I may remain friends with her; it depends. Just the circumstances given wouldn’t be a “deal breaker” for me. If she had decided to pretend to be “married” while living a separate life on her own - that would be a deal breaker. But saying “I can’t deal” and bailing? I’ve known people to divorce for a lot less than that.
That doesn’t actually mean they WANT to stick around though. It just means they’ve done so, possibly for religious or financial reasons or simply because they’ve made a commitment.
Personally, I honor my commitments above all else. If I’ve made a commitment, I intend to keep it and will do so if at all possible. That’s what a commitment means as far as I’m concerned. Therefore, marriage is not for me. I try to avoid making commitments I may not be able to honor, and anything I might have to stick to for the entire rest of my life seems like a defiance of common sense.
Not to say there aren’t people who are happily married until death. Of course there are plenty, I’m sure.
If I ended a friendship any time someone made a choice of which I disapproved, I wouldn’t be a very good friend.
Sure, but none of us are the people our spouses married, even if we weren’t severely disabled in accidents.
That’s just it… to me, Erica’s way of thinking shows a profound immaturity as far as her concept of marriage is concerned. This is basically an extraordinarily extreme version of the “woman got fat and tits sagged after having kids. Husband divorces because of unattractiveness” old chestnut, and we know what a horrific lashing that guy would get on here.
Where do you draw the line? The only reason I could see is an unwillingness to go from a partner to a care-giver, but a simple conception that they can’t do the same things they could when they first married is to me, shallow and selfish.
I don’t think I’d break off my friendship with some kind of dramatic and histrionic gesture, but I do think I’d just let it sort of trail off into nothing.
Well… are any of those bad reasons to stick around if those things are important to the person(s) involved?
And I assure you that people stick around because they want to still be with that person for reasons that are NOT “religious or financial”.
Personally, I applaud you for not seeking marriage when it’s not the right thing for you. The world would be a happier place if more people were that sensible. I think too many people get married because they feel they’re supposed to, not because they really want what marriage entails.
Divorce is not categorically a moral failing; it does not follow that no choice to divorce ever has a moral component.
Do you agree with AnaMen, then?
Of course, this (logically) requires that you be “fully supportive” of any of your friends’ spouses leaving your friends, for any reason. Or your spouse leaving you. Unless your ‘moral’ standards operate selectively according to who you like.
No choice to divorce, for any reason, ever reflects on the moral character of them that so choose? Really?
I think the mistake is that people act as if marriage is a “lifetime commitment”. Marriage is a legal contract between two people which represents a pooling of certain resources and affords certain legal and financial benefits. People say “for life” and often that is the initial intention. But in practical terms a marriage is no more a lifetime commitment than any other contract.
I generally wouldn’t judge any person who choses to end their marriage. What is someone supposed to do? Be miserable for the rest of their life because they entered a contract with someone 10 years ago? What if Erica really wanted to have kids and that were no longer possible because of the accident? Or what if she just wanted to get laid again?
It’s all very romantic when we hear stories of people who love each other so much, it doesn’t matter if one of them as a crippling accident. And that truly is special when you find people who are legitimately like that. But I wouldn’t fault someone for not wanting to take on that role.
This is honorable. It sounds like you would find it a character flaw to fail to do so.
Of course, we don’t know the details of the OP’s story beyond the bare outlines given, but I do wish to point out that quadriplegics often CAN have sex. I have a cousin who married a quad (they met after his accident), they definitely did have a sex life and several children together. So just because someone is in a wheelchair sex isn’t automatically ruled out.
There is, of course, the issue that Erica may not find either paralysis or wheelchairs sexy, may in fact find them very much a turn off. Sexual incompatibility is one reason people divorce.
Really, yet another good reason not to rush to judgement in such cases. The Hallmark Media would like you to believe that love overcomes everything and the spouses of the disabled are saints. Emphatically NOT true!
I’d actually feel more sympathetic to “Erica” if she said “I want sex, can we have an open marriage but I’ll still be emotionally your caregiver” than if she flat out wanted a divorce.
In neither case would I dump her as a friend though.
Some of us are closer to who our spouses married than others.
Now, let’s not go so far.
I was told my halo was in the mail in 1997. It’s just taking a while to get here.
It’s not really up to us, though, to decide what people should value in a marriage, is it? If I were forced to give advice to that guy, it would be something like, ‘‘If that’s what’s important to you, fine, just understand what you’re giving up.’’ I’d place bets, though, that that guy had no inkling of what he was giving up and that he’d be unlikely to find satisfaction anywhere else. Maybe I’d be wrong, but anyway, it’s not my call.
[QUOTE=AnaMen]
I don’t “get” marriage. Making a lifetime commitment to someone is basically saying that even if you want to be free of the person at some point in the future, you are going to stick around anyway until one of you dies. Why would anyone want this?
