Is my picker completely off again?!

[Wiseman2]

18 hours ago, Hora said:

The recently separated thing to be honest though I think is just coincidental. 

Unavailable people typically choose other unavailable people.

[Rose Mosse]

7 minutes ago, Wiseman2 said:

Unavailable people typically choose other unavailable people.

Yes and no. I think there's truth to this but also not fully exposing that people in general are very judgmental and will avoid individuals who are separated or divorced (a personal decision and one I support, either way or whichever way). There's a stigma there and I don't think individuals should be labeled "unavailable" so quickly or forced to live in isolation or not date or meet others. 

I think if the world thought like this there would be a lot of suicides and people jumping off roofs to escape the stigma of separation or divorce and being a social pariah. There are hard lines and guidelines but walking that road is another story altogether. 

[boltnrun]

Yep, I started dating before I'd even filed for divorce and trust me, I was 100% emotionally available. I was totally and completely into the man I was dating. There were no residual feelings for my ex husband and no desire to reconcile with him. Our marriage truly hadn't been working for a few years (due to both sides although I was the one who pulled the plug).

So it's not hard and fast. But still, if I were dating now I would feel more comfortable dating a man who was fully divorced,  not just for emotional reasons but financial as well. My best friend's husband got called out in divorce court for spending "marital funds" on trips with his new girlfriend before the divorce was filed and had to pay the money back.

[Hora]

@boltnrun I don't know where you live and what the marital laws are there. In Canada though, once you are separated and living apart, it's basically as if you are divorced from a law-perspective. The divorce papers are just a paper, but if you live separately, your finances are completely separate (there is no "marital funds" anymore), and you file your income taxes separately, and indicate "separated". If there is governmental money to be received for children, those funds will automatically be split in two by the government.

So in Canada, typically the process if you separate is to go to a lawyer to draft what we call a "separation agreement". This document will state all the specifics of your separation: child support, spousal support, who gets the house, separation of funds, schedule with kids, who pays for what for the kids, maximum length of vacation with kids etc. This document can only be amended if there are any serious changes of circumstances. It's then signed by both parties and the lawyer and witnesses. When, minimum one year later, you can file for divorce, there is no additional documentation. The filing for divorce process is done online, you attach your separation agreement, and press send. It takes about 5 minutes to fill out. It's basically just a formality. 

So, for me, I definitely want men I'm dating to have figured out all their separation stuff, to live by themselves and not have shared accounts or anything like that. But to actually have divorce documents in hand can be a very lengthy process in Canada. Furthermore, many couples will choose to separate, do the separation agreement etc. but not do the divorce until there is a new partner in their lives (my ex husband and I did that). The reason for this are:

1) if one or both have a job with a pension, the pension, in case of sudden death, can only be transferable to a spouse (either common law i.e. person that lives with you, or a person you're married to), and not children. So if you have a pension through your employer, it's in everyone's interest to stay officially married until there are new partners so that in case of sudden death the kids can get the pension through the other parent.

2) Health insurance: typically if you're a family you will all choose to be on the health insurance of one of the spouses. When separation occurs, it is typically nearly impossible for the one that didn't take the insurance to get the insurance from their work. This is one of those annoying loopholes that if you didn't sign up within the first 3 months of employment you missed the boat. So many couples will choose to keep their marital status so that everyone can continue to be covered by the insurance until an alternative is found.

 

[Hora]

@Wiseman2 I'm curious: why do you think I'm unavailable?

[Hollyj]

4 minutes ago, Hora said:

@Wiseman2 I'm curious: why do you think I'm unavailable?

You choose people who are still married.

[Hora]

@Hollyj 

a) why does that make me unavailable?

b) I personally think that "still married" should be considered on a spectrum

[Jibralta]

29 minutes ago, Hora said:

a) why does that make me unavailable?

Because you can't have a fulfilling relationship with someone who is emotionally unavailable.

