Would you stay with a spouse that you were no longer in love with?

[musey]

Before you ask, no no no this is not about me or anyone I know. Pure curiosity.

My friends were totally split when I asked them, which I thought was really interesting. Many said they would stay only because they would feel bad leaving their spouse alone

though something tells me that they may feel that guilt less so if they were actually in the situation.

What do you think about the guilt thing?

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Neither of those options. Under those circumstances, I''d probably go for a divorce even if we did have kids.

A couple I knew grew apart and went *six months* without having a conversation with each other before deciding to divorce. They have kids around the same ages as mine. I cannot imagine how confusing it would be for the kids to have the parents not talking to each other.

 

[musey]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:22:59 PM
Author: MC
Neither of those options. Under those circumstances, I''d probably go for a divorce even if we did have kids.

So option 2, right?

A couple I knew grew apart and went *six months* without having a conversation with each other before deciding to divorce. They have kids around the same ages as mine. I cannot imagine how confusing it would be for the kids to have the parents not talking to each other.

 

[Dee*Jay]

Boy oh boy... I get the feeling this is going to turn into an interesting thread...

I voted divorce only if there were no kids in the picture. And if you're interested, here is my story: I woke up one day last summer, looked around at my amazing, perfect, wonderful life--including the nicest guy in the world, who I had been married to for almost 10 years at that point--and said "Is this IT? This is as good as it gets for the rest of my life?" And the answer, unfortunately, was yes. A big part of that scenario was the fact that I was married to someone who I loved (and still love) very much, but that I was not In Love With. Nobody did anything wrong. There was no *reason* or trigger for the epiphany (sp?). Just the realization that we only get one shot at this--life is not a dress rehersal!*--and I was moving on. Another big part was that we had no children. I can pretty much guarantee if there were children in the picture I most definitely would not have ended my marriage at this point.

Sorry for the long winded, completely self centered post, but I have this philosophy that if I vote in a pole I should give my rational, and so here you go!

*No disrespect meant for anyone who belivees in reincarnation.

ETA: Forgot to address the part about guilt. Hell yes. I will probably feel guilty about this for the rest of my life (as much as I keep telling myself that guilt is a useless emotion). If the XHH does find someone who I think makes him happier (or at least as happy) as he was with me then my guilt will subside. A bit. But yes, there is plenty of guilt...

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

I voted divorce regardless of kids because even the kids would be better off with both of their parents being happy. If you respect your spouse and loved them even a little, you''d let them move on with their lives and get a divorce. In this instance I think staying is cowardly.

 

[musey]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:26:43 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
Boy oh boy... I get the feeling this is going to turn into an interesting thread...

Uh oh... Let''s keep this as anti-inflammatory as we can, given the question... I don''t mean to start trouble

Dee*Jay, thank you SO MUCH for that thoughtful post. What an interesting perspective you''ve shared. That was exactly the type of thing I was curious to hear about!

 

[musey]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:28:39 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
I voted divorce regardless of kids because even the kids would be better off with both of their parents being happy. If you respect your spouse and loved them even a little, you''d let them move on with their lives and get a divorce. In this instance I think staying is cowardly.

That''s another interesting point, Hudson. Thanks!

Sometimes I wonder if divorce has this ''stigma'' that''s enough to keep people married in some situations. No one wants to be a divorcee, you know?

 

[steph72276]

Well, I def. wouldn''t just up and divorce. I would work on things. Take a trip together, go on dates, do things that remind me why we fell in love in the first place. I would go to therapy. I would put an all out 100% effort into it and then think about leaving if I still remained unhappy. It wouldn''t be fair to either person to live an unhappy life. I would do everything under the sun first though since we have a child together...I think that makes a huge difference.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

Sure. I think a lot of folks love their partners, but are not in love with them. They value stability and intimacy and it takes precedence over passion.

cheers--Sharon

 

[AmberGretchen]

Wow, I honestly don''t know. I''m inclined to say I wouldn''t stay, but I also really strongly believe that so much of it is a choice. Not to say that you can DECIDE to be in love with someone, but you can decide to make a conscious effort in your marriage to appreciate your partner every single day. I''ve only been married for (almost) three years, but I feel like I''ve fallen in love with my DH all over again at least a dozen times during those years. And we''ve really both learned that a big part of it for us is remaining conscious of each other and how much we''re both growing and changing and really engaging in the relationship as much as possible.

