Jim Duzak's Quote & Comment

Announcing a Contest!

2009-07-15T09:41:00.000-07:00

Do you need relationship advice? Would you like to win a prize? Well, you came to the right place!

Beginning August 1, 2009, I'm going to be writing a weekly advice column. I'll be answering questions from readers struggling with issues concerning marriage, divorce, post-divorce dating, and men-women relationships in general. Time permitting, I will try to answer each question individually and privately, but I will publish the best question submitted each week, along with my response, in the column.

What constitutes the "best" question? Well, I guess I have to say I'll know it when I see it! In general, I'm looking for questions that a reader in the 35-to-65 age group would find interesting and relevant.

To jump-start the process, I'll be giving an autographed copy of my book, "Mid-Life Divorce and the Rebirth of Commitment", to the first ten people who submit questions that I use in the column.

All you need to do is to send an e-mail with your question to jim@attorneyatlove.com. The more information you include, the easier it will be for me to understand your situation, but I may edit the published version for space considerations, as well as for spelling and grammar. I will not publish any identifying information about you but, if you want to be eligible for a prize, you will of course have to give me your complete mailing address, with zip code.

Initially, the questions and answers will be published in this blog space, but eventually I expect to have a separate site devoted to them.

So, if you've got an issue that's been bothering you, tell me about it. I may be able to help. And maybe reading my book will help you even more.

I look forward to hearing from you.
Jim

P.S.---Although I am an attorney (licensed in Massachusetts only), any advice I may give in connection with this column is NOT intended to be legal advice, and should not be relied on as such. If you have a specific legal question or problem, please consult a qualified attorney in your home state.

R.I.P.: Steve McNair and Sahel Kazemi

2009-07-10T14:20:00.000-07:00

"Never go to bed with a woman who has more problems than you do."
(Nelson Algren, American novelist)

"You play around, you lose your wife,
You play too long, you lose your life."
(From the country song, "Good Time Charley's Got the Blues")

The recent murder-suicide deaths of former NFL quarterback Steve McNair and his twenty-year old girlfriend, Sahel Kazemi, have put me in a pretty depressed mood the past week. I had followed McNair's career from the early '90's, when he was compiling sensational passing records at tiny Alcorn State University, to his retirement a couple of years ago from the Tennessee Titans. Like most football fans, I admired not only his skills but also his toughness. McNair would "play hurt", as they say, unlike so many players of today who will nurse an injury forever rather than jeopardize their future earning capacity. And, from what I had heard, he always gave back to the community in ways large and small.

McNair was also known as a great family man. He married his college sweetheart, Mechelle, who became a nurse and was by all accounts a wonderful wife to McNair and wonderful mother to their four kids. Even though injuries finally forced McNair to retire from football a bit prematurely at age 34, the family was financially set for life. As a player, McNair hadn't squandered his money on Ferraris or thirty-room mansions; he and Mechelle lived an upscale, but not flamboyant, lifestyle, and their kids' needs always seemed to come first.

Or so it seemed.

It turns out that, apparently unbeknownst to Mechelle, Steve McNair was living a double life. At some point, he and a buddy of his purchased a condo in Nashville to entertain women. One of those women was Sahel Kazemi. Ms. Kazemi's friends and family members say she was outgoing and fun in public, but subject to severe mood swings. Her mother was murdered when Kazemi was nine years old, after which she lived with a variety of relatives before setting out on her own in her late teens. At the time she met McNair, she was struggling to support herself as a waitress, and she was reportedly overwhelmed by the attention, the gifts, and the romance that soon followed.

For several months, McNair and Kazemi were seeing each other three or four times a week in Nashville, and sometimes flying off together for beach vacations. He bought her a Cadillac Escalade, although, inexplicably, he put the title in both of their names. According to her close friends, he told her he was going to get divorced and marry her. She wanted to believe him---she did believe him---until the night she arrived early at McNair's condo and saw another young woman hastily leaving.

We'll never know what, if anything, she and McNair said to each other after that, but within a day or so Kazemi had managed to buy a 9 mm. pistol for $100 from a guy in a parking lot, the same pistol she used to pump four bullets into McNair before she put one into her own brain.

So, is this yet another story of a guy with money who thinks he can play around and never get caught? Maybe. And is it yet another story of an emotionally-fragile young woman who will believe what she wants to believe, and then totally freak out when she learns the truth? Maybe. But it's also a story of a loving wife who, perhaps, trusted too much. And it's a story of four little kids who once had a father and now just have some memories.

It's all so sad, and so unnecessary.

The Governor's Love Story

2009-06-29T15:58:00.000-07:00

"Yeah, he's got it bad. It's obvious he has a head-over-heels crush on that woman."
(Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage: A History", referring to South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and his Argentine lover, Maria Belen Chapur)

I've said several times over the years that this is not a political blog, but it seems that I'm always writing about politicians and their extramarital adventures. It would be hard not to say something about Governor Mark Sanford, whose rather amazing story has been front-page news for the past week, and which promises to drag on for some time. But I'm not interested in discussing his hypocrisy, or his irresponsibility (both to his family and to the citizens of his state), or his use of public funds to carry on the affair---I'll leave all that to the real political bloggers.

Instead, I want to comment on two aspects of the situation that distinguish it from other political sex scandals. The first is that the governor's wife has been quite vocal in expressing her displeasure with her husband's behavior, and has by no means indicated that she can or will forgive him or take him back. In my last blog entry, I mentioned that Nevada Senator John Ensign's wife was conspicuously absent when he publicly confessed his affair, but otherwise Mrs. Ensign has remained in the background. By contrast, Mrs. Sanford hasn't hesitated to speak to reporters and camera crews, even from the driver's seat of her minivan with her kids in the back seat listening to every word.

Could it be that the era of the loyal-to-a-fault political wife has finally (and mercifully) come to an end?

The other fascinating aspect of the Sanford case is that this was not a fling with a young or ambitious campaign aide, or a two-hour hotel room tryst with a prostitute. It was---and perhaps still is---a real love affair. A love affair that (supposedly) began as a long and genuine friendship, with a woman who, by all accounts, is a woman of intelligence, sophistication, and class. I'm not, by the way, implying that Mrs. Sanford doesn't have those same qualities---she definitely does, as far as I can tell, and she's good-looking, too. But when such qualities are combined with a charming foreign accent, and when the new woman seems to be on your wavelength in every way, common sense goes out the window and a man starts thinking, saying, and doing things he never dreamed possible.

To me, what makes Governor Sanford a fascinating figure is that he knew that he was risking everything---his wife, his kids, his career---when he flew down to Argentina the most recent time. He had to have known that his unexplained absence would spark widespread media coverage. He had to have known that the truth would come out quickly and relentlessly, and that the repercussions would be severe. It's as if he had a death wish. Most other straying politicians undoubtedly knew, at some level, that they were taking a big risk, but they were typically so arrogant that they never considered that they might get caught. Governor Sanford was not so much arrogant as he was fatalistic; he was determined to do what he needed to do, and let the chips fall as they may.

I'm not saying I admire the guy, but I am saying I find him interesting, complex, even tragic. Although he's a man, in one big respect he's like many of the tragic heroines of literature and film: he was willing to risk everything for an impossible love. It will be interesting to see how the story ends, but one thing is clear: the lives of everyone involved will never be the same again. But I guess that's always been the case with love.

What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas? Not This Time!

2009-06-20T16:24:00.000-07:00

"Rattled, humbled, and alone at the podium, Sen. Ensign acknowledged to reporters an extramarital affair, the sort of moral failing he's criticized in the past."
(From a June 18 Associated Press story)

In a story that seems all-too-familiar, Nevada Senator John Ensign finds himself in a mess this week, his political future sinking faster than a drunk's bankroll in a Las Vegas casino.

I'll leave to others the condemnation of Senator Ensign's hypocrisy (apparently, he's been a critic of politically-prominent adulterers and a staunch defender of "family values"), but there are other aspects of this situation I find interesting. For one thing, his wife was not at his side when he faced the press. We've gotten so used to that loyal-wife-with-frozen-smile performance that we seem to have forgotten that political wives at least can be real people, not some prop for a staged press conference.

To the best of my knowledge, Mrs. Ensign has not publicly commented on the case, but her silence seems to say: "You can twist in the wind by yourself, Johnny Boy." Good for her! And good for all of us who have gotten tired of political wives being victimized a second time by being pressured to feign forgiveness and support when their world has just come undone.