People who avoid intimacy and/or commitment notoriously 'settle' for partners whose circumstance(s) or disposition prevents a healthy, successful relationship.

[DancingFool]

39 minutes ago, Hora said:

@Hollyj 

a) why does that make me unavailable?

b) I personally think that "still married" should be considered on a spectrum

You are unavailable because you are consistently drawn to men who are themselves unavailable. Like attracts like.

Separated, divorced, recently broken up, on a spectrum or 50 spectrums - these are all semantics. You are choosing and are drawn to men who are not really open and ready for a proper relationship. Not available.

As for the suggestion to stay away from someone who is fresh out of a relationship, it's just common sense precaution precisely because YOUR picker is broken. While you may run into someone who is indeed done and ready to jump into the next long term relationship....the odds of you running into that person are less than winning the lottery. Yeah, it happens, but your odds are too slim.

People may be ready to date, but that's a term that encompasses a lot of things. Most people who are fresh out of a relationship are ready to date in a very casual sense - getting their feet wet, to test their market value, to fill a void, to see what's out there, to let their hair down and have some fun, and so on. It's fine if you are on the same casual page. It's not so fine when you are looking for more or if you are the type to get attached more deeply faster.

Basically, don't be some guy's rebound toy. This is not a hard concept to grasp. 

[Hora]

Ok, yes, you all keep saying that. I hear you.

That being said, I'm an action-oriented person. So, just trying to figure out how to translate this into reality.

I know you don't believe me, but it really seems to be a fact that the majority of men that I chat with online are separated since less than 2 years. But that aside...

So, scenario:

Chatting with a person online: he seems nice, interesting, great conversation, he's cute. Seems interested. Lots in common. He wants to meet etc. But he is separated since 1 year, lives by himself, says he's on good terms with the ex, seems over her etc. So, I should ask "are you divorced?". And if the answer is no, say "sorry can't meet. You seem wonderful and a good match, but I only date men with divorce certificates".

Is that what you are saying? Just trying to understand.

[Batya33]

5 hours ago, Rose Mosse said:

Yes and no. I think there's truth to this but also not fully exposing that people in general are very judgmental and will avoid individuals who are separated or divorced (a personal decision and one I support, either way or whichever way). There's a stigma there and I don't think individuals should be labeled "unavailable" so quickly or forced to live in isolation or not date or meet others. 

I think if the world thought like this there would be a lot of suicides and people jumping off roofs to escape the stigma of separation or divorce and being a social pariah. There are hard lines and guidelines but walking that road is another story altogether. 

That's pretty dramatic -we all judge when dating - not necessarily label.  Waiting to date until you're not married is not being forced into any isolation.  That person can have a full and active social life if desired, of course.  Married people can't date and I think it's a huge mistake for someone to date while married or while newly divorced -I gave the rare exception of the person who stayed married to his wife who had advanced ALS and they both were ok with him having a girlfriend.  I get that, sort of.  Not my business anyway.  Someone who is married is not being labeled - they are married - they took vows.  Someone who is separated is "still married" -that's simply a definition.  Do you object to being referred to as a mom in context?  Or is that a label you object to? I don't label married people as unavailable - I don't have to.  Married people can't date - it's just obvious, a fact.

[Batya33]

16 minutes ago, Hora said:

Ok, yes, you all keep saying that. I hear you.

That being said, I'm an action-oriented person. So, just trying to figure out how to translate this into reality.

I know you don't believe me, but it really seems to be a fact that the majority of men that I chat with online are separated since less than 2 years. But that aside...

So, scenario:

Chatting with a person online: he seems nice, interesting, great conversation, he's cute. Seems interested. Lots in common. He wants to meet etc. But he is separated since 1 year, lives by himself, says he's on good terms with the ex, seems over her etc. So, I should ask "are you divorced?". And if the answer is no, say "sorry can't meet. You seem wonderful and a good match, but I only date men with divorce certificates".

Is that what you are saying? Just trying to understand.

