostpart I believe that is the truth, he loves money more than anything....how pathetic.

[lasan]

As someone who was had to rebuild after a divorce, I recognize the importance of planning a divorce well. It isn't pretty, It's not nice.

 

WHen I did remarry, what little bit I had was protected. When you don't protect yourself, you end up having to worry about how a judge is going to divide your stuff, even if it is stuff that YOU paid for. I live in an equitable distribution state, but sometimes it's not all that equitable at all.

 

People stay in marriages all the time because of the financial ramifications. I personally wouldn't do it, nor do I think it is a good idea.

[lasan]

Oh... exactly what I was going to say.

 

Please save me from someone looking at a marriage with me as primarily a financial consideration

 

When I remarried, I didn't look at it totally as a financial consideration, but I definately thought more about it then I did the first time around. I took steps to protect myself and what assets I was bringing to the table. Not to do it is just asking for trouble. It would be nice to assume that the love of your life is going to be around forever, but reality says that is a chance they won't be. (I should know, I have been divorced, then widowed later)

[wtd]

Anything can happen in 3 years. What if she gets get sick, cancer or something, or if he gets cancer? What then?

 

True! Although, I'm afraid I'll get cancer first, in view of the tortoreous uncertainties :-( Very honestly speaking, though, part of the reason I want to be with him full time asap is to take care of him better than his current W and keep him healthy. Believe or not it's true! I truly love him and don't want him to lose health simply because his W feeds him with unhealthy food ;-)

 

Listen to RP, she has given you ALOT to think about.

 

Agree! Thank you both! You and others teach me with your hard-learned lessons!

 

A new question has come to mind: What if he does mention D now, but SHE says: "Ok if you want a D, but let's not do it until I'm tenured." This is quite possible. A little fact: professionally speaking, it's owing almost entirely to HIS connections that she is where she is today. A divorce may make her feel somehow looking bad among colleagues (I do have sympathy for her on this). So it's understandable if she wants to keep the break-up of her marriage unknown before she secures a tenure. What could MM do then? Or is that the only way to go?

[RecordProducer]

If there was a book named "How to be moral in 101 lesson," nobody would buy it... except to make a point that someone else is not moral, according to the book.

 

I don't think our idea of an ideal world would be a perfectly moral world where everybody does the right thing always. Even though it would guarantee us that we'll never be screwed up in an unjust way, we might be screwed up in a fair way, and it certainly limits our abilities of navigation. I think if we could change this world, it would be to create circumstances that suit us best, which means it's moral when we benefit from it, but no so moral when we don't. Even the law, which is supposed to serve justice and be blind before prejudices, screws someone up once in a while.

 

So Lasan says she lost the things SHE bought during the marriage, because the law says everything is joint property if bought while married. In the same manner, men think that THEY deserve more because they worked and bought everything and their wives didn't contribute to it financially. On the other hand, those who don't contribute also feel screwed up, because they would have organized their lives in a better way if they didn't rely on their partners. So it really boils down to accepting the viewpoint that WE benefit from. Just like that joke where a mother-in-law says: "I have a wonderful son-in-law; he does all the chores in the house, my daughter doesn't have to do anything. But my daughter-in-law is terrible, she sits on her ass all day, while my son has to do everything in the house."

 

In this case, the guy wants to get divorced and wants to pull out more money for himself in the settlement and that's fine with the original poster. The only thing that she is concerned about (and should be concerned about) is how that affects HER. In other words, all this moral preaching that we're doing here is a waste of time. She wants to know what she can do for herself and her own happiness.

 

So, WTD, let's just concentrate on the 3 year delay suggested by him. I think the fact is that there is nothing that indicates that he WILL divorce in 3 years. Now, because of the money, he wants to stay married longer; later, for the same reason, he may want to stay married, period. So let's start from there.