I also find it intriguing that the woman Senator Ensign had the affair with, Cynthia Hampton, was the wife of his long-time top assistant, Doug Hampton, and that the two couples and their children had socialized together for years in their Las Vegas neighborhood. Obviously, familiarity can breed attraction as well as contempt, but how stupid can you be? If you're determined to have sex outside your marriage, don't do it right under the nose of your spouse. And even if you're willing to risk jeopardizing your marriage, don't also jeopardize your friendships and professional relationships.

Senator Ensign's stupidity continued even after the affair ended. Apparently, he used political campaign funds, which are closely regulated by Federal law, to try to keep Doug Hampton from going public about the affair once he found out. Whether Mr. Hampton had demanded a payout as a form of extortion is something that will undoubtedly be revealed in the weeks ahead. But the fact remains that Senator Ensign compounded his problems by inviting scrutiny of his campaign accounts, something that may lead to a criminal prosecution.

I said in my book that I'm a moral relativist when it comes to adultery, and what I mean by that is that I can sometimes sympathize with a person's temptation to have an affair, especially if he or she is in a truly unhappy marriage. I don't recommend giving in to the temptation, however, because an affair is not the best way to get what's missing in your marriage, and affairs tend to end badly. Sometimes very badly, as Senator Ensign is now finding out.

Breaking the Code

2009-04-11T11:38:00.000-07:00

"Only about ten percent of the profiles contained out-and-out lies. But nearly ninety percent had exaggerations or evidence of delusional thinking."
(From an article in Online Dating News)

Although I encourage mid-life singles to give online dating a fair try, I stress that, on dating sites, what you read is not always what you get. In fact, even what you see is not always what you get, given the prevalence of photos showing someone when he or she was ten years younger or fifty pounds slimmer.

Most experienced online daters have developed a sixth sense about the veracity of claims made in member profiles, and are wary of vague-sounding terms like "attractive", "youthful-looking", and "height-weight proportionate." But for those who are just starting out in the world of online dating, I thought I'd offer my own take on what certain words or expressions might actually mean. We'll call it breaking the online code.

"Outgoing and fun" (Translation: Never shuts up)
"Intellectual interests and a quirky sense of humor" (Translation: Weird, neurotic, high maintenance)
"A young 55" (Translation: Might pass for 54 on a good day)
"Successful business owner" (Translation: Owns two taco stands, one of which is in foreclosure)
"Adventurous, will try anything once" (Translation: You'll be the third guy she takes to bed this week)
"Athletic build" (Translation: Yeah, if your sport is sumo wrestling)
"Attentive and Affectionate" (Translation: His hands will be all over you in the first five minutes)
"Let's meet for lunch" (Translation: Married)
"A few extra pounds" (Translation: A few extra pounds on top of many extra pounds)
"Seeking soulmate" (Translation: There's gotta be someone out there who can tolerate me)
"Commitment-minded" (Translation: Potential stalker)
"Friends first" (Translation: Hell will freeze over before I have sex with you)
"Will relocate for the right person" (Translation: Broke, unemployed, and facing eviction)
"Must love animals" (Translation: Known in her neighborhood as the crazy cat lady)
"Loves travel and fine dining" (Translation: If you're paying)
"Recently divorced" (Translation: Bitter and vindictive. All you'll talk about is the ex)
"Your pic gets mine" (Translation: I have a better chance if you don't know what I look like)
"New to online dating" (Translation: Just joined this site, but failed miserably on ten previous ones)
"Ready to finally settle down" (Translation: Can't get it up any more and nearly at death's door. Hoping someone will take him out of pity)

OK, I'm just kidding. But please do exercise a degree of skepticism when you browse the profiles. And try to meet a promising-sounding match in person at the earliest opportunity. There's nothing funny about wasting weeks or months corresponding with a person who's clearly wrong for you.

When $43,000,000 Just Won't Cut It

2009-03-19T17:30:00.000-07:00

"I can't live on forty-three million dollars."
(Marie Douglas-David, testifying in her divorce trial in Hartford, Connecticut)

Described in the newspapers as a "36 year-old Swedish countess", Marie Douglas-Davis is in the process of getting a divorce from her husband, 67 year old George David, former CEO of United Technologies Corp. and (for now, anyway) a very wealthy man. How wealthy he'll be after the divorce, however, is very much up for grabs.

Although the couple has been married only since 2002, the marriage has reportedly been troubled since at least 2004, with each party accusing the other of multiple affairs. In 2005, after a series of separations and reconciliations, the couple signed a "postnuptial agreement", which provided that, should there be a divorce, Marie would get a lump-sum payment of forty-three million dollars from George, in lieu of alimony, real estate, or any other property.

Now, four years later, Marie wants the court to declare the agreement null and void. She claims she was coerced into signing it, and claims that the lump-sum amount is "embarrassingly small" in light of her husband's reported $329 million net worth. She now wants $100 million up front, plus $150,000 a month in alimony.

Although the case is in the news because of the outrageous financial statements that have been filed (among other things, Marie says she spends a minimum of $4,500 a week on clothing and $8,700 a week on travel expenses and limousine rides), I'm writing about it here because of the postnuptial agreement issue.

Postnuptial agreements are a lot less common than prenuptial agreements, and they're not recognized by statute everywhere, but they are coming into the mainstream of American family law. In essence, postnuptial agreements are prenuptial agreements entered-into after the wedding date, not before it. In the states where they are legally recognized, postnuptial agreements can address any and all of the issues that are addressed in prenuptial agreements, most notably property division and alimony in the event of divorce.

Like a prenuptial agreement, a postnuptial agreement allows a husband and wife to, in a sense, make their own law. For example, the agreement may specify that the wife shall receive alimony, even if she wouldn't normally qualify for it under her state's divorce laws. Or, the agreement may say that the parties will split their property or apportion their debts in a way that would not normally be ordered by the divorce court. The only exceptions are in the areas of child custody, support, and visitation, where the court will always consider the best interests of the child or children, and never rubber-stamp an agreement made in advance by the husband and wife. But, aside from issues involving the kids, just about everything else will be approved by the court in a state that recognizes postnuptial agreements.

So, how can Marie try to invalidate an agreement that she, herself, not only signed but had her own lawyer review? Her only hope---and, according to Connecticut legal experts, it's a very slim one---is to convince the judge that she signed it when she was "emotionally vulnerable" and not thinking straight. As she puts it, "What rational person would voluntarily accept a mere $43 million from a man worth over $300 million?"

Well, call me irrational, but I think $43 million after a seven year, childless marriage is not a bad deal. In fact, by trying to invalidate the agreement Marie is creating the possibility that the judge might invalidate the agreement and then award her less than the amount she would have gotten if the agreement had been enforced. It happens. I don't give legal advice in this column, but if I did it would be simple: take the money and run. And if you don't like to run, take a limo ride. $43 million will buy a lot of them.

Announcing "Relationship Radio"

2009-02-22T15:42:00.000-08:00

Dear Friends:

Instead of my usual "Quote & Comment" article, I'd like to announce that "Relationship Radio with Jim Duzak" is about to debut on a computer near you.

The show will be broadcast live each Friday at 2:00PM Pacific time (5:00PM Eastern time), beginning March 6, 2009, on the Voice America Internet network (http://www.voiceamerica.com/). Each show will be repeated twelve hours later, and will then be archived on the Voice America site within twenty-four hours, so you can listen to it at your convenience.

On each one-hour show, I'll be interviewing a guest with something interesting and important to say about marriage, divorce, midlife dating, widowhood, or men-women relationships in general. My first five guests, for example, are:

Frankie Picasso, the "Unstoppable Coach", who works with post-divorce singles and hosts the popular "Midlife Mojo" radio show.
Joanie Winberg, the founder and director of the National Association of Divorce for Women and Children, and also a long-time radio host.
Carole Brody Fleet, author of "Widows Wear Stilettos: a Practical and Emotional Guide for the Young Widow", and a frequent guest on national TV.
Lauren Bloom, lawyer and author of the groundbreaking book, "The Art of the Apology".
Kelly McDaniel, therapist, workshop leader, and author of "Ready to Heal: Women Facing Love, Sex, and Relationship Addiction".

My goal for each show is to have a conversation that's relaxed but stimulating, a conversation that will draw the listener in and provide pleasure as well as information. I'm hoping that the show will soon be "must" listening for anyone who cares about forming or enhancing committed relationships, or dealing with the challenges of widowhood, divorce recovery, or midlife dating.

If you're not already on my mailing list and would like to get a weekly reminder of upcoming shows, please write to me at jim@attorneyatlove.com.

As always, thanks for your friendship and support, and please spread the word about "Relationship Radio".