Here's what I used to do.  If someone wrote "divorced" and lied and was actually separated I was done because I didn't date married men and because he lied. I would ask how long divorced on the first phone call which was after we exchanged a few messages.  Yes, if he was newly divorced I would say that I'm sorry but I wasn't comfortable meeting until he was divorced at least a year (yes a few called me later to tell me I was right not to meet them before that time, in hindsight!). 

Why would I use the word 'certificate" -it's not about the piece of paper so it would make no sense for me to describe it that way.  I only dated single men or divorced/widowed men -nothing to  do with a piece of paper just like to me getting married is not just a piece of paper -and a college degree is not just a piece of paper.  I avoided "you seem wonderful and a good match' because he was a stranger -to me that's fake/disingenuous to butter someone up.  You are not rejecting the person -you simply are declining to meet since you two would not be a compatible match.  I wanted to get married and try for a baby, with a man who was single or divorced or widowed.  I greatly preferred single, never married like me.  I met over 100 men in person and spoke with hundreds.  

Yes of course I judged in this way -yes I would be friendly with a person who was not yet divorced -not through a dating site -in real life, yes I would be friendly with a man who was newly divorced.  No I would not date them.  Just like you won't date a man who is not passionate about his job, or a man you don't feel physically attracted to - you might be friendly with such a person or casual acquaintances - you don't ask him for his resume do you? No, you judge whether he has the qualities you want in a mate and the lifestyle and goals that are compatible with yours.  A married man would not have had compatible goals with me and a newly divorced man wouldn't have been ready for marriage in the not too distant future most likely -with limited free time I wasn't going to risk that this stranger was one of the rare exceptions. 

[reinventmyself]

It's already been well said, but I wanted to reinforce the false sense of intimacy theory.  

You came here feeling uncomfortable because of his oversharing, right?   You are uncomfortable for good reason.  

Getting to know someone is a process and if done correctly (if there is a correct way) it's done in phases and layers.  Like peeling an onion.  As you spend time together, you build trust and slowly unfold your personal business at appropriate times.

The word vomit thing on a meet n' greet is awkward and uncomfortable.  He's trying to lure you into a false sense of intimacy and attach himself too quickly.  If you buy into it like some do, you are picking out dining room furniture by the end of the month.

Healthy individuals know that these things take a healthy dose of time and nothing good comes out of rushing things.

Too much too soon would cause me to bail.  It's not a good sign.

The whole intimidation thing.  I've been told that more than once. I am always not easy to read.  (in a case like this, for good reason)  It's his attempt to get you to let your guard down and play the overshare and attach game with him.  By him saying you are intimidating is just another way of saying he can't read you.  It's his way of baiting you into oversharing too. 

But in cases like this and meeting men for the first time, you should be guarded. .   Until which time you know him better.  Unfortunately for him, it's not on day one.

[Rose Mosse]

1 hour ago, Batya33 said:

Married people can't date - it's just obvious, a fact.

Not necessarily. We can agree to disagree. They can very well date and do. A lot of the sentiments shared and the general consensus to be very wary and generally steer clear/tread with caution I completely agree with. I married someone and divorced the same person as the second wife. We met when he was separated, as previously stated. I can write you a book of why it's not a good idea to get seriously involved with a separated individual who hasn't finalized a divorce. 

What I won't get behind are broad generalizations of what people can't and can do, who is available and who isn't based on given life circumstances. If someone isn't your cup of tea (hypothetical "you" here) then you are also free to walk away based on what you're looking for in a relationship.

Quote

But to actually have divorce documents in hand can be a very lengthy process in Canada. Furthermore, many couples will choose to separate, do the separation agreement etc. but not do the divorce until there is a new partner in their lives (my ex husband and I did that). 

This was the position of my ex as well and I refused. I also let him know that he had an amount of time to get his side of things arranged because a large part of what you talked about came from me.

If it's over, it's completely over. I'm in Canada also.

