Lousy Communication Causes Breakups
Or, is it that no real love or friendship existed in the first place?
I'm meeting many more people who, upon greater evidence, aren't really married. They gave all the signals, but when it came down to it, did not formally say 'I dos' that tied the knots.
Okay, so tax laws are restrictive. When married women work they lose Social Security benefits, receiving only the husband's, if they remain united into old age. Of course, if the woman made more money, the man can opt to share in her benefits, but not his. The big one is really that if another either of them fancies more comes along, breaking up isn't then so hard to do. The penchant of waiting for someone better really seems a male wont. Generally, women work harder to please than men do. Men are too used to having women cater to them from past societal structures—wrong as they were.
Have we lost the ability to love? Is it only in movies where actors playact falling in love? Is love only in movies, plays, literature, and songs as some rare commodity people treasure? Lack of fidelity may be from the inability to adjust to others, therefore, being a deterrent to love.
Why do couples live in faux marriages? Perhaps, people don't believe their soul mate is to be found, so settle. Sometimes, it seems people settle for benefits of not having financial burdens. Rents and other commodities are cheaper when two are paying. Besides, who wants to live with mom and dad one's entire life? Life is scarier living alone. Or, is it about not wanting to share? The law does not require unmarried couples to share salaries, etc. Maybe television noises and other activities aren't enough for some people to escape loneliness. Perhaps, some settle for relationships—any relationship—to have available sex. If a partner is tolerable, hey, what is keeping them alone when shacking up is so easy?
Not being married, couples don't have to talk with each other to make their relationship work. They can just complain to separate friends and split if nothing negative between them changes for the better by complaining to others. Go figure. One or both can cheat on the other with open relationships, not taking commitment seriously. Ergo, love seriously.
Perhaps, sex was the initial binding factor. That is probably the first to go, with no real love to bind them. Of course, if a child is binding people together, they can live in misery like actual married couples when the initial glow wanes.
Being married with problems is difficult. Not being married with problems, when children are involved, the woman can just throw the man out if he is a lousy provider when having things is important to her. Or, like a real marriage, the wife can hold the child over his head if he loves him or her. On the other side, the man doesn't have to get a better paying job or really care. He can just leave when times are bad. It isn't 'until death they do part' after all. Even married couples up can leave each other, but the official knot makes the decision a little more difficult.
The upside to having no binding obligation is being able to end a relationship easily for whatever reason without legal entanglements. The downside is having no hand to hold when illness or other misfortune strikes since the partner, can easily split—and as I've seen, often does. Often, when one partner gets diagnosed, the other leaves quickly. Hey, it might be awkward with family and such. That was a kind observation. It is probably that time is money. Finding someone else soon is a priority especially when wrinkles and gray hair have already shown their ugly heads.
Another sour note is that no one has to learn anything that those who genuinely love each other can teach one another. When we love someone and are legally married, we can't always overlook egregious flaws if we don't want to be miserable the rest of our lives. We have to develop communication skills to tell our love interests how to keep our love because we don't want to let them go. We would miss them too much.
If life alone is too frightening or we are extremely tolerant, all most anything is sufferable. It was that way for eons. People married for reasons of survival, not always love. They learned to love each other because love needs exercise ever so often. Who else was around? Yes, love could be lavished on offspring. Still, when connubial bliss wasn't, even pretending, one might convince him or herself love was present if only to get rid of the disgust one really felt. Fortunately, society doesn't require us to live that way any longer.
One wake up call that someone needs to change attitudes is that a person with whom one spouse wants to stray, isn't one iota interested. The jerk he or she was before the faux union didn't get challenged to change one bit for the better.
Relationships are complicated, but they are a place to learn communication. Some don't feel ready for full commitment of marriage, so begin by using baby steps of living together.
When needing to tell a partner his or her shortcomings, but using the excuse of not wanting to hurt feelings falls short in relationships. Who else would or should put up with our imperfections but someone who genuinely loves us? Who else has so much to gain remaining with a partner by telling them of fixable, but offensive faults: forgetting those of nature that can't be fixed. Of course, hoping we have none ourselves, so we won't need to listen to an endless litany of our own faults. Being faultless is not usually the case.
If a partner refuses to change with an attitude, 'Love me as I am or leave me,' perhaps, this person may not really love his or her partner. He or she is too blindly egotistical to change, or even think it necessary. He or she would rather sleep at night with lousy nature than next to the loved one. Who needs this? Time out or alone might be good for changing this attitude.
Did men make laws, using omnipotence, that bound women as property, knowing no right-minded woman would stay with men of lousy natures otherwise? The poor excuse men give that they are born to spread their seed fails the truth test when they use condoms doing so. Then we have the ones who object to using condoms, collecting wives and daughter-wives. This is especially obvious when turning out male offspring as dominant male lions do to prevent a challenge that might lay them aside, using religion to mask lascivious natures.
Considering all this, unbound relationships might be a good thing. Even liberated ones sometimes need repair when both partners genuinely love the other. True love shows when partners fight and make up without going in different directions, but stay together despite differences.
Ways of communicating exist that cushions the blow of bad news. We don't have to be blunt. If, however, we've been gentle and not heard, we can always be blunt. Bluntness should probably be a last option before the hardcore yelling and name-calling starts that ends relationships.
It has become too easy to break up. Perhaps too, some are so vain that they deceive themselves into thinking they are a great catch. So, they foolishly took their partners for granted, not working out their relationship by communicating? As difficult as communicating to loved ones is, not doing so, is worse with no one to hold tight, kiss good night, or hold a dying hand in old age.
... stay tuned ...