Doing Ordinary Things Extraordinarily Well

2009-02-09T18:55:00.000-08:00

"Small-but-frequent rewards are more effective than large one-time rewards."
(Joel Kotkin, M.D., author of "How to Change Your Spouse and Save Your Marriage")

Dr. Kotkin's observation about small-but-frequent rewards is something that has been demonstrated over and over in psychological experiments. In essence, people are happier when a lot of little things go well on a daily basis, than when one really good thing happens once in a great while, with nothing good in between.

This is true even when the big reward is greater, in totality, than the sum of all the small rewards. In playing a $1.00 lottery game, for example, most people would be happier winning $2.00 every day of the year, than winning nothing for 364 days and then $1,000 on a single day. In fact, if you win nothing too many times in a row, you'll probably stop playing entirely---a fact well known to the casino industry, which wants people to stay glued to their chairs at the slot machines hour after hour.

OK, but what does this have to do with relationships? Quite a bit, actually. To keep any relationship stimulating after the initial rush of emotions has subsided, we need to do a lot of little things on a regular basis. We need to pay more attention to the other person. We need to give little compliments; offer words of encouragement, sympathy, and appreciation; and promptly reward efforts or achievements---no matter how small those efforts or achievements may be. We need to smile more and complain less. We need to touch each other often, and let it be known that we're enjoying our life together, even when life is hard.

To be sure, we need to celebrate the once-a-year events: the birthdays, the anniversaries, the religious holidays, Valentine's Day. But we should try to extend these celebrations in little ways. We can, for example, give small gifts that say, "This made me think of you." Or we can take out picture albums that remind us of happy events we've shared, or look through travel brochures that stimulate our fantasies and help to reinforce the idea that we have a future---an enjoyable future---together. We don't have to go broke doing these things, nor do we have to disrupt our schedules to find the time to do them. We can work them into our life every day, seamlessly.

When you come right down to it, life consists of a lot of little things, a lot of ordinary things, along with a sprinkling of big things. If you concentrate on doing those ordinary things extraordinarily well, the big things will probably take care of themselves. And you'll always have a reason to celebrate, even when the calendar doesn't say it's a holiday.

Advertising Your Bitterness to the World

2009-01-24T16:10:00.000-08:00

"PROVE to me there is a decent man SOMEWHERE on this planet"
(Headline in a "Women Seeking Men" ad in craigslist)

Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org/) is a popular place for trying to sell a car, sublet an apartment, dispose of an extra ticket to a basketball game, or barter a video game collection for a used mountain bike. It's also a place where people try to find romantic partners or sexual hook-ups. In fact, I read somewhere that the various "Personals" categories get more hits than all other categories combined, although---big surprise!---men are nearly twenty times more likely than women to be checking out "Casual Encounters", and much less likely to be perusing "Strictly Platonic".

According to craigslist's criteria, the "Men Seeking Women" and "Women Seeking Men" categories are supposed to be for people seeking "dating, romance, or long-term relationships". Thus, they constitute the middle ground between friends-only and no-strings sex. Although I'm a happily married man, I read these ads from time to time to get a sense of what people say and how they say it. Given that I met my wife through a personal ad, I think that ads and online profiles can, if done right, be a good way to meet people---not the only way and not necessarily the best way, but a good way.

Of course, not everyone does it right. There are an incredible number of ads that say absolutely nothing about the people who wrote them; or that are little more than wish-lists to Santa ("... seeking someone slim, sexy, beautiful, and under 25..."); or that are riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors.

And then there are the ads that say too much about the people who wrote them. Although some ads are simply way too long (a good ad should tell the reader just enough to make him want to know more), others are of manageable length but send an unintentionally toxic message. The woman whose headline I quoted, above, is a good example. Her ad said that she has met nothing but liars, losers, and assorted lowlifes, and that she's tempted to give up on men entirely. It concluded with a paragraph that began (in all caps) "DON'T WASTE MY TIME..." (...if you don't have a steady job, if you live with roommates, if you bet on football games, etc.).

I'm sure this woman had plenty of reason to be frustrated, even disgusted. There certainly are a lot of liars, losers, and assorted lowlifes out there, and the woman clearly has enough self-confidence and self-respect to know that she deserves better. But by emphasizing her disappointments, her bad experiences, and her non-negotiable demands, the ad probably scared off the very people that she was hoping to meet.

Why would a guy who has a good job and a place of his own, a guy who's not a gambler or an alcoholic or a jerk, a guy who's sincerely interested in forming a stable relationship, want to contact this woman? A guy like that has options. Why should he want to invest time and energy on someone who has a chip on her shoulder? Why should he go out of his way to "prove to her" that he's not a loser like all the others? Keep in mind: all he knows about this woman is what she said in her ad. It's a lot easier for him to move on to the next one, which may have been written by someone emanating more positive energy.

The really sad thing is that the woman will probably never know that she's scaring the good men off. The lack of positive responses will only reinforce her notion that there are no good men out there, creating a vicious cycle of bitterness. I'm not saying that people should simply forget all the bad things that have happened to them, but they don't need to emphasize them, especially in a personal ad.

Your Kidney or Your Life!

2009-01-14T07:48:00.000-08:00

"He wants his pound of flesh. But he's not going to get it by way of the kidney."
(Lisa Bloom, CBS legal analyst)

I wish I could say I make these things up, but I don't. Every time I think I can say I've seen it all when it comes to divorce, someone comes along with a claim that trumps the others.

The lastest example of divorce litigants behaving badly is Dr. Richard Batista. The 49 year old graduate of Cornell Medical School, described in the press as a "prominent Long Island vascular surgeon", is mad at his wife. So much so that he wants her to do something that other doctors have said will literally kill her: he wants the kidney back that he donated to her in happier times. And if the divorce judge won't order that, he'll settle for $1.5 million as payment for the kidney.

Aside from the multitude of legal and ethical ethical reasons why Mrs. Batista should not have her kidney involuntarily ripped out, or have to pay big bucks for it---for starters, buying and selling organs is illegal in this country; and, clearly, the original kidney donation was...well...a donation, a gift, and the law never requires a gift to be returned---I have to wonder why the good doctor thought that such an outrageous demand would help his case, or enhance his career. He's reportedly fighting for increased visitation with his three kids---ages 14, 11, and 8. Well, he's certainly sending a hell of a message to them: "I hate your mom so much I'm willing to let her die on the operating table. But, I'll consider letting her live if she gives me a million and a half dollars."

And what about his reputation in the medical community? If you needed a surgeon, would go to him? If you were a colleague, would you refer patients to him? Ironically, his wife's attorney has described his demands as a publicity stunt. He's gotten plenty of publicity all right, but virtually all of it has been negative. What was he thinking?

And, for that matter, what was his own lawyer, Dominic Barbara, thinking? I practiced divorce law long enough to know that you can't always do everything your client wants you to do. Atty. Barbara should have said---sympathetically but firmly---"Doctor, I understand your feelings, but this is a terrible idea. At the very least, it will backfire. At worst, we could both be in trouble for ethical or even criminal violations." Of course, I'm assuming that Atty. Barbara didn't concoct this nutty scheme himself; if he did, he deserves to be disciplined by the state bar authorities.

There is something about divorce that turns otherwise reasonable, educated, accomplished people into maniacs. In almost every case I can think of, people on a mission of revenge have done far more harm to themselves than they hoped to do to their spouse. They wind up looking like fools, damaging their reputations, alienating their kids, spending a fortune on doomed-from-the-start legal battles...for what? The chance to make life miserable for their estranged spouse?

Trust me: it's not worth it. If the two spouses can't be civil enough to engage in divorce mediation or what's called collaborative divorce, they can at least be adult enough to recognize the reality that the marriage is over. They should turn their attention to their kids and to the future, and avoid saying things that will haunt them for years to come.

The Five-Year-Old Spy

2009-01-07T13:53:00.000-08:00

"An Omaha man has filed a lawsuit accusing his ex-wife of planting a recording device inside his daughter's teddy bear in order to spy on him."
(Associated Press story, 1/7/09)

I say in my book that, when it comes to marriage and divorce, I've either seen it all, heard it all, or done it all. But I have to admit that I had never imagined someone installing a recording device in a five-year-old girl's teddy bear that she brought to her father's house on weekend visits, in order to get evidence against him in a custody dispute. Several hundred hours of conversation were recorded over a six month period in 2007. It is unclear whether the little girl knew that she and her bear were acting as spies. My guess is that she had no idea.

To be sure, I know of quite a few cases where a divorced parent has tried to pump his or her kids for information about the other parent. Typically, the information sought has to do with the ex's boyfriend or girlfriend. "Did Daddy's new friend come over while you were there? Did she stay overnight? Was she nice to you or was she mean?" The questions can also arise over other issues. "Did Daddy bring you to Grandma's house Saturday? Did he stay there with you or did he just leave you there?" "Was Mommy drinking beer? Is she still smoking? Do you have to wake her up in the morning?"