 

[Hollyj]

6 hours ago, Hora said:

@Hollyj 

a) why does that make me unavailable?

b) I personally think that "still married" should be considered on a spectrum

LOL!   Are you kidding?!  If you were emotionally available you would only date single men.  Period.  

I feel like we get somewhere, then we go back two steps.  I do not understand what you are not getting.  You are completely resistant to what people are saying.  Can I ask what you are attempting to get from us?

[Hora]

I think @Batya33 is making me see all your points more clearly. I think I left out a very important step in my selection process. So for me my line in the sand is that I will not consider dating anyone that has not had at the very minimum a 7-year relationship, and by that I mean, has lived with that person for that period of time. I would absolutely not date anyone that has made it to their 40s and has never had a serious relationship. And in fact, I would prioritize for that person to have been married before, preferably to have children of their own: i.e. to be the type that can actually commit to someone. 

I am very suspicious of the perpetually single. I am also very suspicious of the men my age who do not have children. I have been there and they ALL want kids. And try to talk me into have "just one more". 

And as a parenthesis about what @reinventmyself said, I agree with all your comments about how this particular guy's behaviour is problematic. That is noted. 

But I think we moved beyond that topic. 

To get back to the single/not single, I think it's a debate of definitions. As I said before, I  strongly disagree with the idea of putting everyone in the same basket. I think everyone goes through a series of phases after a separation, and everyone goes through those phases at a different rhythm depending what their emotional state was after the separation. I've know a man who 5 years after being separated, and 3 years after his divorce, was still crying over his lost love. Others can't wait to move on with their lives. While still other who are clearly single have been in and out of short-term relationships their entire lives while never being able to commit to anyone.  I feel these definitions that we are throwing down here are very black and white, while human emotions are so so the opposite of strict categories. 

And to be honest, once someone made it to their 40s, and had an array of relationships and experiences, they are bound to be a little bit broken. And in some ways, any relationship status in that age range is a potential red flag. 

[lostandhurt]

So you are okay with dating legally married men.  We get that now and you make some valid points.  I have dated women that were not legally divorced but it was all over accept the final decree from the courts hadn't been signed by the judge.  Many times a divorce can take years to finalize and if it is in the latter stages where all the arguments, custody, support and living arrangements are all worked out and have been for a while dating that person in my opinion would be acceptable.  Now if they are 6 months out of the marital home and wanting to meet someone new and have fun like their single friends I take a pass.

Back to your picker which is to me a different issue than single, separated or divorced.  This last guy could have been legally, emotionally and financially divorced for years and still be suspect as a potential dating partner.  My point is if you have the legally single guy in front of you but he says and does things that are orange and red flags and you ignore them and decide to see him a few more times then yes you made a bad choice.  Why is the question right?

Why do you give these men a pass when a guy that hasn't been in at least a 7 yr relationship doesn't?  By the way I get where you are coming from because when I read a profile and it states longest relationship 2 years and she is 49 years old I flinch pretty hard.  You are open to meeting men which is good.  You have an idea what you want which is good but when faced with things you like about the guy versus the red flags you seem to question your instincts or something.  You shouldn't have to convince yourself to date someone, it should flow.

  Learning as you go is a big part of this and you are learning.  Maybe try and change things up a little.  Make all your first meets coffee dates so it will be short and then you have time to give the guy the once over in your head the next day and decide if you want to see him again for a proper date.  It will also give the guy a chance to relax a little for the real date since he already met you and can be more himself. 

It could be worse, you could have an empty inbox on the site right?

Lost

[Wiseman2]

Date whoever you want. You're not serious and just enjoying casual chitchat about exes and casual dating.

There's no need for them to be available or divorced because none of this will lead anywhere anyway.

Why? Because you're the rate limiting factor. You want to date around.

Why repeat the drudgery of the type of marriage you had when you can have fun, discuss exes, be a social butterfly etc.

No need for analysis paralysis here. This type of dating is all about light and fluffy.  Even though you have "deep"  talks and marathon dates.