 

[lucyandroger]

I chose "divorce only if there are NO kids." I think that once you have kids, it becomes more than just ''does this person make my heart skip a beat''. I believe that once you are parents, you have the responsibility to raise those children as partners, putting their interests first.

My cousins have two children and have "grown apart." They are legally seperated but share the same family home (seperate bedrooms) because they realized how important it is for children to have both parents in the home everyday. Sure it''s difficult but they put their children first and think it''s worth any awkwardness. Afterall, they brought them into this world.

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:42:47 PM
Author: canuk-gal
HI:

Sure. I think a lot of folks love their partners, but are not in love with them. They value stability and intimacy and it takes precedence over passion.

cheers--Sharon

I agree; I am sure when I am really old there may not be passion but there will be a great friendship.

I personally feel you need to do what is right for you though.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:26:43 PM
Author: Dee*Jay
Just the realization that we only get one shot at this--life is not a dress rehersal!*--
*No disrespect meant for anyone who belivees in reincarnation.

hehehe I am a firm believer in reincarnation!!! Still, I think even if we come back 1,000 times over, each one of those experiences should be lived to the fullest! Why settle for less of a life if you have the choice to make it a better one?

Like HH said, it can be cowardly to stay. I guess many of us have too much fear of the unknown and it's easier to *know* that each day will be as it is, even if it's a rather lame routine!

 

[neatfreak]

I think it depends...if there were kids, and I still really cared for my spouse, loved them (but wasn't *in* love with them), had fun together, etc. I would probably stay...I think.

BUT if it was an unhappy relationship then I would leave-it would be better for the kids to have two HAPPY but divorced parents then two married parents who hate each other.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:50:31 PM
Author: lucyandroger
I chose ''divorce only if there are NO kids.'' I think that once you have kids, it becomes more than just ''does this person make my heart skip a beat''. I believe that once you are parents, you have the responsibility to raise those children as partners, putting their interests first.


My cousins have two children and have ''grown apart.'' They are legally seperated but share the same family home (seperate bedrooms) because they realized how important it is for children to have both parents in the home everyday. Sure it''s difficult but they put their children first and think it''s worth any awkwardness. Afterall, they brought them into this world.

yet another reason for me not to have kids... that sounds awful!

 

[cara]

Why am I not in love with this person? Do I still love him, just not the same passion? Do I still love him, but not want to be in the same room/house/bed with him anymore? Do I feel nothing for him? Do I actively dislike or resent him? For how long? What are the odds of it changing? Do we talk, are there any upsides to this 'relationship', is there any intimacy (both physical and emotional)?

And of course, are there any kids? How would divorce hurt them/complicate their lives versus being raised by not-in-love still-married parents? And how much worse is the marriage likely to get if the lack-of-love is a permanent condition.

All relevant things. While there are also ups and downs in any good relationship, there is also a point of no return when the relationship is dead and unlikely to be resurrected. And living in a loveless relationship can be depressingly lonely.

 

[tigian]

Lots of people stay in relationships for stability, support, and comfort. I think it would depend more on if I were happy in the relationship or not. If one person is unhappy, the other is inevitably going to be unhappy since there are two people in the relationship. Out of respect, if I was unhappy and hopeless about my marriage, I would divorce even if I had children. Children are much better off with two divorced, happy parents versus two married, unhappy parents.

 

[HollyS]

I didn''t vote because I didn''t see my point of view represented.

Marriage is not a stop along the way of living your life. A real marriage is ''two becoming one''. Anything else isn''t, and never was, a marriage. It might be a certificate, a calendar date, and a photo album. But it isn''t a marriage.

