Married an FSUW.. Sickness & weight gain..

[Gator]

I can understand why some men in their mature years may be especially sensitive about this topic. if they marry a woman 20 years their junior, statistically the probability that older man will get serious disease is much higher than that his young wife will get serious disease. (although exceptions always exist). I suspect this is why my post touched the bare nerve of some men here. Maybe all people become sensitive about this topic as they get older wiser.

I am an older goat gentleman.       Your comment does not concern me.  I have led such a healthy and vigorous  lifestyle that when I am no longer physically able,  I will take my first skydive and forget to open the chute.  Closed casket funeral of course.     

The very same guys are usually avid proponents of marriage contracts, some of them also believe that their young wives are entitled to nothing and do not care what will happen to this woman several decades later, when she will start getting feeble and sick, and will be alone. "Take care of me till death do us part, darling, and after that you are on your own."

I am a proponent of a marriage contract, yet the contract I had included provisions supporting the wife if I died before her, and it took precedence over my estate plan.  To do anything else is not love.  A woman must have legal representation when developing a marriage contract, and her attorney will raise this issue.

[ECOCKS]

It's sort of funny/sad/pathetic that when you're being told that the answer to the OP is to expect a low level of commitment (by traditional American standards anyway) there is this immediate attempt to rationalize it somehow.

When a person is no longer necessary (for whatever reason) they will bail unless you truly have a real love. That means those who how was it, had a "high price for both of you put on the slim physical appearance of both parties" can expect that lower level to manifest much more quickly when the physical degrades, the money is gone, the sex is not satisfying, the standard of living is not acceptable, etc. This has been demonstrated time and again in the stories of failure which are printed on this forum and subsequently rationalized away. Pretending it doesn't apply to you is setting yourself up for the big fall from your pulpit.

To the OP: Expect a measurably lower level of commitment when things change course from your FSUW than you would from an average woman you were really in love with AND WHO WAS REALLY IN LOVE WITH YOU who was born and raised in North America.

[Gator]

To the OP: Expect a measurably lower level of commitment when things change course from your FSUW than you would from an average woman you were really in love with who was born and raised in North America.

Hi Ed, good to see you here again.  A very thought provoking comment.

Question, is it possible for the OP to be really in love with his FSUW?   I don't see how the fact of being born and raised in North America a key factor.  In fact,  one Cossack family I know gives abundant support to ill members.   

[GQBlues]

I had 2 reasons why I got married. Life companionship with lovelong permanency and to pro-create.
 
 
If I knew that my genetic makeshift is pre-destined that at my advance age I will be struck down with some debilitating illness like those before me, then IMO, it's both selfish and silly for me to get married in the first place.
 
I think this is the beef that folks should be spending their time discussing not some hypothetical scenario that is full of subjective variations.
 
If you knew based on your genes, or family history, that sure as the rising sun you're pre-destined to be struck down with a debilitating illness later in your life...would you still aspire to get married knowing well enough the likelihood of your SO being thrust in this position of choice someday is pretty high? Just as bad, passing on your genes to your kids and subjecting them with the same type of future.

[Faux Pas]

Geeze, Faux Pas.. before you jump into conclusions, why not read my post carefully and see that I am making a point that in my opinion not all "medical reasons" or "sicknesses" qualify for "till death do us apart."
In case you missed it, let me quote myself: "[dot]I think every situation should be judged on case by case basis.[/dot] "

I did indeed read your post carefully, in fact I read it a few times to make sure I read, what I read. If you didn't explain yourself thoroughly enough, I can take no responsibility for that. However. it appeared to me earlier that you did and it does now, with a wee bit of back peddling thrown in for good measure 

For example, take alcoholism or drug addiction. It's a disease, and as an addiction - it's pretty much beyond control of the individual, there were some initial wrong behavior, but then it escalated and got out of control. Should a loving spouse stay with a sick person? No, I don't think so.
 
 Let's look at another example. Suppose there is a certain genetic predisposition in a family history. And due to this genetic predisposition a person gets ill and gains weight. Medical reason? sure. Should a loving wife stay? I suppose it depends on whether information about genetic predisposition was disclosed before marriage. If not - the spouse should not be judged harshly no matter what decision they take.

