The Vow Series: FOR BETTER, FOR WORSE

This second (and last?) essay part isn't starting out the way I thought it was, but the tagline still fit.

I touched on it in the HONOR essay, but missed the most common reason we're tempted to break vows.

    The temptation grows to ignore the faults, avoid the spouse's company where the actions or lack thereof should be justified or softened. The need to hold one's tongue borders on the unbearable.

    Acceptance of minor faults can mask impatience with faults deemed untenable. Communication can be seen as futile and efforts wasted. A careful monitoring of the situation may be required to await opportunities for escape from an entrenched concern. Navigating communication that constantly emphasizes silver linings and hope to avoid cynicism could make the vow of "honor" the most challenging one for some uneven marriages.


In that essay, the faults being accommodated and excused while silver linings receive a bright spotlight are covering up behaviors society witnesses.

The big, honking reason for the "for Worse" vows isn't always seen by the public. Often, the worst of one's spouse is not seen by anyone else. An important fraction of the time, that is by design.

Mistreatment behind closed doors should readily spring to mind as the "for worse" part of the vows and surely does for those that suffer at home. Physical abuse is a reason a great many of us will cheer on and cheer up a spouse that leaves the presence of an abuser when the vows to love, honor, and cherish are pulverized. 

In other essays I speak of varying degrees of treatment and commitment. What is a deal-breaker, what should be endured? What dictates each side of that decision?

The most socially accepted reason to leave a marriage is physical abuse. It commonly elicits reactions to the effect of: "Oh! Well, of course! Good for you!"

A single slap? Followed by a mortified apology and promise of no recurrence?
Stinging flick of the finger against the ear?
Beating with a rod no thicker than your thumb?

I could see a beaten spouse (usually wife, but let's not leave out the battered husbands out there) calling it quits for any of those, but lord knows a lot of spouses receive the third option and stick around anyway. The breaking point is going to be subjective, clearly.

If some spouses will try to work out physical abuse issues, who can be surprised by the goal of resolving verbal or mental abuse issues. How much easier to rationalize those offenses that society condemns less often or harshly?

How does one protect oneself from the frog in boiling water problem? (a quick aside, in an essay about this myth, someone suggested carbon monoxide poisoning. People can ignore the headaches and nausea of low levels of carbon monoxide, mistaking them for illness, then die in their bed, but coming into a room full of carbon monoxide will tell you something is wrong instantly, if you don't pass out immediately.)

Some spouses are brought up to believe, or witness other victims and tell themselves, hitting even once is the end of things. There may been wiggle room after that, but the initial red line reinforced over a long period can strengthen resolve to find teh third incident more than reasonable, having given the person more leeway than they deserved.
The opposite upbringing can have a spouse put up with substantial pain and actual bodily harm yet never consider leaving. After all, their role models may have had it so much worse.

Yet, here we have the vow. "FOR WORSE"
How much worse?
As stated previously, if a lawyer looked at our vows, he'd be disbarred if he didn't insist on making that little phrase a bit more specific.

I'm not out to suggest a limit. The person leaving for the single slap need not be told to tough it out until a bone gets broken.
Similarly, a thoughtless remark about how careless a haircut is may not compare with relentless degradation of self-esteem.
Yet, how many of us would see the single verbal slap as thin gruel on which to base a divorce?

Similarly black-and-white to the physical abuse is the condition of fidelity. A single, unsolicited, drunken tryst after a mandatory office Christmas party can break a marriage of fifty years duration. 
Or a disgruntled wife may tolerate the mistress for thirty years for reasons of her own.

A problem seldom spoken of, for it could endanger HONOR to speak of it, is physical intimacy.
So seldom spoken and out of teh public eye is it that I've not heard of any degree to which anyone was ever given a pass for their divorce

A divorce explanation of "We didn't have sex for 3 weeks/five months/ten years!" is thoroughly unlikely to be met with "Oh! Well, of course! Good for you!" as a response.

Unless your spouse is gay. The reason for intimate starvation appears to matter a great deal.
On the other hand, if you are celibate because your spouse is paralyzed, there are some (many) who would harshly criticize you. After all, you're breaking your vow to love, honor, and cherish in SICKNESS, aren't you?
Degrade that a little to menopause as a medical reason, and the harshness seems largely intact. Inevitable, blameless incapacity is largely expected to be endured. (though effort to remedy obstacles to intimacy can vary widely)
Drop a few rungs on the ladder to absence of libido, and while some sympathy to the refused may slip in, divorce is likely to be seen as a desperate grasp of the superficial among us; a sign of a reprehensible lack of commitment.

What of the opposite side of society's (my) fervor for keeping vows?
As much sympathy as I have for refused spouses, is there a point where we can objectively cry foul when divorce is announced due to frigidity demonstrated by coupling only daily? Complaints that the meatloaf is dry? Leaving a single dirty fork in the sink?

One person's tolerable annoyance can go beyond another person's WORSE, and how can we pin down a person's right to feel ill-used?
Behind this uncomfortable inability to determine fault or cause behind many divorces, perhaps we find the adoration for infidelity or physical abuse as gold standards for reasons?
A spouse was hit, or they weren't.
A spouse was faithful, or they weren't.

So comforting, so concrete, so satisfying to stand firm with the wronged spouse that files papers...

...and how high a standard to hold for those who are miserable, but must decide for themselves, if they are miserable "enough".

Perhaps what's needed are some of those red lines so clear to some spouses before the marriage takes place?

If you've been without sex a whole week, do you take measures after a month or two?
If a month or two, do you mark the anniversary with paperwork or logging on OKcupid?
If you're at the two year mark, do you start a college plan?

 
If you're on the receiving end of constant criticism, do you demand a compliment for every three gripes?
Are you out of there if she doesn't help don't $300 off the credit card bill each month?
Do you meet with that divorce lawyer if you go another week without a single dish in the dishwasher?
Do you need to see her make a box of wine last longer than two days?

Some of these straws on camel's backs may seem petty. I didn't spend much time on them.
Perhaps if readers are saying "Oh, lordy, if only the problems were that minor!" they might feel better about setting their very realistic expectations and sticking to them if the spouse blows right past them.

The idea is to decide what's utterly insufferable before you actually experience it, and remember your commitment to respecting your rights to vows being kept to the minimum degree you once told yourself was rock bottom.

NEXT: For Richer, For Poorer