 

You don't want to wait for the financial reasons, right? You want him NOW. So do whatever it takes to fulfill your goal, not bend over to fulfill his goas at your own expense. Talk to a lawyer so you can disarm him with your own arguments (even if the lawyer confirms what he said, at least you will know the truth) and let him know that you're not willing to wait, he doesn't sound serious, you're quitting the relationship, and don't want to see him anymore.

 

If he loves you more than the money, he won't be able to live without you. In that way, you will make HIM squirm in his own net and think about how to get you back. He will try to make promises, set deadlines, encourage you to believe that he WILL leave, and that money is really important. Don't fall for this. Don't argue, don't panick, don't give in. Show strong determination that you're not going to wait one more moment, no matter what. Don't explain much. If he stalks you and forces you to listen, hear what he has to say with great attention, then say "I am sorry, my answer is still NO."

 

He will have to make sure that you're not joking about this first. Don't worry about what he will think of your love. He is just a man and he won't think 'if she couldn't wait for me then she doesn't really love me.' But he may say this to you. No matter what he says and what you say to him, remain firm about your decision.

 

Right now he has you and doesn't need to change anything. That's why he is concentrating on getting more - the money. But when he loses you to the money, he will start thinking about how to get you back and he will be willing to give up everything just to be with you. If he truly loves you. Also, men have this instinct to chase the things they don't have or have lost, but when they have you, they take you for granted. He took your presence in his life for granted.

 

He offered to wait for 3 more years, because he was certain that you're so blindly in love with him and so unselfish and obedient, that he could lead you on for years. Indeed, if he knew that you were not going to wait, he would have never suggested it. So if you accept his terms, you're letting him get away with it. It's in people's nature to push the limits and try to get away with the most ridiculous things. It's your job to NOT let him get away with it.

 

You don't like his plan so don't give in. But what can you do? You can't just say "I disagree, let's think of another option, let's do it now, not in 3 years." He will say "Oh, well... I can't do it now." So the only way for you to stand behind your statement that you disagree with his plan is to turn his back on him. He didn't choose that option together with you in a democratic way, even if you nodded approval.

 

If you show self-respect, he will respect you more. You gave him a toy and now he wants another one. If you tell him that he has to trade the first one for the other one, he might hesitate and do nothing or make the wrong choice. But if you take the toy you gave him away from him, he will start running after you to get it back.

 

He wants to retain status quo, because it suits him best. He doesn't want to make any big changes. But you have the power to make a big change in his life by depriving him from your presence. Then status quo will not suit him anymore and he will think of another plan. His first plan will be how to re-gain the best option for him (have you as a mistress). But when he sees that it's an unachievable goal, he will do something. You will have a closure: good or bad. In any case, it will be good for you, because if he doesn't leave now, you will suffer for the next three years, since you will live in uncertainty and not trust him. And after 3 years, he will still want to keep the best option - you as a mistress without losing any assets. So whatever you have to deal with now, you would have to deal with in 3 years.

 

Have faith in his love and in the power of your decisions. If you want him NOW, make it happen. Do what it takes to make it happen. You really don't have to wait. You can enjoy your love now. Life is too short to waste it. And love is more important than money.

A new question has come to mind: What if he does mention D now, but SHE says: "Ok if you want a D, but let's not do it until I'm tenured."

Who cares what she wants?! Are you working for her or for yourself? You're on YOUR side and stick to it.

[lasan]

I was just pointing out that divorces should be planned carefully to avoid financial issues.

 

I think that if this man really wants to be with the OP he will.

[Freedom Now]

If there was a book named "How to be moral in 101 lesson," nobody would buy it... except to make a point that someone else is not moral, according to the book.

 

I don't think our idea of an ideal world would be a perfectly moral world where everybody does the right thing always. Even though it would guarantee us that we'll never be screwed up in an unjust way, we might be screwed up in a fair way, and it certainly limits our abilities of navigation. I think if we could change this world, it would be to create circumstances that suit us best, which means it's moral when we benefit from it, but no so moral when we don't. Even the law, which is supposed to serve justice and be blind before prejudices, screws someone up once in a while.