In the previous quote you covered addictions as illness that the addicted has little control and predisposed genetic illnesses/disorders and, that these illnesses should (paraphrasing) gives the healthy spouse a free pass to hit the bricks. Obviously, you and I have a different set of values here. My contention is, if you love someone, you love them through sickness and in health. That is after all the vows in most marriages. If you're not willing, remove the vows to something like "I will love you as long as it is convenient for me or doesn't encroach too much into my personal space." The vows are the vows mies, I didn't make them up.

The specific example about which I said "I do not think loving spouse should stay with this sick person" - was alcoholism and addiction. And I can repeat again, I do think that both addictions are sicknesses/illnesses, and in both cases I strongly believe that a spouse should not stay with this sick person. If anything, I believe they should set a deadline within a reasonable time frame, and then bail out. The sooner the better. There are also other cases which qualify for "leave them be" strategy.

Here you give yet another excuse of why or how it "could" be okay and acceptable to abandon the one who you have vowed not to abandon and love until death you do part. I call BS on it. Yes, it happens all the time. Many who say "I do", don't but, because it's fashionable doesn't make it "okay" nor acceptable.

I am sorry guys if I hurt your feelings, but if you really see no difference between cancer, heart attack, and addictions, - then I'm afraid I will not be able to get my point through to you. Or maybe you have never met people with serious substances problems. I had.

mies, this is a discussion, not an argument and my feelings are not hurt. Obviously there is a difference in heart attacks, cancer and addictions. Is there a difference in abandonment of the one you have proclaimed and vowed to love? I suspect you and I will continue to differ on that one. IMHO, if you do indeed love someone an illness or change of appearance will not waver that love. Perhaps wear it down or change it over time but, this isn't the discussion, is it?

As for cancer - first of all, you don't need to make example about breast cancer. You could make example with testicle cancer, and I would get you point just fine. So, as one of my professors in my first school used to say: "cancer is the natural end of any human life, only many people die too soon from other reasons and don't live long enough to experience their own personal cancer." And I share his viewpoint on this matter. I also think that people who demonize it create the social stigma, and this social stigma and fear of the unknown make some spouses run away. I do not understand why society needs to demonize this disease. Yes, it happens, it is expensive, unpleasant, and may be incurable, people often die from it. But people die in general. Just because no one lives forever. So no, I would not leave a person because they have a cancer. It would be as silly as waking up one morning and saying "darling, I just realized that you are not immortal, so let's get divorced.

"

This entire quote is a total red herring to the discussion. Nobody demonized cancer. Breast cancer, testicular cancer, brain cancer or being hit by a bus makes no difference. Life changing or altering illness or circumstance is the topic and whether it is acceptable to abandon one claimed to love. This discussion could splinter in a hundred different ways. I am addressing just your last two posts.

Let's get completely hypothetical here just for a moment, if your husband revealed to you prior to marriage that both of his grandfathers died of cancer, would you have married him?

[mies]

I am an older goat gentleman.       Your comment does not concern me.  I have led such a healthy and vigorous  lifestyle that when I am no longer physically able,  I will take my first skydive and forget to open the chute.  Closed casket funeral of course.       

interestingly, that's my "phase out strategy" too ))))) possible cremation in the end to save space.

[chivo]

interestingly, that's my "phase out strategy" too ))))) possible cremation in the end to save space.

So I guess you'll light yourself on fire once you exit the plane 

[mies]

I did indeed read your post carefully, in fact I read it a few times to make sure I read, what I read. If you didn't explain yourself thoroughly enough, I can take no responsibility for that. However. it appeared to me earlier that you did and it does now, with a wee bit of back peddling thrown in for good measure 

In the previous quote you covered addictions as illness that the addicted has little control and predisposed genetic illnesses/disorders and, that these illnesses should (paraphrasing) gives the healthy spouse a free pass to hit the bricks. Obviously, you and I have a different set of values here. My contention is, if you love someone, you love them through sickness and in health. That is after all the vows in most marriages. If you're not willing, remove the vows to something like "I will love you as long as it is convenient for me or doesn't encroach too much into my personal space." The vows are the vows mies, I didn't make them up.


