Poll: How to Break a Heart

[senordesol]

So I've got a bit of a subjective justification piece here based on real-world events. I'm not going to do a tl;dr because I feel that all the aspects of the case I'm about to list are relevant. In fairness, I declare the following: I only have one side of the story of this scenario (the female's account) I have tried to get the opposite account but he refuses to talk about it. I do have an opinion on the issue but will try to keep my summary concise and clinical. Names have been changed to protect the innocent. (Clarification: these are friends of mine, nothing to do with me)

Jack and Jill have been married for five years (no kids). Jack is 30yo working as a parking garage attendant for the city. Jill is 25yo part-time student with 1 year of school left but is otherwise employed as a child care 'counselor' (She does not provide counseling, but is effectively a Daycare employee).

Two+ months ago, Jack began to express anxieties regarding his relationship with Jill and personal insecurities. The gist of his concerns are as follows: Jack is worried that Jill is over-controlling his life. (Facts: Jill controls the finances, is the major financial burden of the family (student loans, tuition, etc) and is the least paid. In my (and wife's) interactions with Jill, she has made the decisions on where to go, what to do, and what to eat when we have visited (Clarification: these have been decisions but not dictations, no hostility has been encountered when objections or differences have been raised in my experience)) Jill maintains that it has been necessary for her to assume control over various aspects of their marriage because Jack thus far lacks the motivation or interest to exercise control over these things.

Jack is also concerned that he cannot trust Jill with looking after his happiness (I have not been able to qualify that claim. As I have understood it, it means that he thinks Jill will always put her goals ahead of his. Again, most of the family's resources are tied up in Jill's pursuit of education and she maintains her low-paying job because its time commitment is flexible. I remain uncertain, however, what Jack would have them do instead.).

Jack has also expressed that he has lost attraction to Jill. (Jill is over-weight and has always been so since they have been dating. Jack has previously defended this as her being less likely to 'break his heart'.) Jack has expressed interest in a more 'open' marriage, however such is intolerable to Jill (Based on personal religious and moral reasons). Recently, Jack has also revealed that he may be a member of a sexual minority (known as 'Hetero Flexible', meaning -as I understand it- he prefers females but is willing to pursue relationships/encounters with males).

The two have been in counseling for the past few months, however things came to a head yesterday when Jack (evidently taking the advice of his personal therapist) decided to cut things off and simply leave. While it is likely he will return to collect his things, his return to the family itself is not anticipated. According to Jill, he gave no elaboration on the reasoning behind his decision, apart from that it was simply the advice of his counselor.

I have my own (very strong) opinion on the matter, however the Escapist has been known to field a variety of opinions (particularly when it comes to matters of the heart) so I'm interested in hearing some of the diversity. Was he right to get the hell out of there? Should Jill pursue aggressive legal action? This inquiring mind wants to know.

 

[senordesol]

Yeah, he should have left.

If he is unhappy about pretty much every aspect of the relationship then why not leave, it's his choice.

You may say "talk it out" but I doubt she will change every aspect of herself just to please him.

Should Jill pursue aggressive legal action?

No, they don't have kids and he didn't hold her back to be a housewife or anything so I don't think she can get alimony, she still went and is getting her education after all.

Of course as the primary breadwinner, Jack was funding a goodly portion of Jill's living expenses and education. Without that source of income, she's going to have enough problems paying rent (to say nothing of student loans).

Not calling you wrong, just wondering if you think Jack has a duty to reconcile that.

 

[dyre]

My opinion, backed up with zero marriage experience or counseling experience:

From what you've written, it seems like Jack is unable to confront problems or "exercise control," while at the same time whining that his relationship has problems because he lacks control. The sexual stuff sounds like red herring issues, tbh. As in, mostly irrelevant to the problem at hand, and probably wouldn't be real issues if the relationship was otherwise going well. And if "she doesn't look good anymore so I'm going to ditch her" is really his excuse, then he's a dick.

Still, the marriage is clearly not working and they have no kids, so I can't fault him for ending things. Yes, he should have explained the reasoning behind the decision, but it seems in-character that he'd just be evasive and hope to avoid any confrontation.

It's unfortunate that Jill will have to fund her own education, but it's not really fair to force Jack to fund it either.

 

[Rose and Thorn]

Basically what Matthew said, I agree.