Parents who do this kind of thing will always justify it. "I'm not going to send my child somewhere where it's not safe, or where he's being neglected." "That new girlfriend of his is nothing but a slut. I don't want my daughter exposed to someone like that." "Emily is always crying when she comes home on Sunday. I know something bad is happening there".

In these situations, the parent will not only pump the child for information, but will do it in a manipulative way. "Daddy's friend yelled at you, didn't she? She made you cry, didn't she? What else did she do? You don't want to ever go back there when she's there, do you?"

I'm not a child psychologist, but I do know that kids---especially pre-school kids---are easily manipulated. They want to please, and they don't want to see someone angry with them. They'll answer questions in a way that the questioner seems to want them answered, especially if the questionner is their mother or father.

It's all well and good that a parent is concerned for his or her child's welfare, but pumping a child for information about the other parent---or using the child as a spy---is about the worst thing a divorced parent can do. A child should never be put in that situation. Unless the situation is life-threatening (your child comes home from a visit with bruises, burn marks, or other visible signs of abuse), get your evidence some other way. If you think your child is being dumped off at the grandmother's most of the weekend, a private investigator can quickly confirm if that's true. If you think a particular person has caused emotional harm to your child, there are qualified child psychiatrists and psychologists who can interview your child in a non-threatening, non-manipulative way. If you think there's neglect or mistreatment going on, you can make a report to your state's child protection agency. If you want a judge to look at the matter and make changes to visitation orders, you always have that right, even if the divorce case is closed.

But never put the child in the middle. In almost every case, you'd be inflicting more damage than you're trying to prevent. And, if you put a recording device in your daughter's teddy bear, you'd not only be breaking the law, but killing your daughter's sense of innocence and trust. Nothing justifies that.

Lives of Quiet Desperation

2008-12-26T12:46:00.000-08:00

"I love my husband, but how do you make a man stop embarrassing you in public?....He asks complete strangers walking by if they would 'like to buy a wife cheap.' He tells me people think he's funny..."
(From "Not Laughing in Cincinnati", a Dear Abby questioner)

On a radio show recently, I made the rather sweeping pronouncement that eighty percent of divorces are unnecessary. I told the host that, unless a marriage is characterized by ongoing physical or emotional abuse, untreated alcoholism or drug addiction, or repeated infidelities, there should be a way of resolving problems within the relationship, at least to the extent that both spouses are reasonably satisfied most of the time.

And I do believe that. But I was talking about people who give up on their marriages too easily, without trying new or imaginative approaches to dealing with conflict. The other side of that coin are the people who suffer forever in what clearly seem to be hopeless and dispiriting marriages. These are the people who, like the Dear Abby questioner, claim to love their spouse, but die a little bit every day because of that spouse's relentless bullying, verbal abuse, and control. These are the people who should get divorced, but never seem to, usually because of an acute lack of self-respect and self-confidence.

I hope that doesn't sound like you or your marriage, but if it does I have some simple advice for you: don't put up with it another day. Don't let him call you a dumb b*tch, a fat b*tch, or any other kind of b*tch. Don't let him make jokes at your expense, funny or otherwise. Don't let him set humiliating rules for you, or monitor your whereabouts, or prevent you from seeing friends or family, or impose unwarranted limits on your discretionary spending.

But how do you stop something that has been going on without protest for years? I think you begin by staying calm, and dealing with the problem the moment it manifests itself. "John, what you just said was humiliating to me. I don't ever want to hear those words again." If he laughs, avoid the temptation to rip into him; just say, as quietly and firmly as you can, "This is anything but funny. I'm dead-serious about this."

Your new-found assertiveness may be greeted with shock, disbelief, and even anger. "Why are you telling me this now?" And, yes, you did go along with it for far too long. You may have held your tongue out of a fear of conflict or a hope that the problem would just go away. But making a mistake in the past doesn't mean you have to keep making it. Today is a new day.

Because, as I mentioned, self-confidence---or the lack thereof---often plays a key role in these situations, professional help may be needed to address the underlying problem. And professional help may be what's needed for an abusive bully, as well. But bullies are not known for self-awareness, and not likely to seek help unless pushed to the wall. The best plan is to overcome your own inhibitions first, and then assess the situation. Maybe your spouse will, after the initial shock, start respecting you and start changing his ways. If so, great. If not, divorce is an option, and it may be the best option. It's certainly a better option than suffering in silence, or writing desperate letters to Dear Abby.

******************************************************************************

A Message to My Readers

Until very recently, I have kept to the schedule I announced back in August of 2007 of writing one new blog article per week. There are now well over sixty articles archived on this site, and I immodestly believe that most of them are worth reading and re-reading.

But, in addition to my blog pieces, I now write a monthly column for ConnectionsForWomen.com, and in January I'll be a twice-a-month columnist for Boomer-Living.com. I'm proud to be affiliated with both of these high-quality sites, and I want to be sure I have the time and energy to produce good and original material for them. As a result, I've decided to scale back my blog schedule to two per month.

I thank once again those of you who have been reading these articles over the past sixteen months, and I hope that my quality-over-quantity approach will ensure your loyalty in the coming year.

"That's an Order, Honey!"

2008-12-07T09:26:00.000-08:00

"My dad started running...after my mom ordered him to lose weight."
(Stephanie Simon, quoted in a Wall Street Journal article, "Still Running After All These Years")

Dr. Harvey Simon is a man obsessed. The Newton, Massachusetts internist has run ten miles a day for thirty years. He has not missed a single day, even when suffering from broken toes and crippling back spasms. He has run through blizzards, ice storms, and hurricanes. As a doctor, he knows that he's subjecting his joints and bones to far more abuse than they were meant to handle, and he admits that he would never advise his patients to do what he does.

As a former runner, I found Dr. Simon's story fascinating, because I know how easy it is for a habit---even a good habit---to turn into an obsession. (Just because a little bit of something may be good doesn't mean that a lot is better). But as someone who writes about marriage, I was struck by the fact that, for Dr. Simon, it all began when his wife "ordered" him to lose weight.

Maybe it's just me, but I find something troubling about a husband or wife ordering his or her spouse to do something. If I ordered my wife to lose weight, she would have every right to feel that I was being obnoxious and presumptuous. Obnoxious because someone who needs to lose weight doesn't need to be reminded of it. And presumptuous because my "order" implies that I'm in a position of authority over her.

Think about it: who has the authority to issue orders to us? When you're a child, your parents do. When you're in the military, your commanding officers do. When you're at work, your boss does. When you're in the hospital, your doctors do. If you're unlucky enough to be in jail, the warden and guards do.

But your spouse is not---or shouldn't be---the equivalent of a parent or a drill sergeant or a prison guard. I'm not saying that your spouse isn't entitled to have opinions about your appearance, your habits, or your lifestyle. But the right way to deal with these opinions is either by keeping them to yourself (which is usually the best way, unless they're truly eating away at you), or by gentle persuasion.

Gentle persuasion can take a lot of forms, but it's always characterized by an underlying respect. You're treating the other person as an adult. You're not embarrassing him or nagging him. You're not saying that you're perfect and he isn't. In fact, the best form of persuasion in lifestyle matters is to say that you could both stand to lose some weight, or exercise more, or watch TV less, or whatever the issue may be. And then you attack the problem together, and celebrate each other's progress toward the agreed-upon goal.

The only exceptions to the gentle persuasion rule would be cases in which a person's actions are creating an immediate danger to himself, to his spouse, or to innocent bystanders. Thus, if your spouse is threatening you with bodily harm, you call 9-1-1 first and reason with him later (or better yet, forget the reasoning and move out immediately). If he's dead drunk and about to take the wheel of the car, it's OK to grab the keys and "order" him to lie down in the back seat until you get home.

But if he's twenty pounds overweight, or wearing clothes he should long ago have donated to Goodwill, or still sporting that Fu Manchu mustache that looked so cool in 1978, you may not like what you see but you don't have the right to order him to do something about it. Because not only does an order imply lawful authority, it also implies punishment for disobedience. If you defy your boss, you can get fired. If you disobey your commanding officer, it's thirty days in the brig. But what is the punishment for disobeying your spouse? The silent treatment? Banishment from the bedroom? Divorce? Unless you're prepared to put teeth into your orders, don't issue them.

And don't forget the old adage about not wishing too hard for something. Dr. Simon's wife did indeed get him to lose weight, but at the cost of creating a crazy man.