Here you give yet another excuse of why or how it "could" be okay and acceptable to abandon the one who you have vowed not to abandon and love until death you do part. I call BS on it. Yes, it happens all the time. Many who say "I do", don't but, because it's fashionable doesn't make it "okay" nor acceptable.

mies, this is a discussion, not an argument and my feelings are not hurt. Obviously there is a difference in heart attacks, cancer and addictions. Is there a difference in abandonment of the one you have proclaimed and vowed to love? I suspect you and I will continue to differ on that one. IMHO, if you do indeed love someone an illness or change of appearance will not waver that love. Perhaps wear it down or change it over time but, this isn't the discussion, is it?
"

This entire quote is a total red herring to the discussion. Nobody demonized cancer. Breast cancer, testicular cancer, brain cancer or being hit by a bus makes no difference. Life changing or altering illness or circumstance is the topic and whether it is acceptable to abandon one claimed to love. This discussion could splinter in a hundred different ways. I am addressing just your last two posts.

Let's get completely hypothetical here just for a moment, if your husband revealed to you prior to marriage that both of his grandfathers died of cancer, would you have married him?

again, you pick example of cancer when I said that in my view cancer is not in the list of reasons that "qualify" for bail out.

if the spouse reveals prior to marriage about their hereditary conditions/predispositions/diseases - then their partner can decide whether they want to live with it. If the person knows that they will likely become disabled in 10 years, and conceal this information from their spouse-to-be, then I believe it's a major lie and attempt to take advantage of the feelings of another person. And, if I may, an indicator of no love on the part of potentially sick person, only calculative mind. I also believe that such behavior is the major breach of trust, akin to adultery/cheating. If your wife told you she cheated on you, would you stay married to her and forgave her because you said the vows and because you love her?

As for the vows issue - we didn't say "church vows" with my husband during the marriage ceremony since we didn't have church wedding. We said vows to each other before we decided to get married, our vows were that we will be honest with each other and stay together as long as we love each other. That's all. We never promised to love each other till death because one can't know such things. Maybe you take your love as duty, we take it as a miracle and gift, a gift of one's heart to another person, not a duty levied on them. So all you picking on the "vows till death do us part" does not really apply to me 

Finally, on the question of supposedly lower commitment on part of FSUW comparing to AW, people in USSR personally take care about their ill/sick relatives and close ones. When my great grandma broke her hip at the age of 97, my mom for several months became a full-time "nurse" in addition to her other full-time job, because nurses at the hospital, nor private nurses were not provided sufficiently good care. She was practically living in the hospital. My great grandma recovered and lived in the family until she was 101. In contrast, Americans are known for relying on the help of specialized institutions and assisted living homes. I think American society is much more individualistic than ours. FSUW never divorce their husbands for reasons of disease or disability. FSUM are known to divorce their FSUW for the same reason, but women - not. Our people never turn their back on their sick relatives. If FSUW bails out on her AM husband when he gets sick or poor, maybe she married him for other reasons than she would have married a FSU man, or maybe their relationship never evolved to the stage when both would truly feel in heart that they are one family. 

Have you ever personally cared of terminally ill person? Or a very ill person? Based on my observations (and they may be not representative) most men&women who talk about certain sensitive topic in a very categorical manner and with great piety - are theorists. They have very remote idea of the subject, love, level of commitment and so on.
I've read recently on one of the forums: a woman complains that her AM batters her and is mentally unstable/bipolar (diagnosed, on medication). And a dumb russian 22yo girl tells her "you should get pregnant from him, then he will feel that you are a real family and will start treating you well and stop beating you. You have married him, and it is your duty to make this marriage work."  The dumbest advice I ever heard. Which bring up another interesting question: is aggression and threat to life due to medical reasons (mental health issue) a valid reason for breaking the marital vows? I would be curious to hear your arguments on this question 

[mies]

So I guess you'll light yourself on fire once you exit the plane 

No )) I want the last minute of my life to be extremely pleasant  But i've been thinking of jumping off in a wild area, where no one would look for my remains, i will fertilize some nice plant and bugs will feast on my flesh. 
Cremation is only for the case if the previous plan were not possible  After i live, I don't want to be bound to one spot in space, in some casket. I rather become one with the world. As you can see - I have made some meticulous planning. 