It seems the marriage has become both pointless and fruitless, they both have there own jobs and no children. It sounds like Jack wasn't getting anything out of the relationship, so why waste precious time of your life trying to "talk it out" when jack knows in his heart it won't work, that is probably why he left no reason for leaving. He is sure of his decision and doesn't want to leave any room for argument and discussion on the matter.

There is no love in that relationship anymore, a quick and harsh breakup is probably the nicest way to end it.

I have my own (very strong) opinion on the matter, however the Escapist has been known to field a variety of opinions (particularly when it comes to matters of the heart) so I'm interested in hearing some of the diversity. Was he right to get the hell out of there? Should Jill pursue aggressive legal action? This inquiring mind wants to know.

You say you have a very strong opinion on the matter, and since you know your friends better than I do, I would like to know what your opinion is and why you feel that way? Unless it is too personal in some way.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[senordesol]

I have my own (very strong) opinion on the matter, however the Escapist has been known to field a variety of opinions (particularly when it comes to matters of the heart) so I'm interested in hearing some of the diversity. Was he right to get the hell out of there? Should Jill pursue aggressive legal action? This inquiring mind wants to know.

You say you have a very strong opinion on the matter, and since you know your friends better than I do, I would like to know what your opinion is and why you feel that way? Unless it is too personal in some way.

I will share in time, I don't want to color the discussion too much right now.

 

[senordesol]

Of course as the primary breadwinner, Jack was funding a goodly portion of Jill's living expenses and education. Without that source of income, she's going to have enough problems paying rent (to say nothing of student loans).

Not calling you wrong, just wondering if you think Jack has a duty to reconcile that.

I say no as she likely would have went to uni even if she wasn't with Jack.

True, but probably wouldn't have gone about it in the way she had were she not married. Again, she was reliant on Jack to cover most of the living and education expenses (5 years of marriage, after all) and was operating under the assumption (as married people are often wont to do) that he would continue to fulfill that role.

Plainly: she cannot continue to live in her current (again, formerly shared) apartment or maintain the current pace of her coursework without an additional source of income.

 

[Dags90]

I would agree with the position of others that Jack probably is unmotivated to assert himself. It's not a particularly uncommon problem people have. Word of general advice for people dating, never stay with (or confront) someone who always defers to you on what to do. These people do have preferences, and they aren't likely to take into account their lack of suggestions when you have them do/eat something they don't like. Jack wants his cake and to eat it too. He doesn't want someone who isn't controlling, he wants someone who is controlling and psychic.

I think it would probably be more honest of Jack to say that he thinks Jill is too controlling because he doesn't agree with the way she's doing things.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Jack sound like a mess, but even a mess has the right to leave if he wants to leave. Relationships break up all the time. Even (gasp) marriages. Incredibly enough, a ring and a piece of paper don't conjure up commitment out of thin air if there wasn't one there to begin with.

Jack was a bit of a douche for disappearing like a thief in the night though. Five years should earn you, at the very least, a heartfelt, in-depth explanation and maybe even a cursory attempt at setting things right before calling it quits altogether. Winking out of existence might be therapeutically satisfying for Jack, but it's a real kick in the crotch for Jill, even if she was cognizant of the warning signs.

No, Jill should not pursue legal action. Jack should, however, be willing to help Jill out financially as they transition out of their situation. He did kind of pull the rug out from under her, which was a spectacularly selfish move.

 

[senordesol]

Of course as the primary breadwinner, Jack was funding a goodly portion of Jill's living expenses and education. Without that source of income, she's going to have enough problems paying rent (to say nothing of student loans).

Not calling you wrong, just wondering if you think Jack has a duty to reconcile that.

I say no as she likely would have went to uni even if she wasn't with Jack.

True, but probably wouldn't have gone about it in the way she had were she not married. Again, she was reliant on Jack to cover most of the living and education expenses (5 years of marriage, after all) and was operating under the assumption (as married people are often wont to do) that he would continue to fulfill that role.

Plainly: she cannot continue to live in her current (again, formerly shared) apartment or maintain the current pace of her coursework without an additional source of income.

Does she not have friends and family who can help her temporarily?

You say she has a job, surely she can take more hours, downsize her apartment and lower her living expenses? She only has 1 year left after all.

Family is several states away, with no friends (including myself, sadly) in an immediate position to assist. It is possible her parents can help but to what degree remains uncertain.