 

So Lasan says she lost the things SHE bought during the marriage, because the law says everything is joint property if bought while married. In the same manner, men think that THEY deserve more because they worked and bought everything and their wives didn't contribute to it financially. On the other hand, those who don't contribute also feel screwed up, because they would have organized their lives in a better way if they didn't rely on their partners. So it really boils down to accepting the viewpoint that WE benefit from. Just like that joke where a mother-in-law says: "I have a wonderful son-in-law; he does all the chores in the house, my daughter doesn't have to do anything. But my daughter-in-law is terrible, she sits on her ass all day, while my son has to do everything in the house."

 

In this case, the guy wants to get divorced and wants to pull out more money for himself in the settlement and that's fine with the original poster. The only thing that she is concerned about (and should be concerned about) is how that affects HER. In other words, all this moral preaching that we're doing here is a waste of time. She wants to know what she can do for herself and her own happiness.

 

So, WTD, let's just concentrate on the 3 year delay suggested by him. I think the fact is that there is nothing that indicates that he WILL divorce in 3 years. Now, because of the money, he wants to stay married longer; later, for the same reason, he may want to stay married, period. So let's start from there.

 

You don't want to wait for the financial reasons, right? You want him NOW. So do whatever it takes to fulfill your goal, not bend over to fulfill his goas at your own expense. Talk to a lawyer so you can disarm him with your own arguments (even if the lawyer confirms what he said, at least you will know the truth) and let him know that you're not willing to wait, he doesn't sound serious, you're quitting the relationship, and don't want to see him anymore.

 

If he loves you more than the money, he won't be able to live without you. In that way, you will make HIM squirm in his own net and think about how to get you back. He will try to make promises, set deadlines, encourage you to believe that he WILL leave, and that money is really important. Don't fall for this. Don't argue, don't panick, don't give in. Show strong determination that you're not going to wait one more moment, no matter what. Don't explain much. If he stalks you and forces you to listen, hear what he has to say with great attention, then say "I am sorry, my answer is still NO."

 

He will have to make sure that you're not joking about this first. Don't worry about what he will think of your love. He is just a man and he won't think 'if she couldn't wait for me then she doesn't really love me.' But he may say this to you. No matter what he says and what you say to him, remain firm about your decision.

 

Right now he has you and doesn't need to change anything. That's why he is concentrating on getting more - the money. But when he loses you to the money, he will start thinking about how to get you back and he will be willing to give up everything just to be with you. If he truly loves you. Also, men have this instinct to chase the things they don't have or have lost, but when they have you, they take you for granted. He took your presence in his life for granted.

 

He offered to wait for 3 more years, because he was certain that you're so blindly in love with him and so unselfish and obedient, that he could lead you on for years. Indeed, if he knew that you were not going to wait, he would have never suggested it. So if you accept his terms, you're letting him get away with it. It's in people's nature to push the limits and try to get away with the most ridiculous things. It's your job to NOT let him get away with it.

 

You don't like his plan so don't give in. But what can you do? You can't just say "I disagree, let's think of another option, let's do it now, not in 3 years." He will say "Oh, well... I can't do it now." So the only way for you to stand behind your statement that you disagree with his plan is to turn his back on him. He didn't choose that option together with you in a democratic way, even if you nodded approval.

 

If you show self-respect, he will respect you more. You gave him a toy and now he wants another one. If you tell him that he has to trade the first one for the other one, he might hesitate and do nothing or make the wrong choice. But if you take the toy you gave him away from him, he will start running after you to get it back.

 

He wants to retain status quo, because it suits him best. He doesn't want to make any big changes. But you have the power to make a big change in his life by depriving him from your presence. Then status quo will not suit him anymore and he will think of another plan. His first plan will be how to re-gain the best option for him (have you as a mistress). But when he sees that it's an unachievable goal, he will do something. You will have a closure: good or bad. In any case, it will be good for you, because if he doesn't leave now, you will suffer for the next three years, since you will live in uncertainty and not trust him. And after 3 years, he will still want to keep the best option - you as a mistress without losing any assets. So whatever you have to deal with now, you would have to deal with in 3 years.