[Anotherkiwi]

No )) I want the last minute of my life to be extremely pleasant  But i've been thinking of jumping off in a wild area, where no one would look for my remains, i will fertilize some nice plant and bugs will feast on my flesh. 
Cremation is only for the case if the previous plan were not possible  After i live, I don't want to be bound to one spot in space, in some casket. I rather become one with the world. As you can see - I have made some meticulous planning.

And hopefully this will not be required for another 40 or 50 years!

[vwrw]

again, you pick example of cancer when I said that in my view cancer is not in the list of reasons that "qualify" for bail out.

I divide illnesses and disease into two groups - short-term and for life.  Cancer is an example of a short term disease that either will be cured to the level that the person will be able to engage in usual activities or the person will die. I and most people, i believe, would sacrifice a few year of their life to  stay with their partner who got afflicted by a short term disease. Crippling diseases for life such as becoming a "plant" or mentally incapable are different story. The may require you sacrificing the rest of your life for the sick person. When i think about it, I cannot help but think about the Indian and Egyptian tradition to to bury wives with husbands upon the  husbands' death. Dedicating the rest of my life to care (full-time) for a sick person equals death to me.  Maybe some religious people have several lives, and thus they can justify sacrificing one of their lives. I personally have just one life and am incapable to persuade myself to do anything with the hell/paradise argument (I tried, it never worked because i cannot be persuaded by an argument wherein too much need to be taken for granted). And i would not  expect my husband to sacrifices his life to care for me had i been afflicted by a for life disease.

We have one side agreement in our family that if something happens to me and my husband would face a choice to let me die or let me live as a cripple choice, he must let me die even if there is a small chance that i would return to my normal self.   

[vwrw]

Another important factor to consider is the care that needs to be given to the sick person. If the care involves payments for the care and regular visiting of the sick spouse, it is one thing.  This kind of care allows opportunities for the healthy spouse to enjoy his or her own life. However, if the  care involves full time involvement of the healthy spouse (because they cannot afford otherwise), it is different scenario.

[vwrw]

Which bring up another interesting question: is aggression and threat to life due to medical reasons (mental health issue) a valid reason for breaking the marital vows?

This is a very good question!!!

[Faux Pas]

again, you pick example of cancer when I said that in my view cancer is not in the list of reasons that "qualify" for bail out.

if the spouse reveals prior to marriage about their hereditary conditions/predispositions/diseases - then their partner can decide whether they want to live with it. If the person knows that they will likely become disabled in 10 years, and conceal this information from their spouse-to-be, then I believe it's a major lie and attempt to take advantage of the feelings of another person. And, if I may, an indicator of no love on the part of potentially sick person, only calculative mind. I also believe that such behavior is the major breach of trust, akin to adultery/cheating. If your wife told you she cheated on you, would you stay married to her and forgave her because you said the vows and because you love her?

Ah, I stand corrected. Cancer is one of the qualifying illnesses that you would not leave your spouse for. So how do you quantify cancer over say multiple sclerosis or paraplegic from a car accident? MS is genetic related and the auto accident is their fault so that indicates that they didn't love you? Nobody has a crystal ball or can see into the future mies. If a person "knew", as in was already diagnosed and withheld that information yes, most certainly could be seen as a lie and breech of trust. Yet, that isn't the discussion, is it? Please, stay on topic.  If my wife cheated on me does not mean I immediately would abandon the marriage. Obviously, if she did, there are other problems in the marriage that would likely be a bigger determining factor.

