Many women took Amy up on her offer, sending me a range of messages — overly forward, funny, wise, moving, sincere....
I couldn’t digest any of these messages at the time, but I have since found solace and even laughter in many of them. One thing I have come to understand, though, is what a gift Amy gave me by emphasizing that I had a long life to fill with joy, happiness and love. Her edict to fill my own empty space with a new story has given me permission to make the most out of my remaining time on this planet....
[A]s she described, we followed Plan “Be,” which was about being present in our lives because time was running short. So we did our best to live in the moment until we had no more moments left....
I am now aware, in a way I wish I never had to learn, that loss is loss is loss, whether it’s a divorce, losing a job, having a beloved pet die or enduring the death of a family member....
June 15, 2018
"I am that guy" — the husband of "You May Want to Marry My Husband.”
Jason Rosenthal writes (in the NYT) about his life in the year after his wife died of ovarian cancer 10 days after publishing a "Modern Love" essay (which I blogged about here).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
Nice post. Moving on is a decision. It begins with intentionally forgetting the past and throwing out the reminders. Suicide comes from being stuck in the past loss. A good forgetter is needed. That is why Jesus kept demanding that we forgive those who hurt us. Then we can forget it.
Compare Plan “Be" with "We're here now. Why can't we just do it?" (which I compared to "Be here now").
Do people really communicate like this, it really grates on me:
"Her edict to fill my own empty space with a new story has given me permission ..."
Also, I understand the sentiment, but does she still control him from the grave, i.e., he needed her permission? Standard marriage vows take care of that.
Althouse's blog is her version of Plan “Be".
Each post is a snapshot of her being in the moment of observation of a moment.
I posted a picture of Picasso line drawings in the 'Attachment G' post; in doing so, I came across this famous Klee quote:
"A line is a dot that went for a walk."
The dot is the moment, the line is the post.
-LWL
The afterlife version of move on is the wives will meet in heaven as friends who took care of the same man.
but does she still control him from the grave, i.e., he needed her permission? Standard marriage vows take care of that.
Maybe that's a side effect of no-fault at will marriages. If your marriage only lasts as long as you love her (instead of 'til death us do part' ), then it Does last as long as you love her; and you have to:
divorce a corpse
enter into an open marriage with the corpse
Us trout fishers don't have these problems with our trouts.
We love them unconditionally, even if they don't bite, even if the line breaks, even if we let them go, even if we gut them and fry them up in hot oil (yummmm!)
We love trouts as long as there Are trouts
I'm 61. On the 24th, my wife and I will celebrate our 35th anniversary. We've built a good life together. Should I outlive my wife, I don't foresee any possibility of marrying again. The risks are just too high. There are just too many gold diggers out there. I'll use what we've saved to pay for my retirement, and what's left over will go to our sons and grandchildren.
I didn't read the original post so I can't comment on the woman's article.
However, my husband and I have had some conversations about marriage and the enevitable death. Some serious and some in a light hearted tone. We have been very happily married for over 25 years now. Second marriage for both of us. The reality is that at some point, one or the other of us is going to be left alone due to attrition (death).
If it is I that were to go first, I want my husband to be able to find someone else. I don't mean the day after I die :-) But in his own good time. I would be sad to think that he would spend the rest of his life alone.
I make the joke that I would hope he would find some one ......but don't you dare let her wear my jewelry!
He says that "loss is loss" but not all losses are the same. My first wife and my dog both died 12 years ago. I still have at least one moment of grief every day for the former. The latter I hardly even think about any more.
I told my wife that she's not allowed to get remarried if I die and I will abide by the same rule if the reverse happens.
Might be childish and selfish, but even that cutesy 1 Corinthians that's read at every wedding doesn't say Love is not jealous.
I once knew a really nice and well off retired man ( he was from Michigan), who moved here. He had a new wife that was 25 years younger than he was. He wanted the best for her and told everyone that he wanted her to move on and enjoy her life after he died. He did,and she did. The guy made a big impression on me. He genuinely loved people with out ifs, ands and buts. Those are the people we need to remember.
I knew Amy. She beat me out--twice--for a copywriter job. She used to work with my father. Very nice person.
I truly wouldn't want my husband to feel lonely and have said I'd want him to find someone else if I go first.
Me? I think I'd be like a lot of women my age and travel with my older, single friends.
I think about my deceased dogs all the time. I want to keep thinking about them. I don't want to ever stop missing them, and I know I wont. I pray that we will see each other again in the world to come. I truly believe we will.
Common knowledge/Common sense that widow/er remarriage is a sign that the first marriage was happy and healthy.
I would separate "moving on" from re-marrying. I'm passed the age for wanting any more children, and for me, marriage is more about forming a family for children than just companionship. If my wife were to die before me, I would seek out companionship, but it is very unlikely I would ever marry again.
"he needed her permission? " AFAIN I am in good health as is husband. Still, I've brought up with him on several occasions that if I were, as I put it, to be run over tomorrow by a speeding bus, he should absolutely move on (and I even had a coworker in mind although I didn't tell him that; I told our best friend who knows her). He's so rock solid, true blue, etc etc that I honestly feel that he would unconsciously need "permission."
I took - perhaps my own bias filter - the "loss is loss" part to mean not that all loss is the same, but that it is inevitable to us all (the lessons to be learnt, I mean). We each must travel our own path, we each must learn the lessons we have on the way for ourselves, loss/death being one, and that is that.