That being said, you won''t ''fall out of love'' if you marry for the right reasons. Hopefully by the time you get married, you have already realized that passion isn''t love; infatuation isn''t love; peer pressure to do what everyone else is doing isn''t love. And you aren''t marrying because you want children; they are the byproduct of a loving union, not the reason for it.

If you marry your best friend, the one person you can trust implicitly, the one person who will love you unconditionally (as much as humanly possible, anyway), then you won''t get bored, you won''t fall out of love, and the relationship won''t fall flat on its face.

And just to be clear, I used ''you'' in the editorial sense, not in a personal way. Not talking about anybody in particular on my soapbox.

 

[megumic]

I voted "other." Although being in love is so important to any relationship, I think happiness is truly the determining factor for me. If I were genuinely unhappy, with or without kids, and I had tried to work it through, counseling, etc., I would divorce. But merely falling out of love is not enough for me to move on.

Although we all know being in love is sure to result in happiness, I think two people can fall out of love but still feel love for each other and be happy. For me, happiness is paramount to being in love, but luckily I have both at the moment.

 

[LamborghiniGirl]

Date: 5/12/2009 11:03:31 PM
Author: HollyS
I didn''t vote because I didn''t see my point of view represented.


Marriage is not a stop along the way of living your life. A real marriage is ''two becoming one''. Anything else isn''t, and never was, a marriage. It might be a certificate, a calendar date, and a photo album. But it isn''t a marriage.


That being said, you won''t ''fall out of love'' if you marry for the right reasons. Hopefully by the time you get married, you have already realized that passion isn''t love; infatuation isn''t love; peer pressure to do what everyone else is doing isn''t love. And you aren''t marrying because you want children; they are the byproduct of a loving union, not the reason for it.


If you marry your best friend, the one person you can trust implicitly, the one person who will love you unconditionally (as much as humanly possible, anyway), then you won''t get bored, you won''t fall out of love, and the relationship won''t fall flat on its face.


And just to be clear, I used ''you'' in the editorial sense, not in a personal way. Not talking about anybody in particular on my soapbox.

Good post!!

If love was just passion, there are multiple times even in one day you aren''t ''in love''. Love is so much more, and there are so many facets of it, kind of like a diamond. Even if the passion falls away after some years, real love will still remain, since there are still so many bonds in love that still remain.

My grandparents just had their 75th anniversary! Their love is so strong, and it is powerful- I love watching them together. Their isn''t tons of passion all the time, and they may have even had an ''off'' decade or two-- but they love above all. And passion, or lack thereof shouldn''t be the deciding factor in the long run.

 

[Octavia]

I voted option 2, but it''s not quite as simple as that. I think that, even if we didn''t have kids, we''d owe it to ourselves and our marriage vows to work it out if we could. And having kids would make it that much more of a priority to work on things unless the marriage was truly intolerable, in which case we wouldn''t be doing ourselves or our kids any good. But to me, it''s not just a matter of "fall out of love, ask for divorce" -- there''s a lot more that would have to go into it first, and FI and I are on the same page about the seriousness deepening once we have kids.

 

[onvacation]

Not to pass judgement on others who differ, but I''m a strong believer in being married for good. Once you''re married, in love or not, that''s your LIFE PARTNER that you swore at one point in your life to love, honor, and cherish till death. (Yeah, I know lotsa peeps don''t say this anymore because of this very reason..) Call me old-fashioned, but I like it that way. Anyone who''s been through a divorce or got dumped knows that once you''re in a relationship, you make plans to accomodate that other person and his/her life, make room in your heart to be accountable towards that other person, and that''s a big part of why it''s so life-shattering to hear that you''re not going to be a couple anymore because all of a sudden you have to make new plans. Maybe I''ll think differently when I''m older, more experienced, but I agree with AmberGretchen that to stay with someone is a decision you make as a responsible adult - not only because you have children, but also because you made a vow to your partner. Your buddy. Your best friend. The person we decided we couldn''t live without when we just HAD to get married however many years ago, remember? DH and I actually talk about this about once a month usually when we''re watching movies and see break-ups, if we would ever completely fall out of love and just be living in the same house with each other, and shudder at the thought. We both agree that even if it does happen, we''ll try to make it work no matter what. I sorta see what HollyS means when she talks about marrying the right person in the first place. How do people live together for forty years, then plead "irreconcilable differences?"