Creative Compromise, Part II

2008-11-27T08:32:00.000-08:00

"Compromise...is what makes nations great and marriages happy."
(Phyllis McGinley, American poet)

I commented last time about a man who was in a state of panic and depression over the prospect of his elderly mother-in-law coming to live with him and his wife. I pointed out that the situation might not be as bleak as he was seeing it; that there might be viable ways of helping out his mother-in-law in her time of need, short of taking her into their home and jeopardizing their marriage.

A reader wrote to take issue with my use of the term, "compromise". Yes, the suggestions I made might help to avert divorce, but they would still impose a financial burden on the husband that he never asked for. "What does the husband get out of this?", the reader asked. "Isn't a compromise something that involves both sides giving up something? What is the wife giving up, or for that matter the mother-in-law?"

Good questions. I think the best answer I can give is that compromise in marriage is an ongoing process, a series of compromises---some big, some small---in which the amount "given up" by each spouse may be unequal in any particular case but tends to average out over time.

There's no question that the husband is making a sacrifice in the mother-in-law situation, no matter how it turns out. But his wife is making a sacrifice, too. If marital funds are spent to help support her mother, half of those funds can be considered her money. And if her mother comes to live with them, her space and privacy is being invaded as much as her husband's. The difference, of course, is that the wife is more willing than the husband to make these sacrifices because it involves her mother.

But we all have mothers, and fathers, and other blood relatives who at some point are going to need some degree of help. The issue for that couple today is the wife's mother. But tomorrow, or next week or next year, it may be his mother. The husband's willingness to go the extra mile today will ensure that his wife will do the same when the issue is someone in his family.

As to what the mother-in-law is giving up, the only honest answer is nothing. Nothing, that is, other than her home, her health, her independence, her dignity, and, eventually, her life. My guess is that she made plenty of sacrifices in years past, many of which directly benefited her daughter, and, quite possibly, her son-in-law as well. As I say, sacrifices usually even out over time.

Creative Compromise

2008-11-21T13:30:00.000-08:00

"My mother-in-law is a widow in need of a place to live....My wife wants to take her in....I do NOT want her in my home....My wife and I are coming apart over this...."
(From a letter to Carolyn Hax, syndicated advice columnist)

I regularly read Carolyn Hax's column, Tell me About It, partly because I think she's good, and partly because it gives me plenty of ideas to write about.

The situation described by the letter-writer---a middle aged man in a long marriage who is pretty much saying "it's her or me"---is more common than you might think. With people living well into their 80's and 90's these days, a lot of people in their 40's, 50's, and 60's are facing the difficult issue of what to do when mom or dad can no longer live alone. If the son or daughter is married, the decision becomes even more difficult, because it can't (or shouldn't) be made unilaterally. The son-in-law (or daughter-in-law) who has gotten along tolerably with mom when she lived a hundred miles away, may be less kindly disposed to eating breakfast and dinner with her three hundred and sixty-five days a year, much less being her chauffeur and personal-care attendant.

Carolyn Hax's advice was to exhaust every possible alternative before issuing a veto or bailing out of the marriage, and to be as creative as possible in coming up with those alternatives. I agree. People often assume the worst about some future event, and get so worked up about it that they can't think straight.

Maybe the couple---on their own or with the help of the rest of the family---can afford to pay for, or at least contribute to, the cost of a full-time or part-time aide to keep mom in her home. Even if that's not a permanent solution, it can buy some time and de-fuse the tensions. If she absolutely has to leave the home, now or in the future, presumably the home can be sold. Even in a bad real estate market, every home has some value, and most elderly homeowners own their homes free and clear of mortgage debt.

The proceeds of the sale, coupled with mom's social security checks and possibly other retirement income, can be used to fund assisted living. If assisted living isn't an option, the money could be used to add an in-law suite to the couple's existing home, so that their privacy would still be largely preserved.

If the daughter has brothers and sisters, now is the time to lean on them. The fact that some of them may never have done their fair share shouldn't give them a lifetime exemption. Maybe, as I've written before, the biggest reason they're useless is that no one has ever insisted that they be useful.

To a large extent, creative compromise is the key to a successful marriage. The only marital issue I can think of that doesn't lend itself to compromise is the issue of whether to have children: you either want to have kids or you don't. But that's an issue that, ideally, shouldn't come up in a marriage. It's an issue that should have been resolved by the couple before getting married.

I suppose you could also say that people should take a long, hard look at the family they're marrying into before they walk down the aisle, and realize that "in sickness and in health" might eventually mean their mother-in-law's sickness or health. That may be asking too much of young people, but it should definitely be on the minds of older people who are thinking of re-marrying.

Think Twice Before Confessing

2008-11-15T08:36:00.000-08:00

"Jack had been unfaithful to his wife and was feeling 'crushed' by guilt...He posted an anonymous confession on an online site but still felt the need to confess directly...He broke down at a church service and admitted the truth to his wife, only to discover that she, too, had strayed...."Now, we can talk freely again..."
(From a Time article, "When Confession Takes Place Online")

Well, Jack, you're a lucky guy. If your wife had not also been playing around, her response was more likely to be, Hit the Road, Jack!

The point of the Time article was that a lot of people are posting anonymous confessions on sites like DailyConfession.com and PostSecret.com, and feeling better for it. These online confessions are not necessarily sexual in nature; people confess to everything from shoplifting candy bars to taking sick leave when they weren't sick to hurting their best friend's feelings. All well and good, I suppose. We've all heard that confession is good for the soul, and it's certainly no fun living with guilty feelings that just won't go away.

But when it comes to confessing marital infidelities, I'd recommend limiting it to the online sites. An unprompted confession to one's wife or husband is only asking for trouble. There are plenty of people who feel that, when it comes to adultery, it's one strike and you're out.

Beyond that, confessing directly to the other person can be selfish and callous. The confessor is so focused on wanting to purge his guilt and wanting to feel like a good person again that he ignores the emotional pain his confession is almost certain to inflict.

What if the situation had been a little different, and Jack's wife had said to him: "Jack, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the only way I've ever been able to have an orgasm is by thinking about an old boyfriend of mine. I've always felt guilty about this, and I thought you should know. But, really, I do love you. In fact, except for the sex, you're better than him in every way..." I'm sure Jack would be thrilled to hear that.

The truth is, in matters of love and sex we're usually better off being unenlightened. Do we really want to be told everything---the bad and the good---especially if the bad is something over and done with? I say in my book that if you've been unfaithful to your spouse, just shut up about it and resolve never to do it again. Maybe a little residual guilt isn't the worse thing in the world; it might serve as a reminder that extramarital sex isn't all fun and games, nor is it a victimless crime. Confessing to adultery just creates another victim, and this time a truly innocent one.

By all means, post an anonymous confession if you need to, and avail yourself of any confessional relief that your religion may afford. But, before you reveal all to your unsuspecting spouse, remember the words of the writer Taki Theodoracopulos: "We may hurt ourselves with our sins, but we only hurt others with our confessions."

Common Law Confusion

2008-11-07T14:18:00.000-08:00

"I thought that by living together seven years, we had a common law marriage. But when he died I found out I had no rights at all."
(From a recent letter to Dear Abby)

Of all the legalities related to marriage and divorce, common law marriage is the most misunderstood. I'm willing to bet that at least ninety percent of the people who say they have a common law marriage don't have one.

Common law marriage has historically been recognized only in a fairly small number of states, and that number been shrinking in recent years as states have "prospectively" abolished it. (For example, in Pennsylvania no cohabitation arrangement that began after January 1, 2005 can be recognized as a common law marriage). As of right now, only ten states, plus the District of Columbia, recognize "new" common law marriages, and one of those states (New Hampshire) recognizes it only for the purposes of inheritance.

And no state automatically grants common law marriage status solely on the basis of cohabitation for a particular period of time, or on the fact that the couple had children together or owned their home jointly. In the states where common law marriage is permitted, the couple (or, if one person dies, the survivor) has to prove there was an "intent to be married". Proof of intent might mean having to show that you filed joint tax returns, or that you used the same last name, or that you both wore wedding rings. One way or the other, you have to come up with credible evidence that the two of you consistently held yourselves out to the world as a married couple.

If the evidence isn't strong enough, you'll be out of luck in claiming any inheritance or survivor rights that married people are automatically entitled to. You may even wind up fighting your (supposed) common law spouse's relatives in court. For example, if you move in with a man who has a child from a previous marriage or relationship, and he eventually dies without a will, that child may argue in court that the two of you never satisfied the legal requirements of a common law marriage. A surviving spouse is entitled in most jurisdictions to a guaranteed one-third share of the decedent's estate, even if he didn't leave a will. But if you can't prove you were a lawful spouse at the time of his death---common law or otherwise---you get nothing, and the children or other blood relatives would get everything.