 

[Jibralta]

8 hours ago, Hora said:

I  strongly disagree with the idea of putting everyone in the same basket.

But aren't these 'baskets?'

8 hours ago, Hora said:

• I will not consider dating anyone that has not had at the very minimum a 7-year relationship, and by that I mean, has lived with that person for that period of time.
• I would absolutely not date anyone that has made it to their 40s and has never had a serious relationship.
• I would prioritize for that person to have been married before, preferably to have children of their own: i.e. to be the type that can actually commit to someone. 
• I am very suspicious of the perpetually single.
• I am also very suspicious of the men my age who do not have children. I have been there and they ALL want kids. And try to talk me into have "just one more". 

It just seems like you don't agree with the 'separation phases' basket. 

[Batya33]

11 hours ago, Rose Mosse said:

Not necessarily. We can agree to disagree. They can very well date and do. A lot of the sentiments shared and the general consensus to be very wary and generally steer clear/tread with caution I completely agree with. I married someone and divorced the same person as the second wife. We met when he was separated, as previously stated. I can write you a book of why it's not a good idea to get seriously involved with a separated individual who hasn't finalized a divorce. 

What I won't get behind are broad generalizations of what people can't and can do, who is available and who isn't based on given life circumstances. If someone isn't your cup of tea (hypothetical "you" here) then you are also free to walk away based on what you're looking for in a relationship.

This was the position of my ex as well and I refused. I also let him know that he had an amount of time to get his side of things arranged because a large part of what you talked about came from me.

If it's over, it's completely over. I'm in Canada also.

 

Well no by definition a married person is not allowed to date if the married person is acting consistent with the marriage vows.  Now of course I might have dinner with a male friend and some might call that a "date" that is inconsistent with marital vows.  I'm talking about dating with a romantic intention on both sides -going on a date.  Married people might date but if they are they are breaking their vows -that is what I meant.  Married people "aren't permitted" to date.  If they go on dates - they are cheating or at least acting inconsistent with their marital vows. If a single person goes on a date with another single person they can.  Also a married person by definition is unavailable to get engaged to someone else in the official sense of "ready to marry" because that person cannot legally marry until after a final divorce.

I found Dr. Joy's advice generalizations about the unavailability of still married (separated) people and newly divorced people extremely apt and helpful - so many people called in to challenge it and so many people called in to  thank her for that rule.  

Certainly I only dated people who were my cup of tea.  But if a married/separated person wanted to date me that person would be cheating on his marriage by going on a date with me with romantic intentions.  So that's beyond cup of tea -that's a person who's telling me up front he justifies cheating on a spouse. And if he lied about being legally divorced it was also the lie -not just "oh you know I prefer to date people who like to hike".  I preferred to date people who were legally single.  Because I wanted marriage and family, for one thing. 

A person who doesn't want marriage and family and wants to go on dates casually while they are still married can find a person who is ok with justifying adultery/cheating.  But the person who is married is by definition not permitted to date and keep his or her marital vows.  That person can get divorced and then be permitted to date.

[Rose Mosse]

1 hour ago, Batya33 said:

Well no by definition a married person is not allowed to date if the married person is acting consistent with the marriage vows.  Now of course I might have dinner with a male friend and some might call that a "date" that is inconsistent with marital vows.  I'm talking about dating with a romantic intention on both sides -going on a date.  Married people might date but if they are they are breaking their vows -that is what I meant.  Married people "aren't permitted" to date.  If they go on dates - they are cheating or at least acting inconsistent with their marital vows. If a single person goes on a date with another single person they can.  Also a married person by definition is unavailable to get engaged to someone else in the official sense of "ready to marry" because that person cannot legally marry until after a final divorce.

I found Dr. Joy's advice generalizations about the unavailability of still married (separated) people and newly divorced people extremely apt and helpful - so many people called in to challenge it and so many people called in to  thank her for that rule.  

