Archives

Life After Divorce: Removing the Stigma of Divorce

I have heard some buzz about certain politicians advocating for tougher divorce laws.  So I did some research in the anti-divorce movement some of what I found really made my head spin.  For instance in an article of a certain pro-marriage website www.smartmarriages.com I found the following

It is hardly debatable that many of society’s ills can be traced to the continuing high rates of marital distress and divorce.

I would argue that there are plenty of other things contributing to society’s ills, but in order to stay on topic I won’t list them here.  What followed that statement was actually a fairly balanced discussion on the pros and cons of enacting tougher divorce laws.  What I found disturbing however is that in 2012 anyone would debate making divorce less accessible.

Our culture has grown leaps and bounds since the 1950’s and earlier when most of society viewed divorced people with suspicion and derision.  But the stigma of being divorced hasn’t completely gone away.  Every time a divorced political candidate runs for office, the press scrutinizes their marital history as it is somehow indicative of their moral character.   Entertainers and public figures are not immune to this criticism either.  As crusaders of conservative values like Rush Limbaugh who himself is on his fourth wife.  Or Newt Gingrich who can’t seem to stop getting married, then having and affair only to then marry his mistress.  Then there is Jennifer Lopez already over marriage number three at 42 and Larry King on marriage number eight.  And of course we have Kim Kardashian who after a lavish televised wedding for her second marriage, filed for divorce after only 72 days.   Some people seem to have a marriage problem.  And then there is the rest of us.

I married once, and for reasons completely out of my control my marriage ended.  I am not deficient or somehow morally bankrupt as a result.  It was not a weakness on my part that my marriage fell apart.  My husband was a closeted homosexual, I discovered as much and got out as soon as I possibly could.  For many of my divorced friends they also felt like they had no choice but to leave their marriages.  One of my friends found out her husband was a criminal and when confronted with this information he blamed her, even though she knew nothing about his criminal activity.  Another friend married a man who refused to seek treatment for his bi-polar disorder.  A disease he struggled with in the past but had hidden from his wife.  His untreated mental illness made him physically and emotionally abusive to both herself and their child.  Since he refused treatment, she also had no choice but to leave the relationship.   Or in the case of several of my friends, one spouse simply did not want to remain in a monogamous relationship and continually had extramarital affairs.  What is the other spouse supposed to do?  Stick around and put up with the constant deception, open themselves up to possibly getting a sexually transmitted disease, stay faithful to a partner who is not faithful to them?  And in some marriages one spouse becomes overwhelmingly emotionally or physically abusive, constantly tearing down or controlling the other.  Should someone stay in that situation?  I think not.

Are we supposed to feel like failed people because our partners made it impossible for us to stay in our marriages?  Are we emotionally weak or deficient?  Are we morally bankrupt?  Have we committed some horrible crime against society?  When I hear of conservatives promoting laws to make divorce more difficult I want to scream.  Marriage is a personal matter between two people.  Should the government intervene for the sake of society and prevent divorce?  We all know of couples who stay together in a mutually destructive dance of co-dependency, or marriages in which one partner suffers irrecoverably while the other uses them as an emotional punching bag.  Is an injurious marriage preferable to a divorce?

In my case there were no children involved, the only people who have suffered have been my former spouse and myself.  How are we destroying society?  And when children are present, should restrictive divorce laws force them to stay in a painful and destructive household in which one or both parents are miserable?   I can’t imagine that environment could lead to a healthy childhood.

Marriage is just a relationship made more complicated by social and legal ramifications.  If one or both parties want to leave a marriage the government should not force them to stay together for the sake of society.  Of course some individuals do abuse marriage and make both marriage and divorce seem trivial.  But most of us were just doing the best we could, and maybe we ended up with the wrong partner.  Maybe we got married too young, maybe we felt pressured into it, maybe we just made a foolish choice.  It doesn’t matter, most divorced people are not morally bankrupt and we are not the bane of society.  Thank goodness we live in a country where we can legally walk away from these toxic unions, and anyone would prevent us from doing so is the truly morally corrupt person.

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page

Rush Limbaugh – Sluts, Prostitutes or just a pack of Lies?

OK so regular readers of this blog know that I have a very popular entry with the title

Dating After Divorce in a City of Sluts

That one article completely changed the course and direction of my life, got me international press and indirectly a literary agent.  When I used the term, I used it in a lighthearted attempt to describe the sexual behaviors of the entire city of NYC.  To quote myself.

I find frustrating is that if you really want to get to know a guy first before having sex with him, it seems like there is no end to the women who will jump into bed with them. And this isn’t to say that only men do this, as women engage in the same behavior as do people of all sexual orientations and gender identifications.