Doesn''t most everyone get married because at the time of the wedding, they love that other person that much?

If you''re not just not in love anymore but actually uncurably unhappy in the marriage, or there''s some sort of abuse, then that''s a whole different issue for me.

 

[Elmorton]

I voted stay married, but it needs a little explanation. Not as eloquent as Holly, but I don''t believe that a person falls out of love. Each night before I fall asleep, DH and I make small talk - just about us and where we''ve been and where we''re headed. The other night, DH said that we''d been together for 5 years now. I asked "Why did you love me 5 years ago?" "4 years ago?" "3?" etc - and we both answered. All of our answers were different for each year. We loved each other at first because we saw qualities in each other that we''d never seen in another person before. By this year, we loved each other because of how we "became adults" together. It reminded me of a conversation I had with my dad before I got married - he said that many couples divorce because they say their partner changed. But, it''s ridiculous to expect that your partner will be the person you married on your wedding day ten years down the road. Rather, marriage means changing with a person, accepting and loving changes, and growing with another human being. So if that''s what marriage is, I don''t see how you can just "fall out of love."

 

[asscherisme]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:59:33 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 5/12/2009 9:50:31 PM
Author: lucyandroger
I chose ''divorce only if there are NO kids.'' I think that once you have kids, it becomes more than just ''does this person make my heart skip a beat''. I believe that once you are parents, you have the responsibility to raise those children as partners, putting their interests first.


My cousins have two children and have ''grown apart.'' They are legally seperated but share the same family home (seperate bedrooms) because they realized how important it is for children to have both parents in the home everyday. Sure it''s difficult but they put their children first and think it''s worth any awkwardness. Afterall, they brought them into this world.

yet another reason for me not to have kids... that sounds awful!

I do have kids and I think that sounds awful as well. And I''m not sure thats any better than being divorced. Its certainly not modeling a healthy adult relationship and gives the kids a warped sense of marriage.

Children are not partners, making decisions in the best interest of the children is NOT the same thing as putting their interests first. Miserable parents do not make happy kids. Miserable parents messes up kids.

 

[asscherisme]

Date: 5/13/2009 12:03:13 AM
Author: onvacation
Not to pass judgement on others who differ, but I''m a strong believer in being married for good. Once you''re married, in love or not, that''s your LIFE PARTNER that you swore at one point in your life to love, honor, and cherish till death. (Yeah, I know lotsa peeps don''t say this anymore because of this very reason..) Call me old-fashioned, but I like it that way. Anyone who''s been through a divorce or got dumped knows that once you''re in a relationship, you make plans to accomodate that other person and his/her life, make room in your heart to be accountable towards that other person, and that''s a big part of why it''s so life-shattering to hear that you''re not going to be a couple anymore because all of a sudden you have to make new plans. Maybe I''ll think differently when I''m older, more experienced, but I agree with AmberGretchen that to stay with someone is a decision you make as a responsible adult - not only because you have children, but also because you made a vow to your partner. Your buddy. Your best friend. The person we decided we couldn''t live without when we just HAD to get married however many years ago, remember? DH and I actually talk about this about once a month usually when we''re watching movies and see break-ups, if we would ever completely fall out of love and just be living in the same house with each other, and shudder at the thought. We both agree that even if it does happen, we''ll try to make it work no matter what. I sorta see what HollyS means when she talks about marrying the right person in the first place. How do people live together for forty years, then plead ''irreconcilable differences?''

Doesn''t most everyone get married because at the time of the wedding, they love that other person that much?

If you''re not just not in love anymore but actually uncurably unhappy in the marriage, or there''s some sort of abuse, then that''s a whole different issue for me.

Are you a strong believer in marriage in cases of spousal abuse or child abuse?