Certainly I only dated people who were my cup of tea.  But if a married/separated person wanted to date me that person would be cheating on his marriage by going on a date with me with romantic intentions.  So that's beyond cup of tea -that's a person who's telling me up front he justifies cheating on a spouse. And if he lied about being legally divorced it was also the lie -not just "oh you know I prefer to date people who like to hike".  I preferred to date people who were legally single.  Because I wanted marriage and family, for one thing. 

A person who doesn't want marriage and family and wants to go on dates casually while they are still married can find a person who is ok with justifying adultery/cheating.  But the person who is married is by definition not permitted to date and keep his or her marital vows.  That person can get divorced and then be permitted to date.

Yes, I agree with this in theory but disagree with the adultery/cheating/broken vows assessment. Broken vows could have been broken many years ago when someone already went out on the marriage and broken vows manifest in abusive relationships.

There are very strong links there (in those words) to religion and institutionalized versions of what marriage should be that not everyone will agree with and find quite offensive and not exactly accurate to their situation. Of course I respect your stance on it. I used to think like this but will not use my beliefs or what my origins in religion might be to immediately think of someone who is dating while separated as cheating or breaking vows. 

People do date for different reasons and not everyone will have similar expectations in a long term relationship. 

 

 

[Hora]

@lostandhurt I completely agree with everything that you say. For me the actual official "status" of their separation matters less than their emotional state and their readiness to move into a new relationship. I want someone that is emotionally available, and willing to consider a long-term relationship. I think that the official marital status is much less of a factor here than everyone believes. I remember dating in my 20s, and running into a ton of emotionally unavailable men, and none of these were "still married". 

Personally, if someone is still legally married for some practical reason (like insurance etc.) I couldn't care less if he is otherwise completely over the relationship, and there isn't some big arguments and drama with the ex. As much as I am looking for a long-term commitment and hopefully someone to grow old with down the road (I don't want to do this dating thing forever. I really don't enjoy it that much. Contrary to what Wiseman2 seems to think, I don't enjoy dating around at all, I have no interest in anything casual, and I'm not the kind of socially butterfly-y person). 

That being said, dating with children is a whole different ball game. I don't live in a huge city, but big enough that there are many different neighbourhoods and schools. Now, dating with young children makes it so that realistically I wouldn't be able to move for another 6 years at the very least, because otherwise kids would have to change schools, or I would have a crazy commute brining them to school. And I presume anyone I would be dating would have the same issue with his kids. This is just a reality of being a single parent. In that sense, I feel that I have realistic expectations by looking for someone that is willing to have a long-term relationship, but also be understanding and accommodating of each other's family situations. I wouldn't mind getting married again at some point down the road, but unlike Batya33's story (which totally makes sense. I 100% get it), I'm 43 years old, I've had the kids. I am not desperately looking for someone to marry and start a family. I'm also not in a situation where moving in sooner than later would be convenient for financial reasons (like in my 20s with my ex husband when we were both students and broke). I have my house, my job, my car, my savings. I don't need anyone in my life for any specific reasons, for things I can't do or afford on my own. I want someone in my life for connection and companionship.

That being said, @lostandhurtI agree with your assessment of the last guy. I think I love great in-depth conversations so much that it makes me sometimes loose sight of other factors. It is as you say a learning process, and everyone's comments have been helpful in identifying some areas where I seem to be a little too blind, and keep an eye open for those things. That being said, going on a second date with someone doesn't mean I'm going to marry them or not keep my options open and continue dating other people. 

And yes, it could be worse, and I could have an empty inbox. Which is a blessing and a curse to be honest. A blessing because I do have the luxury of being more selective (although you all seem to think I'm not selective enough! haha). A curse because there is a lot of interest. This has two issues:

1) The FOMO thing. I am not generally speaking someone that is afflicted with FOMO, but then you go on a date that was great and someone interesting messages you, I can't help but go "hun".

