Larry and Marie scowled out each opposing window
A shotgun between them
Silently propped up on the seat
Tires screeched to a halt
In front of the divorce saloon

Most have heard of a shotgun wedding
But never a divorce
They were spittin' the bodies
Out the back
Lookin' both ways
Closin' the door

(I get to use the big picture, since I took the damn thing...those are Junipers by the way, just two different species, there will be a quiz at the end.)

If divorce was a cosmic joke, it would have punched a hole right through the third dimension. It is a filament (note not figment) of our culture. I think back to primitive times and wonder how divorce would have worked back then, you know the good ole' days of caves and the like. People then huddled together because that is what it took to survive. What is about our modern times that makes the divorce rate clocked at 50%?

I am convinced there are two and only two different ways to look at the ugly world of divorce. From a child's perspective and from an adult's perspective. From a child's perspective, you don't ever want your parents to get a divorce. Period. Despite efforts from many well intentioned parents, children just want their parents to be together, as it violates the natural order of things having it reversed. Steps can be taken to alleviate cognitive dissonance for the child, such as the parent educating the child on the causes of the divorce, but often times most parents are at loss themselves at determining these reasons. This is why children of divorce are twice as likely to divorce themselves. It is hard to compromise, when the intrinsic lesson in divorce is that compromise is not needed.

Adults generally agree that divorce is a bad thing, yet there is some degree of certainty that it will bring happiness. A contradiction of sorts. I argue that the problems that were there before the divorce are going to be there after the divorce, especially if children are involved. If children aren't involved? Go nuts, indulge in all the debauchery you could ever stomach. The reason children complicate things is that both adults contribute to the well being of the child and when one is not present a certain level of cooperation has to occur for the arrangement to work. Cooperation between two people that have agreed not to share the same space anymore. It should be noted that with adults, men tend to still make more money and women tend to go in the poor house after divorce. Children tend to be ruled in favor of the woman to take care of and child support doesn't always come nor is it usually sufficient. Men, however, are not let off the hook as many men (generalization coming) do not have many close friends in which to share emotion and tend to end up lonely, which is why a second wife is often found. That complicates things further.

Would I ever abolish divorce? No, there are cases where it is valid, such as abuse. This is where it gets tricky because the line is fuzzy. Some can call abuse by many names and stretch that definition, especially verbal abuse. I do think measures should be taken to make it harder to obtain a divorce and those considering divorce take a hard look at the statistics to determine how much happiness will truly come from their disunion.

The grass may not be greener on the other side, the situation that is presented at the time is an extremely individual one. One that often times is a reaction to the partner and general qualities about them that just won't change. This is a compelling argument and often times needs different perspectives. I am not talking about just psychiatry etc. (though a serious commitment to that does help, if anything to mediate the situation), I am talking about friends, family members people that have valuable life experience. We are not talking about the friend that one hampers about all the things wrong with their partner, we are talking about gathering perspectives and being open to how to better tackle that beast called: Marriage.

Divorce is a highly personal device. I talk from experience as my parents divorced when I was 13, they had their reasons and from talking to those of you on here who have been through a divorce, you have yours. However, the personal nature of divorce is what makes it a problem to begin with. Culture still stigmatizes it, yet it happens to half of the people that marry. Culture takes a long time to change and will not solve this, it comes from making it a collective sharing of information in a (ironically) strongly individualistic society on a personal level, but even that isn't a magic bullet.

There are no magic bullets and there definitely are no perfect marriages, only ones that work. Marriages and close relationships are systems, that either work or don't. What to do with it when the relationships don't is the philosophical question to be asking.

Token Question: What is a Juniper?

Dear Santa,

I never have liked you.

Yours Truly,
Nelson







Dear Nelson,

Suck it.

You will get what you need, not what you want. Go try and complain to the tooth fairy.

Love,
Santa

The question gets tossed around: "Are you happy?" As if this is the end all to the philosophical question of life

Where does being happy get us as a society?

Do happier people work, play and love better?

I argue this point saying that living to be happy, means you are living for yourself, for your needs. A person who lives for happiness, doesn't want happiness to go away, since it is the sought after quality.

American culture, the only one I can speak of, is set up around happiness, not having happiness all the time means something is wrong akin to a sickness. When one is not given the tools to handle not being happy, as it is a temporary condition to be glazed over, it can be devastating. If one lives to be a good person, however, happiness remains a bonus. What is good? That is the toughest question, and one worth pursuing.

So the question remains: Does living to be happy also ironically tend to be what an older generation criticizes the younger for being less courteous, caring for the fellow human being etc.? Doing what is right or moral, often times can be a hard decision to make which often doesn't result in the happiness of the decision maker.

Can a society exist if everyone is looking out for their own interests? Capitalism certainly says so, but it is subject to taint precisely because of the unconcern of individuals.

I suggest society only works if one is looking after their interests and the interests of others. John Nash came up with something like this, called the Nash Equilibrium, I am just 60 years and a movie late.

Token Question: Is the breakdown of traditional morals due an increasingly liberal society causing a loss of principles towards the common good?