Given that in most states a marriage license costs about fifty dollars, people are crazy to rely on vague common law marriage definitions to establish a marital relationship that can have far-reaching implications. If you're truly holding yourselves out as being married, then why not get married formally and not have to worry about it?

I should mention that gay cohabitation arrangements have never been awarded common law marriage status in any state of the country. Now that the door to gay marriage has apparently been closed in California, there may be a legislative effort in common law marriage states to extend the law there to gay couples, but it would probably be a lost cause. Gay marriage may well become an accepted practice in the years ahead, but common law marriage---straight or gay---is a concept that is quickly dying and not likely to be revived.

Some Good Publicity for Divorce Lawyers

2008-11-02T13:39:00.000-08:00

"People assume that as divorce lawyers, we encourage divorce. That is simply not true."
(Willem Gravett, of Gravett & Gravett, Mount Kisco, NY, as quoted in the Westchester Journal News).

Although I'm still officially a member of the Massachusetts bar, I no longer have an active law practice. (And that's fine with me: I've handled enough cases to last two lifetimes. At this point I'd rather spend my time at the keyboard than in the courtroom). But I still get annoyed when lawyers, and especially divorce lawyers, are unfairly criticized.

Case in point: divorce clients who loudly proclaim, once the case is over, that "the only ones who got rich were the lawyers." I must have heard that a hundred times. But in almost every such case, the main reason that the legal fees wound up being so high is that the spouses insisted on fighting each other every inch of the way---often against their lawyers' advice.

When I was still practicing, I would frequently run into lawyers at professional events who had been on the other side of a divorce case from me. Typically, we would shake our heads and say to each other that the two of us could have negotiated a perfectly acceptable settlement in about three hours: a settlement that would have been remarkably close to what the judge eventually ordered after two years' worth of legal fees, not to mention expert witness fees, deposition charges, and court costs.

The last thing a divorce lawyer wants or needs is to be arguing over every pot and pan in the house, or dealing with trumped-up allegations of abuse, neglect, or parental unfitness in general. People may think that lawyers keep coming up with spurious issues so that they can milk the case for all it's worth, but the truth is that most divorce lawyers have more work than they can comfortably handle already.

The reason for that is not just the sheer volume of divorces in our society. It's also because good divorce lawyers get plenty of referrals from other lawyers. I would estimate that only about two percent of practicing lawyers specialize in divorce. Most of the other ninety-eight percent wouldn't touch a divorce case with a ten foot pole. They sense---correctly---that a divorce client is rarely a happy client, no matter how hard you knock yourself out for him or her. Why put up with all the grief when you can refer potential clients to a specialist?

Another case in point: anti-divorce crusaders who find it convenient to blame divorce lawyers for the "epidemic" of divorces in our country. I, myself, actually believe that eighty percent of divorces are unnecessary, and I devote most of my energy these days to trying to help people avoid divorce and achieve satisfying marriages. But I don't blame divorce lawyers for high divorce rates, any more than I blame criminal lawyers for high crime rates or immigration lawyers for high rates of illegal immigration. Divorce lawyers are simply performing their role in the system and giving clients the services that the clients demand.

Believe it or not, divorce lawyers will sometimes try to talk a potential client out of filing for divorce, especially when the person clearly needs time to cool off and think about things. As I mention in my book, I did that myself quite a few times, and I never regretted it. With that in mind, I was delighted to read recently about Willem and Margaretha Grevett, a husband-and-wife team of divorce lawyers who started a website (http://www.newyorkmarriagehelp.com/) devoted to publicizing local resources to help couples try to save their marriages.

The site---and it's a good one---contains articles written by experts in the fields of marriage counseling and child development; an exhaustive list of counselors and other marriage professionals in Westchester County; and links to numerous online resources. Unlike some law firm sites, it is not just a thinly-disguised advertising pitch for the firm's services. Obviously, the Grevetts would be happy to represent people for whom marriage counseling doesn't work, but they sincerely want people to think of divorce as a last resort.

My guess is that there are lawyers like the Grevetts in every state; plenty of them. They may not necessarily have a full-fledged website devoted to marriage enhancement or couples therapy, but they want to give good advice to potential clients---practical advice as well as legal advice---even if that may mean passing up an easy fee. The best lawyers are the ones who look out for their clients' long-term interests. If you consult a divorce lawyer and he or she suggests you hold off filing for a while, or gives you the names of some marriage counselors, you're probably getting good advice and you're certainly dealing with someone who has your long-term interests at heart.

The Pause That Refreshes

2008-10-22T14:38:00.000-07:00

"For solitude sometimes is best society,
And short retirement urges sweet return."
(John Milton, from Paradise Lost)

A few weeks ago, I drove up to Silver City, New Mexico---an old, mile-high mining town that's been transformed into a place with lots of art galleries and funky businesses---and spent a couple of enjoyable nights there. I went alone, my wife being happy to stay home and catch up on her reading. A few weeks before that, she went off by herself to Detroit to visit her niece and her newborn baby, and that was fine with me. I used the time to go hiking and to check out a couple of new restaurants.

My wife and I go to plenty of places together---we're actually great travel companions---but there are times when we recognize that we either need time alone, or one of us wants to go somewhere that the other one has no real interest in. In the case of Silver City, the town reminds me in many ways of Brattleboro, Vermont, where I spent some happy years in the 1970's. My wife, though, doesn't relate to either Brattleboro or Silver City, and there's no particular reason she should. Conversely, I don't relate to Detroit. Her niece is a lovely young woman, but she lives in quite possibly the ugliest, most dispiriting city in America. Just thinking about Detroit puts me in a bad mood.

So, rather than tag along half-heartedly somewhere, or feeling guilty that the other person isn't having fun, we sometimes go our separate ways, and we're both happier for it.

The reason I'm saying all this is that I keep running into married people who seem imprisoned by the notion of togetherness. They go everywhere and do everything together, even when it's quite obvious that at least one of them would rather not be there. (Next time you're in a mall, look at the faces of the married men). Or they "compromise" by coming up with a result that neither of them really wants. (He wants to go camping, she wants to go to the beach, so they wind up in some big-city hotel). This seems crazy to me.

Not only is there nothing wrong with spouses having different interests, there's nothing wrong with acknowledging those differences and acting on them. Obviously, if a couple has no common interests and never goes anywhere together, it wouldn't be much of a marriage. But there's no reason why a weekend apart now and then, or even a longer trip, has to be seen as a threat. In fact, being away a for a while will often make you realize how much you miss your spouse, and how eager you are to tell him or her about the details of your trip.

Mutual trust, of course, is a crucial element in spending time apart. If a wife is worried that her husband will be trying to pick up women on his ski trip, or a husband thinks that his wife's visit to her college roommate is a cover-up for seeing an old boyfriend, it won't work. But if someone is that suspicious---with or without cause---how much trust is there, anyway? And if a person is determined to have extramarital sex, he or she doesn't need to fly a thousand miles to get it. In fact, if a person senses that his spouse won't let him out of her sight for fear of his taking up with someone else, he's probably more likely to misbehave. If he's going to be blamed anyway, the thinking goes, he may as well get something out of it.

In my book, I discuss what I call "unconventional" marriages. For many couples, spending time apart is not especially unconventional, but for other couples it might be. It might even be terrifying. I'm not trying to convince anyone to do something he doesn't want. But I am trying to get people who are stuck in a less-than-satisfying system to think expansively, to try something new, to get reaquainted with themselves, and to return to their home relaxed, refreshed, and with a greater sense of appreciation and purpose.

Taking the Pressure Off First Dates

2008-10-16T08:47:00.000-07:00

"I don't know how willing I would be to go on a date with a stranger."
(Jacqueline Malan, 25, explaining why she goes on "group dates". From a Wall Street Journal article titled "All Together Now")

When I write about dating, I'm usually addressing the concerns of people who are getting back into the dating scene after a divorce or the break-up of a long-term relationship. I'm thinking of people in their 40's or older, who may feel out of place in bars but who find online dating to be baffling, frustrating, and overly time-consuming.

Mid-life singles are far more likely to be looking for a stable, long-term relationship than for a series of flings, and quite rightly. (I think it was Lenny Bruce who said there's nothing more pathetic than an aging pickup artist). But the search for a "suitable" partner can all too easily turn first dates into inquisitions, where each person is bombarding the other with dozens of make-or-break questions and neither person can sit back, relax, and enjoy the moment. Although it's understandable that someone wouldn't want to waste time on a person who's wrong for them, how can anyone make a good impression if he or she feels under attack? So both people go home unsatisfied, and the next day they're even less enthusiastic about repeating the process with another stranger.