2) And this is probably more the issue. About 90% of dates I go on, the guy turns out to be super interested. Oftentimes they'll send me those lengthy texts of praise, and say they can't wait to see me again. It kind of sucks me in if that makes any sense. It makes them sweet and likeable. To be clear though, I will not go on a second date if I felt no attraction whatsoever. But I will if there was some sparks or interest. And it does seem that is where my weakness is and where I need to be more careful.

All that being said, I'm going on a coffee date actually with another guy on Sunday. For those who thought I wasn't taking notes, I was! So, this guy is not divorced, but he's been separated since over a year. His divorce papers have been sent off. And, listen to this guys, he said that he didn't want to start dating until he filed for divorce, just to give himself that time to adjust to his new circumstances, navigate the kids through their new circumstances and make sure they are well adjusted, and take some time to reflect on what went wrong with his marriage and how he can avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Only problem is that our schedules with the kids are at polar opposites, and we could only see each other with the help of baby sitters. But I decided to go with step one of meeting, and then seeing from there how much of an issue the scheduling is. Don't need to necessarily jump ahead. 

[Hora]

5 minutes ago, Rose Mosse said:

Yes, I agree with this in theory but disagree with the adultery/cheating/broken vows assessment. Broken vows could have been broken many years ago when someone already went out on the marriage and broken vows manifest in abusive relationships.

There are very strong links there (in those words) to religion and institutionalized versions of what marriage should be that not everyone will agree with and find quite offensive and not exactly accurate to their situation. Of course I respect your stance on it. I used to think like this but will not use my beliefs or what my origins in religion might be to immediately think of someone who is dating while separated as cheating or breaking vows. 

People do date for different reasons and not everyone will have similar expectations in a long term relationship. 

 

 

I completely agree with this comment. I'm a hardcore atheist, and don't really believe in the "institution of marriage". I honestly don't see any necessity to get married at all. Common-law is perfectly acceptable. The only reason I even got married to my ex-husband was for immigration purposes. He was American, and at the end of his studies would not have been able to stay in Canada unless I sponsored him. We tried going to not marriage route of sponsorship, but the paperwork was immense and difficult, while if you were married it was such an easy application (and much much faster). So we went to Town Hall one morning, signed papers and went back to bed. We didn't have a wedding. It was just a paper. 

[Batya33]

2 hours ago, Rose Mosse said:

Yes, I agree with this in theory but disagree with the adultery/cheating/broken vows assessment. Broken vows could have been broken many years ago when someone already went out on the marriage and broken vows manifest in abusive relationships.

There are very strong links there (in those words) to religion and institutionalized versions of what marriage should be that not everyone will agree with and find quite offensive and not exactly accurate to their situation. Of course I respect your stance on it. I used to think like this but will not use my beliefs or what my origins in religion might be to immediately think of someone who is dating while separated as cheating or breaking vows. 

People do date for different reasons and not everyone will have similar expectations in a long term relationship. 

 

 

People who are legally married are not allowed to date.  That's all I wrote.  I don't see any difference between official and emotional status.  That's just like saying marriage is only a piece of paper.  I don't know many people who would like if someone said their marriage was just an official status/piece of paper.  Or to date someone who said their marriage was just a piece of paper the whole time so now they're ready to date.  I refer you to Dr Joy Browne's advice and input if you're interested -nothing to do with religion. Everything to do with how seeing it as only a legal/financial status is with almost no exception -wrong thinking about the toll it takes to separate/be newly divorced.  I always thought her advice was brilliant on this point.

If someone is offended by me saying that married people are not allowed to date that's fine - to me it's the basic marriage vow/common sense.  Someone who is separated is still legally married.  

[Hora]

@Batya33 I don't think that anyone is offended by what you're saying. I think what Rose Mosse was trying to say is that your view/opinion of marriage is very specific, but not one that everyone necessarily shares. It's like believing in God: some people do and some don't. There's no right or wrong in this, it's just a belief.