As for the vows issue - we didn't say "church vows" with my husband during the marriage ceremony since we didn't have church wedding. We said vows to each other before we decided to get married, our vows were that we will be honest with each other and stay together as long as we love each other. That's all. We never promised to love each other till death because one can't know such things. Maybe you take your love as duty, we take it as a miracle and gift, a gift of one's heart to another person, not a duty levied on them. So all you picking on the "vows till death do us part" does not really apply to me 

Church vows, agnostic, atheist, makes no difference. These are promises made to your spouse although I suppose, if you only promised to stay "as long as I love you" you have your exit. Unless of course you regularly make promises you do not plan to keep, you can leave even if you do still love them, correct?

Sure there is a matter of duty and honor to promises made. When a man and woman love each other (truly love each other) they want to keep them. So it really isn't the burden you're making it out to be, is it?

Finally, on the question of supposedly lower commitment on part of FSUW comparing to AW, people in USSR personally take care about their ill/sick relatives and close ones. When my great grandma broke her hip at the age of 97, my mom for several months became a full-time "nurse" in addition to her other full-time job, because nurses at the hospital, nor private nurses were not provided sufficiently good care. She was practically living in the hospital. My great grandma recovered and lived in the family until she was 101. In contrast, Americans are known for relying on the help of specialized institutions and assisted living homes. I think American society is much more individualistic than ours. FSUW never divorce their husbands for reasons of disease or disability. FSUM are known to divorce their FSUW for the same reason, but women - not. Our people never turn their back on their sick relatives. If FSUW bails out on her AM husband when he gets sick or poor, maybe she married him for other reasons than she would have married a FSU man, or maybe their relationship never evolved to the stage when both would truly feel in heart that they are one family.

IMHO, such virtues or lack of are not nationality or gender specific but, individual. The OP's question was stated as hypothetical although seemed to have some real life undertones. It was a good question. There is no right or wrong answer here just difference in values or morality. Your thoughts on American society are wrong. The reality is, it is very wide and broad. I won't comment on Ukrainian because frankly, I don't know 

Have you ever personally cared of terminally ill person? Or a very ill person? Based on my observations (and they may be not representative) most men&women who talk about certain sensitive topic in a very categorical manner and with great piety - are theorists. They have very remote idea of the subject, love, level of commitment and so on.

Yes to both questions. We have a family situation currently. Thankfully, it is neither my spouse or I. Yes, I know what you mean. I've categorized you as one of these people 

I've read recently on one of the forums: a woman complains that her AM batters her and is mentally unstable/bipolar (diagnosed, on medication). And a dumb russian 22yo girl tells her "you should get pregnant from him, then he will feel that you are a real family and will start treating you well and stop beating you. You have married him, and it is your duty to make this marriage work."  The dumbest advice I ever heard. Which bring up another interesting question:

Further proof that there is nothing more dangerous than ignorance in motion

is aggression and threat to life due to medical reasons (mental health issue) a valid reason for breaking the marital vows? I would be curious to hear your arguments on this question 

I don't believe I stated anywhere that there were never valid reasons to leave. IMHO, the threat danger of personal harm to oneself or their children would be one of them that comes to mind. But, you have to believe if the ill spouse loves the other, that isn't a danger. That's not always the case. A bit off topic but, that is another reason I'll never understand why a woman would stay with a man who physically abuses her. This is something that happens all too often (no matter the nationality)

[ECOCKS]

Promises don't count if they weren't made in church?

That's a new one for me but not surprising considering the culture.

[BC]

Promises don't count if they weren't made in church?

That's a new one for me but not surprising considering the culture.

After 5 years legally married, we married in an Orthodox ceremony.

Did it make a difference?.. dunno.. hope so though.  It did seem to be a matter of importance, so guess that counts especially when it's a once in a lifetime thing.

Celebrating our tenth this Oct.

[GQBlues]

Considering the age of the majority of the men involved, Alzheimer should be fairly high in probability, no? As such, will a man even remember he has a wife, let alone a Russian one, or that she was at least 20 years his junior?


If he can't remember a thing, did she do anything wrong leaving him? 

[mies]

And hopefully this will not be required for another 40 or 50 years!