A possible solution to this problem comes from a somewhat unlikely source: the Facebook generation. Accurately or not, twenty-something singles are usually portrayed as interested mainly in brief hookups and "friends with benefits" relationships (the "benefit" being sex). But, according to some sociologists, young people---and young women in particular---are disillusioned with casual sex, and wary of "traditional" first dates, where "Will we go to bed tonight or not?" is the unstated subtext.

In response to this disillusionment, a number of group dating websites have sprung up recently. Ignighter.com encourages new members to enroll their friends and their friends-of-friends. Once a critical mass of members is signed up from a particular geographic area, an "ambassador"---a volunteer social director, in essence---will arrange get-togethers such as beer tastings, bowling nights, hiking trips, and other recreational or social events. Whenever possible, members would be invited to events with at least one of their friends, so that no one feels like the odd person out. What they do there is up to them.

Similar sites include teamdating.com, which has 40,000 members, and iamfreetonight.com, which has 70,000. Facebook has an application called Meet New People, which claims over three million users who are eligible to attend group gatherings (hopefully, not all at the same time).

Although these sites are geared toward young adults, my guess is that the average age of their members will gradually rise (just as the average age of Match.com members has gone from 31 to 48 over the past few years). But mid-life singles don't have to wait, or be the oldest person in the room by twenty years. There are plenty of events right now in almost every city or town that are geared to a more "mature" crowd, and that provide much of the same low-pressure group activities that the online sites I mentioned do.

In my own small town of 30,000 people, there are regularly-scheduled events such as Latin dance classes, wine appreciation parties, drop-in current event discussions at coffee shops, photography workshops, and hiking clubs. In a larger city, you could go to similar events seven nights a week and barely be scratching the surface of what is available. Not all of them are just for singles, but, typically, singles constitute a large percentage of such gatherings. In fact, you're probably better off not going to something solely because it's advertised as singles-only, because if you don't meet someone you like at such an event you'll think of it as a waste of time and money. But if it's an activity you truly enjoy, you'll have a good time no matter who else is there.

The other thing I like about interest-oriented group events is that, unlike online dating sites, you actually get to see how a particular person looks, sounds, dresses, and behaves in public. In the online world, out-of-date photographs and misleading, or totally false, descriptions are all too common. Without wasting time corresponding with a person who ultimately disappoints you, or having to barrage him with personal questions on a first date, you can quickly size someone up at a group event without even letting him or anyone else know what you're doing. And if you find someone interesting, you can approach him or her in an unthreatening way, perhaps with a question or comment about the activity that you both, presumably, enjoy.

But I wouldn't start with, "Hey, you hike here often?" Even Lenny Bruce would groan at that one.

The Gift That---Unfortunately---Keeps On Giving

2008-10-06T10:51:00.000-07:00

"A Manhattan lawyer is suing his wife, her lover, and her father, claiming she gave him a venereal disease she contracted while having an affair".
(From a New York Post article, September 21, 2008)

Of all the repercussions that can result from extramarital sex, contracting a sexually transmitted disease, and then passing it on to your spouse, ranks right up there with getting your lover pregnant (or getting pregnant by your lover). But that's what happened to Amy Tanne and her husband, Frederick Tanne.

While looking through his medicine cabinet one day, Mr. Tanne found a herpes-treatment drug that his father-in-law (a physician) had prescribed for Amy. Mr. Tanne demanded to know how Amy could possibly have contracted herpes, since neither one had ever had a sexually transmitted disease previously. She eventually admitted that she had been having an affair with a prominent Westchester County accountant named Robert Stockel, who had presumably given her the disease. Mr. Tanne then had himself tested for herpes and, sure enough, he has it.

At that point, Mr. Tanne, a senior litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis, a huge (1,400 lawyer) national law firm, decided to sue everyone involved on one legal theory or another. He filed a divorce action against his wife on the grounds of adultery, a separate tort action against Stockel for "knowingly transferring the virus", and another tort claim against his father-in-law and Amy for "conspiring to hide the infidelity and the subsequent infection". In addition to a divorce from Amy, Mr. Tanne is seeking monetary compensation from all three of the defendants for medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering.

Let me point out here that some of Mr. Tanne's allegations have been denied by the defendants, and it may be many months before the whole story emerges. But the damage has already been done, a lot of it self-inflicted by Mr. Tanne, who apparently has allowed his anger (which is justified, if the allegations are true) to cloud his judgment.

As an experienced litigation lawyer, Mr. Tanne knows that court filings are generally considered public records, unless they are specifically "sealed" by the judge assigned to the case. Given the juicy nature of the case, and the fact that the parties are all high-income, high-profile professionals, it was eminently foreseeable that a tabloid like the Post would ferret out the story and have a field day with it (the headline was "Cuckold 'Sore' at His Wife").

My guess is that Mr. Tanne is less interested in getting a monetary judgment against the defendants---he probably makes well over a million dollars a year at his firm---as he is in punishing them and making life difficult for them. As I said, he has a right to be angry. In fact, he has a right to be very angry; people have gotten killed for less. But just as Mr. Tanne's lawyerly restraint kept him from showing up at Stockel's office with a loaded gun, that same restraint should have kept him from filing legal actions that will wind up humiliating himself more than they humiliate the defendants.

Sadly, clouded judgments and rash actions are all-too-common in divorce cases. It doesn't matter if the person is a lawyer, a doctor, or a Fortune 500 CEO; anger and the lust for revenge will undo decades of professional training. It happened a while back in the Jack Welch divorce case. Welch, one of the most famous corporate executives of our time, had an affair, filed for divorce, but then became an absolute madman when it came to opposing his wife's financial demands. He wound up paying her anyway, but he lost not only a lot of money but a lot of respect among his peers that had taken decades to build up.

The Post article implied that another attorney was representing Mr. Tanne. That's certainly a good thing---we all know the adage about lawyers representing themselves---but I have to wonder whether that lawyer really thought it was a good idea to file the various lawsuits or whether he just gave Mr. Tanne what he wanted. A good divorce lawyer always needs to consider his client's long-term interests. That may mean telling the client (in a diplomatic way, if possible) what he doesn't want to hear. It may also mean talking the client out of revenge-based attacks. This isn't easy to do, especially when the client is a lawyer himself, but it's necessary if the lawyer wants to keep the client from being called a "cuckold" in the newspaper.

The other obvious lesson from this unhappy story is that, in this day and age, if you're going to risk your marriage and your future by having an affair, you shouldn't compound the risk by having unprotected sex. Amy Tanne probably thought that with an educated, high-income professional like Robert Stockel she had nothing to worry about. She was wrong. And now her lapse of judgment, coupled with a very different lapse of judgment on her husband's part, has turned a private affair into a very public spectacle.

Paul Newman's Example

2008-09-29T15:15:00.000-07:00

"Sexiness wears thin after a while, and good looks fade. But to be married to a man who makes you laugh every day? Now that's a treat."
(Joanne Woodward)

A lot has been said these past few days about Paul Newman. He was indeed a rare and remarkable man: an exceptional actor, an amateur race car driver who held his own with professional racers half his age, a businessman who gave away every penny of profit----and there were billions of those pennies---to charity.

And he was also very much a husband and family man. Not only was there never a hint of scandal in the entire fifty years of his marriage to Joanne Woodward, but everything he ever said about her and his kids, to his dying day, reflected great love and pride. It was obvious to anyone listening that his family meant far more to him than his fame, his Oscar, and his financial success.

I don't pretend to know anything about what Paul Newman was like in private, but Joanne Newman's quote implies that he was always making her laugh. My guess is that he was not so much a joke-teller as a guy who simply saw the humor in everything: someone who would use humor to get other people (and maybe himself, too) out of a bad mood.

It is a treat, as Joanne Woodward put it, to be married to a person like that. Unfortunately, the reason it's a treat is that it's a relatively rare occurrence. Truth be told, most of us don't make enough of an effort to put smiles on the faces of our spouse or family members. We tend to be absorbed in our own thoughts and problems, and to see other people---even the people we love---as issues to deal with, items on the to-do list. We may be good at solving problems, but not so good at doing the little things (such as keeping things light and loose) that might prevent some of those problems from happening again.

Although there are people who seem to be natural comedians, you don't need advanced stand-up skills to make your spouse laugh (just as you don't need movie star looks to take his or her breath away). All you need is the right attitude. Your attitude should be that life is tough but we can still have fun; that there's a humorous side to nearly everything; that laughter is the best way to break the tension and bring people closer.