Her job will not pay particularly well regardless of hours worked.

Downsizing may be an option, though I think she may still be under lease. As it is, living expenses do not extend much beyond the basics.

 

[senordesol]

Jack sound like a mess, but even a mess has the right to leave if he wants to leave. Relationships break up all the time. Even (gasp) marriages. Incredibly enough, a ring and a piece of paper don't conjure up commitment out of thin air if there wasn't one there to begin with.

Isn't that piece of paper itself the agreement to a commitment? That one party isn't particularly serious about it does not change that it is a legal document.

 

[senordesol]

I guess it's obvious by now whose side I'm on, so I'll go ahead and give my opinion on the matter.

If a man isn't happy with where he is in life; that's fine. If he wants to change his circumstances for the better; that's fine. But when he does it at the expense of those who are emotionally, legally, and financially invested in him; that is NOT okay.

Jill has tied up a fair amount of her life and future prospects in Jack and has relied on his support while she sought to better herself (to, in turn, use her gains to enrich her family). For him to just up and leave her with the bills, rent, cats, credit card debt, and student loans KNOWING that she does not have the income to take care of that and KNOWING she does not have an immediate support system to fall back on is the act of an asshole casserole.

That he did all this for what amounts to little more than selfishness, and that he appears to have based the entirety of the relationship on what appears to be an elaborate self-deception (to say nothing of deceiving her) is douchebaggery my mind still struggles to comprehend.

At this point, I think legal counsel is the best way to go. There's no way he should be able to get up and walk away from a commitment like that unscathed.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Isn't that piece of paper itself the agreement to a commitment? That one party isn't particularly serious about it does not change that it is a legal document.

It is, but it's ludicrous to try and legislate romance. If he's not in love any more this is going to end one way or the other. Jill needs to cut her losses, and Jack needs to be a man and make sure she lands on her feet.

At this point, I think legal counsel is the best way to go. There's no way he should be able to get up and walk away from a commitment like that unscathed.

You and I are generally in agreement on all points, and if there's no other way for her to get help out of Jack then she probably does need to get legal counsel. But she needs to be aware that contested divorces can turn into a goddam nightmare. It can take 5-10 years to extract money from an embattled spouse, even when you have completely legitimate grounds for wanting it. I have a friend whose husband cheated on her, and it took her six years to get compensation from him post divorce. Six years that were amongst the most draining and trying of her life.

 

[omega 616]

Two+ months ago, Jack began to express anxieties regarding his relationship with Jill and personal insecurities. The gist of his concerns are as follows: Jack is worried that Jill is over-controlling his life. (Facts: Jill controls the finances, is the major financial burden of the family (student loans, tuition, etc) and is the least paid. In my (and wife's) interactions with Jill, she has made the decisions on where to go, what to do, and what to eat when we have visited (Clarification: these have been decisions but not dictations, no hostility has been encountered when objections or differences have been raised in my experience)) Jill maintains that it has been necessary for her to assume control over various aspects of their marriage because Jack thus far lacks the motivation or interest to exercise control over these things.

As far as I can surmise from nothing but observations, there is always a dominant and submissive in every relationship. Sometimes it's blatantly obvious and there is a huge distinction and other times it's a fine line and very subtle.

I guess this is a blatantly obvious case ...

If he wants to (for lack of a better term) man up and take over, that is his call. It's not like she is going to say "you can take control now".

"Jack is also concerned that he cannot trust Jill with looking after his happiness (I have not been able to qualify that claim. As I have understood it, it means that he thinks Jill will always put her goals ahead of his. Again, most of the family's resources are tied up in Jill's pursuit of education and she maintains her low-paying job because its time commitment is flexible. I remain uncertain, however, what Jack would have them do instead.)."

Jack is sounding like a whiny fuck, why should she look after his happiness? I mean I get they are in a relationship but as far as I understand it, you have something like a venn diagram with 3 pools ... your pool, there pool and a shared pool. You manage your own pool, they manage there's and the cross section is the relationship, which you both contribute to.

Why should she be caretaking his pool,? Sure if his Nan just died then cheer him up or if you want to spoil/treat your partner and boost there happiness then okay but constantly making sure your partner keeps you happy? Be more independent!

Wait "she over controls his life" but "Jack is also concerned that he cannot trust Jill with looking after his happiness" ... REALLY!?!?!