 

Have faith in his love and in the power of your decisions. If you want him NOW, make it happen. Do what it takes to make it happen. You really don't have to wait. You can enjoy your love now. Life is too short to waste it. And love is more important than money.

Who cares what she wants?! Are you working for her or for yourself? You're on YOUR side and stick to it.

 

Excellent post, RP.

 

I agree 100%.

[RecordProducer]

I was just pointing out that divorces should be planned carefully to avoid financial issues.

 

I think that if this man really wants to be with the OP he will.

I know, hon. I just gave your example as to how we always feel like we lost something after a divorce, even when everything is legal and "fair." I agree that they should be well planned, but his demand is very selfish. And yes, if he wants her, he will leave now, but she has to make him want her. You can't want what you already have. You can just be content with having it. How much time do you spend thinking about how much you want to have a bathroom? None, because you have one. So you concentrate on buying a nice car or whatever you don't have, but want to have.

 

Excellent post, RP.

I agree 100%.

Thanks.

[RecordProducer]

That's exactly my wondering: Does it really make any difference whether W has tenure or not? Suppose that in one year it's already clear that she will surely get tenure, wouldn't that be enough? By the way, for clarification, she does have a very good job now, making about 70k. It's a relatively new job, and the tenure would secure her job permanently.

Oh! Somehow I missed this, although I did read it before. So she already has a $70k job and the tenure would only make the job permanent? I really don't see how this would change the settlement, but I am not a lawyer. You have to talk to an attorney. If he is just BS-ing you, you will know what you have to do.

 

For how long have they been married?

[wtd]

RP, I'm most grateful for your well-reasoned posts! Especially--

You can't want what you already have.

I think that forgetting this simple truth is the cause of most part of OW's misery (I don't know if true of OM also).

 

For your question, they've been married for some fifteen years, not a short time. I also think, that if he truly knows he will D, then the delaying would make it a more cruel action - it will sound (and it is) worse to D a 65 y.o. woman than to D a 60 y.o. Also, the longer they are together, the more she'll get used to and is dependent on his company and help. I have the feeling that he is now being super nice and helpful to her.

 

Perhpas it's because he knows in his heart he'll let her down later on (or could it be because he wants to 'win' an uncontested D? I'm not sure), but somehow it seems to me a mistake, 'cause it fools her in a cruel way - when the truth finally comes out, she'll feel like falling from heaven to hell. If I were a MM in his situation, I might try to be a little more distant and gradually reduce her dependency.

[RecordProducer]

RP, I'm most grateful for your well-reasoned posts! [/quote[ You're most welcome.

 

 

Perhpas it's because he knows in his heart he'll let her down later on

Or because he has already let her down, even though she doesn't know that.

 

If I were a MM in his situation, I might try to be a little more distant and gradually reduce her dependency.

Me, too. My first plan would be to create conditions for labeling the marriage as unhappy and to make my husband NOT want me so I can leave without feeling so guilty. Only if I would want to stay married to him, but keep my lover on aside, I would be super-sweet to both of them.

[wtd]

My first plan would be to create conditions for labeling the marriage as unhappy and to make my husband NOT want me so I can leave without feeling so guilty.

 

This brings me another thought. It seems, where the unsatisfied party of an unhappy marriage is a too kind person (let's say no cheating, yet), the unhappy one often is digging traps for himself by suppressing and concealing his emotional and physical needs, perpetually showing nothing but a happy-go-lucky face to his spouse, making her not even aware that he has been very unsatisfied in the marriage.

 

To her life seems perfect, the marriage works fine. It's only a matter of time - after he meets someone he loves - that the W will be in total shock and the H finds himself facing obstacles created by the years of unintentional deceit. I think it's a very bad situation when an innocent spouse (is she innocent?) is totally unaware of the emotional or physical needs of the other because of "not being told". (Or is she SUPPOSED to be aware, as a spouse? Who's more responsible in such situations?) They may pass as a couple neither of whom needs anything outside the marriage, but their inner emotional worlds are so different!