[/QUOTE]
I was born with a monogamous orientation, not everyone is. My husband is the same. Even as a kid I wanted to find someone to be monogamous and committed with - while little girls dreamed of their wedding day, I envisioned us taking care of each other when we were old. I will always be a romantic at heart but there has always been a pragmatism to this romance. When my husband and I sit down with excel spreadsheets to plan our future, financial or otherwise, I think, this is exactly what I always wanted out of a marriage. I married a practical, analytical, responsible person for a reason. I married a person who is kind to everyone. I married a person who is sensible enough to know when an argument is worth having. I married a person secure enough in his own values not to find his character threatened when times get hard. Even with all the shit slung at us lately, there’s still a quiet part of my soul whispering: this is what you wanted. No, of course I didn’t want our unborn baby to die, but we both knew when we married that we were signing up for a lifetime of joy and sorrow. This is the great test. To meet adversity and rise above it and be stronger for it in the end. That’s what I was talking about in my wedding vows (he was, perhaps smarter - his only promise in his wedding vows was to make fun of me for the rest of my life, which he now claims is ‘‘in the contract.’’ Sigh.)
Because the reality of life is that you are going to experience adversity whether you’re married or single. Doesn’t matter whether you get married or not - you will experience grief and despair, and pain and sickness, guaranteed. If you can keep your shit together and face the adversity as a team, it’s WAY better than dealing with life alone. That is the value of lifetime commitment to me. Knowing someone has your back, always. The unique experience of sharing life with another person is worth the risk of it all failing spectacularly.
I mean I could tell you, AnaMen, about the value of lifetime commitment until I’m blue in the face, it doesn’t really matter what I think. In the end it matters what you think. I would be rather presumptuous of me to try to impose my marital value system on another person. It’s not up to me to decide what marriage means for other people, in any given moment. And I would extend that same rule to the hypothetical.
Too many variables for me to be happy making a judgement. I try not to judge friends unless it’s absolutely one sided (say if someone explains their point of view and it still sounds like a selfish toddler) and even then that would kind of need to be a pattern of behaviour, not one decision, before I’d want to totally end an old friendship.
As per the OP, I don’t know the guy very well, I have no idea what he’s really like. I don’t know if he’s insisting she should be the person nursing him all the time, even though they could easily afford a nurse, because she should want to do it and what the hell’s wrong with her that she doesn’t? I don’t know if he’s insisting she stay in and never go anywhere without him, because she shouldn’t be out having fun while he’s stuck in (in pain, with strangers). I don’t know if he’s decided that the future kids she always dreamed of are now off the table, because he can’t be the sort of Dad he wanted to be any more, and anyway he should be the priority now.
Yes, 6 months sounds a bit soon, and even if his personality has drastically changed, it may be only temporary while he comes to terms with his new life; but I’m not part of their relationship, I don’t know how it really works, or if it is working any more, for either of them.
I wouldn’t presume that those who stay married indeed **want **to remain married to their spouse, any more than those who are employed for decades at the same place in fact want to work there. There is a very sizable portion of folks who are terrified of change and/or being alone, and many other things that have nothing to do with love or the presence or absence of “integrity” to whatever degree. (Integrity is a quality about which I’ve found a large chunk of people tend to talk quite a lot of smack but in fact don’t possess a great deal of, if at all. For better or worse/luckily or unluckily, most never face a situation where they identify and then are forced to acknowledge that fact.)
I don’t think I could remain friends. When you marry somebody, it’s what you’re signing on for. That’s part of the deal - you know you don’t know what the future holds, but you’re making a commitment to stay with the person until death.
I get that having a disabled spouse sucks, and I can empathize. I could respect somebody being essentially separated - maybe the spouse living in a facility if necessary. I could perhaps even look the other way if the healthy spouse quietly got some on the side. That is, if the healthy spouse still provided emotional support and love and time to the disabled spouse.
But abandoning somebody who’s incapacitated means that you didn’t mean or didn’t understand the vows you took. I just can’t respect that.
Must have been lost in the same shipment as mine. 
Yeah, I’d dump her as a friend.
John McCain did this to his first wife. In my mind it is a huge stain on his character.
Both he and she have said her disability were not the reason for the divorce (which occurred 11 years later). Nor was Vietnam.
Several posters have alluded to the possibility that Geoff has had a personality change and no longer wants a partner but a nursemaid. Suppose we continue that scenario. Suppose Geoff is the one who can no longer provide emotional support and love. Suppose he demands 24/7 attendance and complete control of Erica’s time and life. Do Erica’s vows demand that she continue to give him everything he demands?
If so, is this any different from any other emotionally abusive spouse, disabled or otherwise? Do Erica’s vows demand that she continue to stay with a non-disabled spouse whose personality has changed and who demands she give 24/7 attention and never ever go on a trip or outing without him? Why or why not?