Jack has also expressed that he has lost attraction to Jill. (Jill is over-weight and has always been so since they have been dating. Jack has previously defended this as her being less likely to 'break his heart'.)

Well that is his call ...

Jack has expressed interest in a more 'open' marriage, however such is intolerable to Jill (Based on personal religious and moral reasons). Recently, Jack has also revealed that he may be a member of a sexual minority (known as 'Hetero Flexible', meaning -as I understand it- he prefers females but is willing to pursue relationships/encounters with males).

If she isn't into open marriage, neither of them are.

Hetero - flexible ... bi which you mean thinks he is bi sexual? (see what I did thar?) I loathe all these people trying to be a unique snowflake ... your either A-sexual, hetero, homo or bi. There is no metro, pan, hetero flexible or anything else. It's basic maths!

Sorry about that rant, it's a pet peeve. I don't hate people for there sexual orientation (be gay, bi, A or hetero, I don't care. Which is more than a lot of people who believe Bi's don't exist).

The relationship is dead, Jack seems like a bi guy who is bored with Jill and you never really listed any of Jill's concerns even though you start off with "I only have one side of the story of this scenario (the female's account)".

Just sounds like they are still together 'cos they are in the mind set of "this is better than nothing".

Sorry if this was too bluntly put, I have a really bad habit of that.

 

[FilipJPhry]

It's weird that most married couples opt for divorce almost right away without even considering counseling or seeing a therapist. Yeah, they did marriage counseling, but it takes time. Look at John Cena. The guy just went up and divorced his wife of almost ten years without even trying to talk things out. This image here makes a good point:

 

[senordesol]

You and I are generally in agreement on all points, and if there's no other way for her to get help out of Jack then she probably does need to get legal counsel. But she needs to be aware that contested divorces can turn into a goddam nightmare. It can take 5-10 years to extract money from an embattled spouse, even when you have completely legitimate grounds for wanting it. I have a friend whose husband cheated on her, and it took her six years to get compensation from him post divorce. Six years that were amongst the most draining and trying of her life.

Words of warning only a fool would ignore. She's not a vindictive person, I don't know if she'd have the energy to endure that.

 

[Dags90]

It's weird that most married couples opt for divorce almost right away without even considering counseling or seeing a therapist. Yeah, they did marriage counseling, but it takes time. Look at John Cena. The guy just went up and divorced his wife of almost ten years without even trying to talk things out. This image here makes a good point:

Did you read the OP? They've been in counseling for months and he's leaving her on the advice of his therapist.

So it's not really a relevant point, however cute the old people may be.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's weird that most married couples opt for divorce almost right away without even considering counseling or seeing a therapist. Yeah, they did marriage counseling, but it takes time. Look at John Cena. The guy just went up and divorced his wife of almost ten years without even trying to talk things out. This image here makes a good point:

That image is just more of the same old "things were so much better when" crap. A lot of people stayed in a lot of dysfunctional marriages back then. Not everything can be "fixed", and you can blow out the best part of your youth in a sad, lonely marriage to someone you've grown completely apart from.

Words of warning only a fool would ignore. She's not a vindictive person, I don't know if she'd have the energy to endure that.

If she can get cooperation from him with the velvet glove instead of the iron boot, I'd try that first. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it's a situation where you have to be quick about things or lose your window.

PS - I have a second friend whose boyfriend is now in year 12 of his divorce. It's just not as compelling an example because they both had good reasons for wanting out of that mess.

 

[senordesol]

The relationship is dead, Jack seems like a bi guy who is bored with Jill and you never really listed any of Jill's concerns even though you start off with "I only have one side of the story of this scenario (the female's account)".

Fair enough. Her 'concerns' (so far as I'm aware) are: 'Holy shit who is this stranger in my husband's body who suddenly doesn't love me anymore?' and 'You want to do what with dudes!?'

As for the 'flexible' thing -and I've been admonished for saying the exact same thing you said- apparently the difference is that preference for women is more heavily weighted in the 'flexible'. Just trying to be PC.

 

[senordesol]

I guess it's obvious by now whose side I'm on, so I'll go ahead and give my opinion on the matter.
.

It was obvious from the start.

I had even typed out a post calling you your on your obvious bias in the poll and the OP but I didn't bother.

What can I say? I tried to be complete and clinical with all the information I was given. (Which I went out of my way to state was one-sided and I had already developed a strong opinion on)