 

I really think that if you are unhappy in your marriage, you should let your spouse know, even if you have not intention to divorce. You may feel a great relief by just yelling to your spouse that you are being unhappy, rather than maintaining a falsely peaceful home life and only builds up unfulfilled desires and emotional needs which will eventually manifest in one form or another.

[RecordProducer]

Right! I never thought about it. That's if they DON'T want to leave. If they show that something is wrong, they will have to fix it. But since they fixed it in their own way - found someone on aside - they want to cover it by pretending that everything is just fine. Plus they really ARE happy, they love and are loved by someone else.

 

That's why wives always say how the marriage was great until they discovered the affair and their husbands were great all the time. They lie to their mistresses that the marriage is sham, the wives are not interested in sex, they ignore each other or fight all the time, they are lazy, nasty bitches that spend their money, they are ugly and fat, and they only stay married because of the kids.

 

On the other side of the fence, the marriage is just fine in every aspect. They fool the mistresses that they're counting the days to their divorce and with their wives they take vacations, buy houses, and share everything.

 

This is not the case with you though. You know that he is being nice to his wife and I think he doesn't have sex with her or at least not often. But he still may be pulling your leg.

 

Some men leave, some are total players. What's your guy, I can't tell you. But you have the chance to check for yourself when you tell him that you don't intend to wait for him.

[whichwayisup]

I truly love him and don't want him to lose health simply because his W feeds him with unhealthy food ;-)

 

He has control over himself and can tell his wife he wants to eat healthier. You cannot blame HER for his health. Sorry, that's just pure bullcrap.

 

Also, whatever conversations they have about divorcing and when it should/shouldn't happen is out of your control, so try not to think up senarios of how it 'could' play out. Their marriage whether they end it or not is between them.

[RecordProducer]

He has control over himself and can tell his wife he wants to eat healthier. You cannot blame HER for his health. Sorry, that's just pure bullcrap.

Well she thinks she can take better care of him. Most men will eat whatever the wife serves them for dinner and not question the ingredients. If there's anything standing behind this "bullkrap" it's love.

 

Also, whatever conversations they have about divorcing and when it should/shouldn't happen is out of your control, so try not to think up senarios of how it 'could' play out.

I diagree. She might influence his decision and it's in her interest to know if it will happen now or ever. What you're basically telling her is to leave him alone and not interfere i his marriage as if it wasn't him who decided to cheat on his wife and make his mistress wait for him for 3 years. If nothing else, this woman is not cheating on anyone. Just my view.

 

Their marriage whether they end it or not is between them.

But she happens to stand between them and it happens to be very much her business!

[wtd]

If there's anything standing behind this "bullkrap" it's love.

 

:):)Thank you RP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :) You are a very understanding person! I wasn't blaming the W for his eating unhealthy food. I was just worried that his health may be affected if he continues the poor life style (already for years).

 

In my case MM is really a very nice man, his W is also not a bad person. Unfortunately they don't "click". For friendship, this is fine, but for marriage, it lacks the most important bond. They seem to be two completely separate individuals just living under the same roof, absolutely no such thing as "my better half". I don't know what it was like in the early years of their M.

[SoleMate]

I'm afraid it's the same old BS. RP and others have made many excellent points about how his financial "reasoning" is most likely a fraud being perpetrated on you. Alimony (if any) will be based on salary, not on tenure. And...money is just money, if you are his "true love" he will surely follow his heart. Or, let's just say he'll follow what's most important, which in this case appears to be a secure marriage and a devoted mistress, plus lots of TIME to keep his options open and his game on the go.

 

I don't understand why any man (or woman) would marry a partner so much older, but in his case...it clearly made sense at one point. And in fact, in his eyes, it probably still does. That's why it's ongoing.

[Guest]

whether there's also a big age gap between the MM and wtd - perhaps even as large as the one between MM and his wife?