 

[Kelli]

I voted I don''t know, because I don''t know what it''s like to be in the situation. Hopefully I never will, on either side! I''d say if I had kids, I would do ANYTHING it took to make it work (assuming no cheating or abuse, etc.). And if he was still in love with me, I''d try to go to counseling or figure out what had happened. If he felt the same way I did, then why bother staying together? Divorce is NOT something I ever hope to go through, but if it makes BOTH partners happier, then so be it.

 

[jet2ks]

Date: 5/12/2009 11:03:31 PM
Author: HollyS
I didn't vote because I didn't see my point of view represented.

Marriage is not a stop along the way of living your life. A real marriage is 'two becoming one'. Anything else isn't, and never was, a marriage. It might be a certificate, a calendar date, and a photo album. But it isn't a marriage.

That being said, you won't 'fall out of love' if you marry for the right reasons. Hopefully by the time you get married, you have already realized that passion isn't love; infatuation isn't love; peer pressure to do what everyone else is doing isn't love. And you aren't marrying because you want children; they are the byproduct of a loving union, not the reason for it.

If you marry your best friend, the one person you can trust implicitly, the one person who will love you unconditionally (as much as humanly possible, anyway), then you won't get bored, you won't fall out of love, and the relationship won't fall flat on its face.

And just to be clear, I used 'you' in the editorial sense, not in a personal way. Not talking about anybody in particular on my soapbox.

My feelings exactly, just much better worded than I could have done. Well said, Holly!

My favorite signature line on PS, and I can't remember who has it, is "Love is a verb". True selfless love is action much more than feeling, you can love someone even when you aren't in love with them. Showing love will bring back the feeling of love.

I think one of the major problems is how that word translates. Greek has five different words that translate to love in English. I think they understand it better.

 

[Gypsy]

It really depends. Do is he still my best friend? How does he feel?

I believe love goes in cycles... there are times when we are 'in love' and other times when we are just friends and roomates. The foundation to all of that is LOVE. Not 'in love' love... but something deeper, enduring and abiding. As long as that was still there for both of us... I wouldn't leave.

 

[LAJennifer]

There is no "I" in "Team".

 

[onvacation]

Elmorton and Gypsy, that's exactly what I was trying to say in my long-winded post. Which looks like it might have been too long?

Date: 5/13/2009 12:20:12 AM
Author: asscherisme

Date: 5/13/2009 12:03:13 AM
Author: onvacation
Not to pass judgement on others who differ, but I'm a strong believer in being married for good. Once you're married, in love or not, that's your LIFE PARTNER that you swore at one point in your life to love, honor, and cherish till death. (Yeah, I know lotsa peeps don't say this anymore because of this very reason..) Call me old-fashioned, but I like it that way. Anyone who's been through a divorce or got dumped knows that once you're in a relationship, you make plans to accomodate that other person and his/her life, make room in your heart to be accountable towards that other person, and that's a big part of why it's so life-shattering to hear that you're not going to be a couple anymore because all of a sudden you have to make new plans. Maybe I'll think differently when I'm older, more experienced, but I agree with AmberGretchen that to stay with someone is a decision you make as a responsible adult - not only because you have children, but also because you made a vow to your partner. Your buddy. Your best friend. The person we decided we couldn't live without when we just HAD to get married however many years ago, remember? DH and I actually talk about this about once a month usually when we're watching movies and see break-ups, if we would ever completely fall out of love and just be living in the same house with each other, and shudder at the thought. We both agree that even if it does happen, we'll try to make it work no matter what. I sorta see what HollyS means when she talks about marrying the right person in the first place. How do people live together for forty years, then plead 'irreconcilable differences?'

Doesn't most everyone get married because at the time of the wedding, they love that other person that much?

If you're not just not in love anymore but actually uncurably unhappy in the marriage, or there's some sort of abuse, then that's a whole different issue for me.

Are you a strong believer in marriage in cases of spousal abuse or child abuse?

No, I don't condone spousal abuse or child abuse or in-law abuse or whatever, because obviously the "honor and cherish" part of the vow is long gone.