So although some have misinterpreted my use of the term slut, I do indeed refer to every adult male, female, gay, straight, bisexual and transgendered person indirectly as a slut.  Not to say that every adult in NYC engages in slutty behavior, but people from every sexual orientation and gender specification certainly do.  Why people felt obligated to associate the female gender to the term “slut” is beyond me, but I meant slut in terms of people who engage in promiscuous behavior.  Some men and women proudly identify as sluts so given the context, I really didn’t see what the fuss was about.  But now that we have my history with the term “slut” addressed I would like to move on to Rush Limbaugh.

Rush Limbaugh decided to personally attack Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University who testified before the congressional committee on the cost of birth control.  For sharing her personal story about the high cost of her birth control Rush labeled her both a slut and a prostitute.  I am not going to address the name calling or equating a woman using birth control as a prostitute because it is pointless to even bother.  But I am going to break down his arguments.

Hormonal birth control is prescribed to many woman for health related purposes that are not related to preventing pregnancy.  NO ONE in the press wants to address this.  Birth control pills are prescribed for many female reproductive health problems such as – ovarian cysts, heavy periods, irregular periods, painful periods, hormone imbalances, light or infrequent periods, early onset menopause even cystic acne.  In many cases, the pill is effective in most cases for reducing these symptoms, it is not exclusively taken to prevent pregnancy.

The cost of hormone based birth control when compared to condoms.  Rush and his staff “crunch the numbers to try to show that hormone based birth control pills are not cost-effective.  But comparing condoms to birth control is like comparing a raincoat to an umbrella.   According to AmericanPregnancy.com hormone based birth control pills have a 93-97%  success rate when used in real life conditions.  And according to the same site, condoms have a 14-15% failure rate.  So solely basing birth control on condom use would result in more unplanned pregnancies.  Also according to AmericanPregnancy.com the cost of delivering a baby could reach as high as $6000-8000 which does not include prenatal care or the extensive costs of a complicated pregnancy, especially one requiring a Caesarian section.

The Tax Payer is on the hook for birth control Rush also claimed that the “tax payer” is somehow paying for Sandra Fluke’s birth control but I don’t know where he is getting that other than thin air.  The subject being debated on congress had nothing to do with the federal government spending any tax dollars on anyone’s insurance.  If Rush would like to debate that topic he is free to do so, but this particular issue has to do with either the employer or the health insurance company paying for birth control, it says absolutely nothing about the government paying for anything.  It is designed to set national standards for essential healthcare benefits.  And using that logic, anyone in a health insurance plan is paying for another member’s care.  Pay $8,000 in yearly premiums, but use only $2000 worth of care?  Then you are paying directly into the profits of the health insurance company but also for another member’s heart surgery, cancer treatment or for a premature infant clinging to life in an incubator.   That is just how health insurance works, most people pay more into it than they get back and a few patients cost the plan more than they put in.  If it didn’t work this way the companies wouldn’t be able to turn a profit.

The women are having too much sex and that is why they need birth control – The way hormonal birth control works a woman has to take it for an entire month and stay on it for months whether she is having sex daily or once a year.  The amount of sex is irrelevant.

Married couples should not have hormonal birth control as an option for helping them control the size of their families? Rush doesn’t address this directly but the vast majority of women including Catholic women in the US use some form of birth control.  The Guttmacher Institute in a new report, Countering Conventional Wisdom: New Evidence on Religion and Contraceptive Use. The report showed that, “among all women who have had sex, 99% have ever used a contraceptive method other than natural family planning”  Are married women who use birth control sluts in Rush’s world view? Most married women only have one sexual partner, not exactly a slut.

And of course his last ridiculous statement simply made to get press more than anything else. –

Since “WE” are paying for it, these women should video tape their sexual encounters.  According to the proposed legislation, the health insurance providers or the employers would be paying for the birth control, NOT the tax payer.  And even with that insane logic, then Rush might as well start producing some of his own tapes, after all a health insurance plan most likely helped pay for his Viagra.  So everyone paying a premium to the same insurance company better start demanding videos of his erections, just because they helped pay for them.

And if he is going to make personal attacks – Rush Limbaugh – married four times, yet has no children, three of his wives were of child baring age, so either he is sterile, or someone was using birth control.  No one knows this for sure, perhaps he successfully used the rhythm method for each wife and through some miracle no one got pregnant.  Rush who has had problems with abusing prescription drugs himself, was caught entering the country with the erectile dysfunction drug Viagara.   So is it acceptable for a health insurance company to pay for a drug that certainly would increase the sexual capacity for a man, but not for birth control for a woman?  That seems like ridiculous hypocrisy to me and most Americans would agree, in fact according to A Kaiser Family Foundation survey nearly 2/3 of American Adults favored Obama’s birth control policy.

Rush Limbaugh is a blow-hard who says crazy things to get attention and press.  He might have finally gone too far.  Attacking half of the adult population directly is not always the best method for winning over converts to his cause.  But we shouldn’t tell him that, let him alienate half the voting population.  Seems like a winning strategy to me!

Follow me on Twitter https://twitter.com/JulietJeske

Add me on Facebook Juliet Jeske Facebook Fan Page