 

somehow, i get the sense there probably is. wtd sounds rather young to me. JMO.

[puddleofmud]

I have read this thread w/ interest and am wondering about said age gap as well--as in did this man just wake up and learn that his spouse was 60 or so? Was this some unknown horrific realization?

Sort of like he just woke up and reliased he was being fed food that was bad for his arteries?

And is this some new realization that due to fifteen years of marriage (not AGE, not CAREER) that he actually must be responsible?

Age has little to do with this marriage-I am duly concerned that age has been mentioned as a factor; needlessly.

Fifteen years is a collective fifteen years w/ any and all marital details and assets. Another three is chump change.

Though I am no where near the age of 60--reading this certainly made me feel that way!

[wtd]

I realize I shouldn't have said "think about the age difference" in one post, which apparently has led some of you to the misconception that age gap was the culprit for the failure of the M. Not at all. I tend to think after so many years day to day living together MM most likely hardly thinks about their age gap, and would in no way "just wake up". It's US the outsiders who are struck by the unusual age gap. As I can see, the main culprit is the personality incompatibility. I did indicate elsewhere that they are just two completely separate individuals under one roof. It's not just me, I know indirectly other people have similar view.

 

Sort of like he just woke up and reliased he was being fed food that was bad for his arteries?

 

Wait, I've never said HE had any complaint about the food. He's still enjoying it a looooot!

 

And is this some new realization that due to fifteen years of marriage (not AGE, not CAREER) that he actually must be responsible?

 

That's what I thought and stated in one post, that by keeping his unhappiness from W for many years he was making a big mistake and making it all the worse for the "innocent" W who was never aware of his unhappiness.

 

Age has little to do with this marriage

 

Indeed.

 

I am duly concerned that age has been mentioned as a factor; needlessly.

 

I take it back. Let's forget about the age and never mention it again.

 

Though I am no where near the age of 60--reading this certainly made me feel that way!

 

How??!! Sorry for making you feel so... but appreciate all the comments...

[pureinheart]

True! Although, I'm afraid I'll get cancer first, in view of the tortoreous uncertainties :-( Very honestly speaking, though, part of the reason I want to be with him full time asap is to take care of him better than his current W and keep him healthy. Believe or not it's true! I truly love him and don't want him to lose health simply because his W feeds him with unhealthy food ;-

 

I know what you mean....exMM was sick a lot and it pissed me off that his W did not take care of him....I used to bring really healthy food to work for MM and one of my really good friends whose W had just left him after 42yrs of M....and I would make them eat....

[pureinheart]

This is a reality check for me.....

 

Concerning the age thing...one of my ex-h was 20yrs younger than me....he looked a lot older and was 6ft and just plain big....I have always looked a lot younger (of course after MM that has changed...lol) so everyone said we met somewhere in the middle.

 

Still no matter looks people could still tell with manorisms and used to call me his mother....oh how I hated that....but it goes with the territory.

 

Now in the situation with the man being older it's not that big of a deal because women can deal with it and aren't so into "looks" as men are.

 

I am glad we split up (it was for other reasons, not age...and I asked him to leave) because that would have done a mind job on me, I mean how long will I be able to keep up the looks....who knows maybe till I'm 80...but you just never know.

 

I just think it is better for women to stick with the same age or older...just my opinion

[Guest]

I take it back. Let's forget about the age and never mention it again.

 

 

wait, wtd, you didn't answer my question - i was the guest who posted before. i know you want to drop the age thing, but clearly it plays some role in your mind, even if not in theirs. you said it's the "outsiders" who noticed it, including you. so i'm just curious about whether there's also an age gap between you and MM?

 

this isn't an ambush question...there are lots of people who think, like pureinheart, that the man should be older, and maybe how much older isn't that important. i don't know if i personally agree - i tend to think it depends on the individuals (but of course, i'd hold that that's true whether it's the man or woman who's older). you never really know what it's like between two people, and it's hard not to judge them based on your own preconceptions.

 

anyway, i'm still curious...