Maybe the way to start is to have a mental to-do list that says: 1. Don't take yourself or your problems so seriously. 2. Remember who's really important in your life. 3. Be aware of moods and situations that call for a little humor. 4. Look for something amusing to say, and say it (no matter how silly it may sound). 4. If all else fails, poke fun at yourself. 5. Repeat tomorrow.

Few of us will ever be as talented and accomplished as Paul Newman was, but there's no reason we can't have the kind of marriage that he and his wife had: a marriage notable not only for its long duration but for its laughter, fun, and genuine humanity.

Marriage by the Numbers

2008-09-22T16:18:00.000-07:00

"Nearly 70% of the men surveyed said they 'never' think about leaving their wives, whereas nearly half of the women said they think about leaving their husbands occasionally---and sometimes daily."
(From Parade magazine's 9/21/08 Poll on American Marriage)

I'm not necessarily a big believer in polls and surveys. Many surveys are flawed from the start, by failing to get a statistically-significant sampling of different ages and demographic groups, or by asking "loaded" or poorly-worded questions. And even when everything is conducted properly, people don't always answer truthfully, especially when the questions are about love and sex.

But usually you can learn at least something from surveys. I found the Parade results interesting, because in one important respect they confirm and quantify what previous surveys have strongly suggested: that wives are considerably more likely to be unhappy in their marriages than husbands are.

Look at some of the findings:

When asked, "Do you ever think about leaving your spouse?", twice as many women as men answered "Often" or "Daily".
When asked, "Overall, which best describes how you feel about your marriage?", twice as many women as men answered "I'm miserable".
When asked, "If you had to do it again, would you marry the same person?", a much-higher percentage of women than men answered "I'd try to do better", or "Definitely not".
When asked, "Why don't you have sex with your spouse more often?", 17% of women (but only 12% of men) answered "I've lost sexual interest in my spouse".

I mentioned in a previous blog article that, nationwide, 75% of divorces are filed by women. Not every unhappily-married wife will seek a divorce, and those who do often put up with their frustrations for years before taking that step. But the women who eventually say "Enough is enough" are the ones who today are "Thinking about it often".

When you look at the Parade results from a different angle, it's clear that many husbands are clueless when it comes to their wives' dissatisfactions. For example, men were more likely than women to answer "Yes" to "We talk often and communicate well", and nearly 50% less likely to say "We don't talk to each other enough".

Men should pay more attention to survey results such as these, and realize that just because they're satisfied doesn't mean that there isn't a big problem developing. Too many men are living in a dream world, a fool's paradise, and when reality strikes some day it's not going to be pretty. They'll be like the thousands of men who said in a different survey (one conducted by AARP a couple of years ago) that they never saw the divorce coming. You can almost always see it coming, if you take your blinders off.

Are You SURE the Thrill is Gone?

2008-09-17T09:00:00.000-07:00

"The length of our passions no more rests with us than the length of our lives".
(Francois de la Rochefoucauld, 1613-1680)

La Rochefoucauld was not only one of the great writers of his era, he was also an uncommonly perceptive observer of people and their behavior. I often turn to him for practical wisdom, but I have to differ with him, at least in part, about our inability to control the length of our passions.

Yes, it's true that our passions can ebb and flow over time. I'm sure everyone reading this can recall with embarrassment, or even horror, at least one former lover. Somehow, that person who was once the focus of our life now makes us shake our head and wonder what we could possibly have been thinking. And we can probably come up with a few others who were nice enough but who eventually drifted out of our lives without leaving much of a trace.

There's no question that passion can be stirred by illusion, and that illusions are plentiful and powerful when a relationship is new. But it's a mistake to think that passion is something that just happens to us, something we have no control over, rather than something that to a great degree we can sustain through our efforts.

This is a common, but dangerous, mistake in long-term marriages. A lot of people---particularly romantic and passionate people---have affairs or give up on their marriages simply because they don't feel the thrill they used to feel. When it's missing, they assume it's gone forever. I've had divorce clients tell me: "I love him, but I'm not in love with him". I wouldn't tell anyone that she has to live out her days with someone she's no longer in love with (although if that's her only reason for getting divorced, she's going to get heavy criticism from all quarters, including her own friends and family, especially if there are kids involved and he's a good father). But I would urge people in that situation to first ask themselves if they've made every reasonable effort to keep their passion alive.

I think what happens is that people neglect their passions and then call it fate. They get lazy about expressing affection and appreciation, or they expect the other person to express it first or to be just like them in the way they express it. They get bogged down---individually and as a couple---in the often-dreary details of making a living and managing a household. They have lifeless conversations and pointless arguments, and they stop associating their spouse with anything pleasurable or fun.

This is not a happy state to be in, but the choice doesn't have to be between dying a slow death and starting over with a new person. It's possible, in a sense, to start over with the same person. My guess is that in many ways your spouse is still the same person you fell in love with. He may have gained weight, he may get into bad moods more often, he may not be what he once was in bed, but his fundamental qualities---the things that made you passionate for him way back when---are probably intact, although they may be dormant. If he was intelligent then, he's still intelligent now (but maybe he needs some stimulation to bring it out). If he was funny then, he could still be funny now (but maybe he needs to know his humor is appreciated). If he was kind and thoughtful then, he probably hasn't become a self-absorbed narcissist (although he may exasperate you at times).

The goal is to remember how he once was---and how the relationship once was---and figure out how to get the feelings back. At first, you'll probably have to shoulder most of the burden; your spouse may not immediately understand or appreciate what you're trying to do. But stick with it for at least a few months. Be realistic: your marriage didn't go downhill overnight and it's not going to get back on track overnight. But if your passions were strong and not based totally on illusion, and if the two of you haven't done any irreparable harm to each other over the years, you should be able to get those passions back and keep them there.

Defusing Election Year Tensions

2008-09-11T14:07:00.000-07:00

"People look at us as if we're opposites. We're not. We're actually very similar people. We're both advocates. We're both passionate. We both like a good, fair fight. My opposite is someone who doesn't have a philosophy of life, who doesn't get fired up over anything".
(Mary Matalin, in salon.com)

Because we live in a time when politics are increasingly polarized and no one listens to anyone with a differing opinion, we tend to be fascinated by those couples who seem to transcend ideology. For years now, high-profile Republican consultant, Mary Matalin, and her husband, high-profile Democratic consultant James Carville, have agreed to disagree on politics, without any apparent harm to their relationship. And Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wife, Maria Shriver, seem to be getting along fine despite his being a Republican and her being not only a Democrat but a member of the Kennedy family.

What is especially interesting about these two marriages is that all four people had fully-formed political views by the time they married. They weren't kids when they met. They didn't start out together as, say, young progressives or young conservatives, and then drift off in different directions over the years. They knew what they were getting into from the start.

My guess is that there are a lot more marriages of political opposites than we might imagine, or at least marriages where there is an issue or two on which the spouses disagree. Many people do, of course, evolve in unpredictable ways as they get older. And people are not always ideologically consistent. A couple might agree on abortion rights or charter school vouchers, but disagree on capital punishment or mortgage foreclosure relief. My own congresswoman is considered very liberal on almost every social issue, but she owns a Glock 9 mm. handgun and is a regular at the shooting ranges whenever she's back here in Arizona.

People who have an opposite opinion on a particular issue may actually have a similar underlying goal or philosophy about that issue; their difference may be only in how to achieve the goal. In the gun ownership example, people on both sides of the issue would say that their major concern is safety. Handgun owners believe that their safety---and often the safety of other innocent people---is enhanced by ready access to a loaded gun. Handgun opponents believe that guns injure or kill more innocent people than they protect, because of careless storage or improper use. The two groups may never agree on gun laws, but they would agree, if they thought about it, that they have a common concern for safety.

Finding that underlying philosophical agreement is crucial if you and your spouse don't see eye to eye. It's almost always there if you can put your prejudices aside and look hard enough. It's also crucial to communicate about the issue in a respectful way: no yelling, no sarcasm, no name-calling, no sulking. Explain your points clearly, but don't necessarily try to convert your spouse; it will only make you feel frustrated and angry if the conversion doesn't happen (I should say when it doesn't happen, because instantaneous political conversions are almost nonexistent). Learn to accept that reasonable people can differ. Inject humor into the discussion, if possible. And if all else fails, try saying: "We'll probably never agree, but I still love you".

But the best outcome of all is to recognize, as Mary Matalin does, that passionate people attract passionate people. They may not always agree, but they feed off each other's energy, and in the end they're closer to each other because of it. So feel free to disagree with your spouse, but do it the right way. And try not to lord it over your spouse when your candidate wins.