Thank you the later the better, i am in no hurry  Given that I am slightly over 30, my greatgrandma lived until 101 and was never frail or missing any bolts nor needed any special medical or other assistance, died peacefully at home in her dream and in perfect (for her age) health, and the grandma is still alive and very active in 83 - I think I can target as many as another 70 years 

[mies]

Promises don't count if they weren't made in church?

That's a new one for me but not surprising considering the culture.

If the post was addressed to me (although I am not sure) - i keep the promises which I made. I do not make promises about which I cannot guarantee I will be able to keep them, nor I require of other people to promise me things upon which they will not be able to deliver. I never gave promises "to stay together till death do us part," nor did my husband, - neither in church no elsewhere. I told Faux Pas that his remarks about "vows" and "till death do us apart" did not apply to my marriage because we never gave those vows, neither officially nor unofficially. I hope this clarifies the point.

I am not sure what you mean by "but not surprising considering the culture." Do we happen to know each other?

[mies]

I don't believe I stated anywhere that there were never valid reasons to leave. IMHO, the threat danger of personal harm to oneself or their children would be one of them that comes to mind. But, you have to believe if the ill spouse loves the other, that isn't a danger. That's not always the case. A bit off topic but, that is another reason I'll never understand why a woman would stay with a man who physically abuses her. This is something that happens all too often (no matter the nationality)

so we do agree that there are valid reasons to leave?

also, I did not quite understand the part in bold: do you mean that in order to keep the personal life-bonding contract in force, both people should love each other? What if the ill person does not love the healthy one?

[ECOCKS]

If the post was addressed to me (although I am not sure) - i keep the promises which I made. I do not make promises about which I cannot guarantee I will be able to keep them, nor I require of other people to promise me things upon which they will not be able to deliver. I never gave promises "to stay together till death do us part," nor did my husband, - neither in church no elsewhere. I told Faux Pas that his remarks about "vows" and "till death do us apart" did not apply to my marriage because we never gave those vows, neither officially nor unofficially. I hope this clarifies the point.

I am not sure what you mean by "but not surprising considering the culture." Do we happen to know each other?

Not addressed to you, merely a follow-on response to a point FP brought up in his response to you.

Nope, never met you, don't expect to do so. I'm discussing the topic in the context of a people and their cultural environment not an individual.

 

[Faux Pas]

so we do agree that there are valid reasons to leave?

I never stated that there wasn't ever, valid reasons to leave, did I?  There are some illness that would justify leaving, for the benefit of both partners. Also, I am not harping on the promise before God aspect either, I am harping on the promise you made to your spouse in the form of a vow. These promises mean nothing to a great many people. I was just wondering if you were one of them? 

also, I did not quite understand the part in bold: do you mean that in order to keep the personal life-bonding contract in force, both people should love each other? What if the ill person does not love the healthy one?

No, what I meant was is, if the ill spouse loves the healthy spouse, generally, the healthy spouse is in no danger.

[mies]

No, what I meant was is, if the ill spouse loves the healthy spouse, generally, the healthy spouse is in no danger.

I am not sure I agree with this. Even the healthy loving person can be a danger to their spouse: because of the wrong motives, because of bad decisions, because different people define "love" differently. There are many healthy (or marginally healthy) people who kill their spouses or do other nasty things because they "love" their spouses. There are many healthy and sick people who continuously abuse their spouses but if you ask them - they genuinely believe they love their spouses, while abusing them.

[ECOCKS]

Discerning readers should note the real content of what is going on here. Whether it is difficulty in vocabulary use or deep-seated cultural concerns people in this endeavor cannot over-emphasize the value of communication.

[Faux Pas]

I am not sure I agree with this. Even the healthy loving person can be a danger to their spouse: because of the wrong motives, because of bad decisions, because different people define "love" differently. There are many healthy (or marginally healthy) people who kill their spouses or do other nasty things because they "love" their spouses. There are many healthy and sick people who continuously abuse their spouses but if you ask them - they genuinely believe they love their spouses, while abusing them.

Then it isn't "love", is it? One doesn't "abuse" one that they love. They may abuse one they possess, one that is the subject of their infatuation or the one that is available. What the abuser "genuinely believes" is really of no consequence. Abuse is abuse and love is love. One doesn't abuse one they love