Chap wrote:Rosebud wrote:Karren believes he was a victim of the divorce. He repeats that again and again. Well, he wasn't. Marriage is a choice. He can't be a victim of a divorce because adults don't have to stay in relationships they don't want to stay in. (I guess the victim of divorce argument works in Mormon circles sometimes. Karren is definitely showing his Mormon biases.)
You are of course quite right in that no-one is obliged, morally or legally, to remain married to someone else against their will.
One the other hand, the circumstances of the divorce and the demands made by the spouse initiating the divorce may under some circumstances lead to a reasonable sense of grievance on the part of the divorced partner. Would you not agree that the person being divorced in the following two cases might reasonably feel at least some sense of victimhood?
(a) A wife works for years to support and help her husband build up his business, of which he remains the sole owner. When they are both in their fifties, he announces that the marriage is over, and he wants to marry his new girlfriend, a nubile 22 year old. He has previously done his best to render the assets of his business difficult of access, and goes into court ready to swear that his wife's help in his business life was of the most minimal kind, with the aim of ensuring that she gets the smallest possible financial settlement.
(b) A man with young children, a stay at home wife and a job that demands long hours has managed to buy a house out of his not very large income. His wife is bored by her life, starts an affair with a new boyfriend, and then says she wants a divorce. There is not enough money for him to buy another house. The wife seeks and obtains principal custody of the children and the right to remain in the house, and her boyfriend moves in as the husband moves out. Meanwhile, the husband has to live in a rented room while paying much of his income to maintain his wife and kids, knowing that the boyfriend is in part benefiting from living in the house he worked to buy.
No doubt, of course, there are some divorces where both partners behave fairly and reasonably throughout, and neither gives the other reasonable cause for complaint. But by the nature of divorce, people who are by nature fair and reasonable tend not to be involved in the process so often as those who are, frankly not.
Without arguing the facts of the case discussed in this thread, I suggest that we cannot simply rule out as a matter of principle (which is what you seem to want to do) that one of the partners might have a sense of victimhood that might be to some extent legitimate.
Yes. And often, in bad marriages -- marriages that really need to end in divorce -- both partners usually have legitimate grievances. In most cases, I would assume. One partner's actions affect the other partner's actions and vice versa. The man who chose a young girlfriend may have an angry, controlling wife at home. Maybe they're both angry and controlling. Maybe the relationship was toxic and they had both been living alone but together for years. The wife may claim victimhood. The husband may claim victimhood. The new girlfriend may be a predator trying to take the hard earned money --- earned by both parties.
And so the partners must work together as best they can for the benefit of the children and to split the mutual assets fairly. Over time, ideally, anger dissipates and people move on. Each partner accepts what she or he did wrong.
Unless something out of the ordinary like mental health issues or abuse is going on. Often the two go together. Then you see divorces like Karren v. Karren.