The most disgusting wedding announcement ever:

Ruchel

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 1:13 pm

I understand and agree with Marina that saying "oh ok, I'll stay... for the kids/until the kids are out" is VERY vexing.

While an intact family is best (obviously), if one parent is in "love" enough to leave, even if s/he stays s/he'll probably be "absent" in mind at best, and at worst neglecting and resentful. Someone 100% committed to make THIS family work will not befriend someone he is beginning to fall for.

chavamom

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 1:14 pm

marina wrote:

chavamom wrote:

You make "falling in love" seem like some accident in the parking lot. Puhleeze. And I'm with the "if you believe they didn't have an affair, I've got a bridge to sell you...." I think the fact that they had to state that in the NYT was a CYA move so the neighbors will curb their tongues if I ever heard one.

It wouldn't matter to me if it was an accident in the parking lot or a premeditated hit and run.

Seeing as there will always be someone more attractive than all of us, I think it's a sad commentary that anyone would think it's ok to ditch a spouse and run off with the more appealing person. If Brad Pitt did teshuva tomorrow and showed up on my doorstep, I wouldn't be giving my husband the yo-heave-ho.

marina

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 1:15 pm

kitov wrote:

marina wrote:

eh, for crying out loud, it's good they didn't cheat. Also if my husband fell in love with another woman I wouldn't want him to stay out of some obligation to the kids, that's so offensive.

Just wondering, would you be hurt personally, and would you not feel bad for the kids for the destruction of their life living in an intact marriage?

Of course I'd be personally hurt, but it would be worse if they'd had an affair and were sneaking around for years. And kids are generally resilient.

chocolate moose

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 1:18 pm

chavamom wrote:

Seeing as there will always be someone more attractive than all of us, I think it's a sad commentary that anyone would think it's ok to ditch a spouse and run off with the more appealing person.

When I find the black bracelet I'm looking for, for example, or the right sized frying pan; I STOP SHOPPING. KWIM ?

marina

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 1:36 pm

chavamom wrote:

How about "it would have been better if they decided that their friendship was inappropriate and decided to work on their marriages".

"Kids are generally resillient". Yes, to a point. But don't kid yourself that kids aren't damaged by their parents divorce.

Sure, there's always ways it can be better. It would be better if that crazy husband of amother's in the other thread would get an education about birth control and post partum depression. It would be great if the other couples in the shalom bayis forum wouldn't fight over stupid things or wouldn't call each other names. How about that agunah in Baltimore? It would be better if he gave her a get and if she let him see his kid. Or it would have been better had they not divorced in the first place. There's lots of ways anything can be better. Two people deciding to divorce their partners to go off with each other doesn't really make the "disgusting vomiting" list for me, but if it does for you, that's fine.

To what extent kids are affected by a divorce depends on many factors, none of which we know about the couples in this case. No reason to make general assumptions.

marina

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 1:39 pm

Quote:

I don't think I ( or anyone else for that matter) said it was okay. It's not morally right, but there are many worse things. Sorry you misunderstood.

shabbatiscoming

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 1:48 pm

bubby wrote:

No standards, no shame, no morals. Read the letter in this week's Jewish Press to Gary Neumann (sorry, can't scan or link.) It happens so "innocently" & the Jewish world, even the frum world, is not immune.

Yes, it does happen innocently. Unfortunately I knew a frum woman and man who fell in love even though the woman was married with children. She left her marriage and lets just say that the children were effected big time (and they were not so small either)

The frum world is not immune to any of this world's bad things.

chavamom

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 1:51 pm

marina wrote:

chavamom wrote:

I'm really not sure what your point is. It's not just "it would be better", but amother's husband SHOULD get educated about birth control and postpartum depression, the husband SHOULD give his wife a get - in fact, the other options are also pretty vomitrocious also. But two people deciding that life is like a made for TV movie and their husband's best friend is really their "soulmate" and they should celebrate their total lack of commitment to their marriage in the pages of the NYT is just "oh, ho hum, what's on page 2?" Like chocolatemoose said, when you find what you are looking for, you stop shopping. So next week when someone else comes along....oh right, we'll get to read the "excuse of the day" in the wedding announcements in the NYT.

sarahd

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 2:16 pm

marina wrote:

chavamom wrote:

What makes the vomit list for me is the lack of shame and discretion they show in publicizing what they did. You decide you need to break up two marriages and two stable homes - that's your decision. But to be so proud about what you did that you make a public celebration out of it - that's disgusting.

DrMom

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 3:02 pm

I suppose the things which strikes me as most disconcerting is that this is the featured wedding in the New York Times. There is (used to be) a certain status acociated with these announcements. The featured couples were once regarded as ideal couples, couples whom readers strive to be like. They have rich parents and graduate phi-beta-kappa from prestigious universities and have glamorous careers and fabulous weddings and go on have rich, beautiful, privileged children.

This is what secular society idealizes? Two people who cheat on their spouses, break up their families, hurt their children, and gush in public about it? Afo ha busha? It just seems tasteless....

nylon

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 4:36 pm

Judging by the comments, the secular world doesn't approve all that much.

I'm not a believer in staying together "for the kids", although finalizing a divorce and remarrying in the same year is very quick and I'm not sure it's a good idea (most of the secular advice I've seen on step-parenting emphasizes taking things slowly). For their sake, though, the couple shouldn't have broadcast it in the NYT style section for everyone in town to know.

I don't think the way they handled things was very fair on their children.

IloveHashem613

Sun, Dec 19 2010, 7:33 pm

I didn't read all the responses but my first reaction after reading this wedding announcement was to think how can these two people now trust eachother? Meaning to say that if they were both so okay with the other one ditching their spouses and leaving their marriage based on a "feeling", how do they both know that it won't happen again and one of them won't leave the second marriage because he or she just "innocently fell in love with someone else again, woops". It's just so sad...

ValleyMom

Mon, Dec 20 2010, 10:46 am

Society deems this acceptable these days???

These truly are the days before Moshiach arrives.

Pack your bags ladies and prepare yourself--It clearly says when the world is completely turned upside down then... Moshiach will arrive...

How THAT GARBAGE could make "news" in a reputable newspaper is beyond unfathomable.

Please excuse me while I quietly swallow down the bile that is pooling in my mouth UGH!

saw50st8

Mon, Dec 20 2010, 10:48 am

I recently read a book ("Wedding in November" by Anita Shreve) that was basically a story where almost everyone was cheating, thinking about cheating or had cheated on their spouse. All under the guise of a wedding plot.

It was rather disturbing.

But I do think I would rather my husband leave than pine for his love that he can't be with, especially if he's going to cheat on me.