The thing about our species is that many try to share what is experienced as our own private lessons - we created writing so generations not yet born may think about what we thought in our own time. One mans grief, and his response to it, is his own (private), but his putting it in a space in the NYT means he wants others to know that what he sees as a lesson (whatever that may be) is as important as the personal event.
There is a universality to our brotherhood/sisterhood, so that even the experience of a death in the family - so personal and private and unique to each of us - we try to connect. That aint a bad thing.
Long ago, the lessons of generations got put in books and the more cleric-y sort in the tribe would edit them a bit and carry them around. Maybe used those books to teach the young ones the, uh, basics. Might have helped in the transition between generations over time. Kept the tribe on point, maybe, especially if they had to wander in the desert for a little, or fleeing from invasion.
I read this one book once, telling me to always remember there's nothing new under the sun. Times change, but the song remains the same.
This has happened more than once:
Wife dies.
Widower re-marries.
Widower dies.
Wife No. 2 and her kids (from previous marriage) inherit all of widower's and wife No. 1's stuff.
Wife No. 1's kids left out in the cold.
tcrosse -
If we are talking about mature adults with mature kids, a pre-nup takes care of this. That's what my father-in-law did when he remarried. Shouldn't be an issue if anyone is thinking.
tcrosse @ 11:38 AM - You are describing the plot of Cinderella!
I really cannot identify with a person who thinks -- after reading an article in the paper -- that a letter to the survivor is warranted. I don't care what the article said. It's just creepy in my view to send a letter.
*gag*
Shouldn't be an issue if anyone is thinking.
Quite right. In the case I am familiar with, one of Wife No. 1's kids is a lawyer. She had trusted her Dad to do the right thing.
If we are talking about mature adults with mature kids, a pre-nup takes care of this. That's what my father-in-law did when he remarried. Shouldn't be an issue if anyone is thinking.
Putting on my former professional hat.....
A trust document and a will are a better and stronger solution than a pre-nup. Pre-nups don't always hold up in a court fight. Recommended is two trusts if the assets are substantial, real property, or business holdings might be in an irrevocable trust.
A separate family trust for other assets, smaller items, or jointly held properties with the "new" spouse. The problem with the standard "family" type of trust is that it can be changed during the grantor's lifetime and therefore can be subject to undue persuasion or manipulation to cutting out certain heirs.
Titling all of the assets correctly is extremely important. Either Titled in the name of the trust which then spells out the plan of succession or if the "new" wife/husband has contributed their own cash then Tenants in Common.
Investment accounts can often be titled in such a way that they go to certain beneficiaries upon death.
The biggest mistake that people make in a second marriage is to hold all assets in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship (JTWROS) and outside of a trust. The second is to not change your beneficiaries on life insurance, retirement accounts, annuities etc. I had one client who was divorced in an awful ugly battle and just "forgot" to change his beneficiaries. As a result his second wife and his children by her were left in the cold when he died. His awful ex got everything.
A recorded !!! will that details who gets certain family heirlooms is also important and and executor who is NOT the surviving second spouse. The trusts should also specify who is the successor trustee in case of incapacity or death. Again. A neutral third party is the best solution.
As always....contact an estate planner and/or lawyer who specializes in this.
Not to do these things is to guarantee to leave your children and other family member in a giant mess. You can't believe the shit that I have had to deal with, with clients who refused to plan.
Don't trust your parents (or anyone else) to do the right thing. Most people don't know. Don't understand. And frankly refuse to even think about it.
(Gah...I am so glad I am retired!!!!!)
When my mother died, after years of a debilitating illness, my sisters and I really wanted our father to find someone new. He did, but she ended up being awful. She tried mightily to keep us and our children out of his/their life. We knew that he was unhappy but because of his faith he would never divorce. That made us sad. He had the new wife sign off on all of his assets that were his prior to their marriage but did it with documents specific to each account and not specified in his will. By accident we got a hold of one of those documents and asked a lawyer if there was any other way to find out if any other accounts were handled in the same manner. We had to sue the bitch and she dragged it out until the 6% rule that Wisconsin has. Meaning an executor can spend up to 6% of the estate settling it but if you go over 6% than a judge can ask for an accounting of specific expenses. Our lawyer told us that would be her plan and by golly it was.
Family should be told what the arrangements are before a second marriage so this kind of thing doesn't happen. It was awful.
And mostly, it still makes me sad that my dad was sad at the end of his life.
Posts subsequent to mine reinforce my view that re-marriage should be avoided unless additional children are expected.
Posts subsequent to mine reinforce my view that re-marriage should be avoided unless additional children are expected.
Quite right. Why should I make one woman miserable when I can make dozens happy ?
“This has happened more than once:
Wife dies.
Widower re-marries.
Widower dies.
Wife No. 2 and her kids (from previous marriage) inherit all of widower's and wife No. 1's stuff.
Wife No. 1's kids left out in the cold.“
Get a good lawyer. This problem can be prevented.
If you divorced and your ex forgot to remove you as a beneficiary to his pension and/or life insurance, would you keep it?
If you divorced and your ex forgot to remove you as a beneficiary to his pension and/or life insurance, would you keep it?
This happened when my wife's ex offed himself. We figured the money had a curse on it, but giving it up proved to be a big can of worms.
when my aunt died in the 1980's, she had no children and gave all her money to her nieces and nephews: except for the 100's of thousands in her 401k, which went to her ex and his new wife. My cousins made a big stink, but i figured; if a lady worked for Merle Lynch and left her 401k going to her ex: she probably had a reason.
If he'd decided to give it to us, that would have been okay too.
Post a Comment