This is a great example of how easy it is to misinterpret stuff in English.
If someone is really good at faking good character, doesn't that make them a "good actor"? :-)
I would not consider someone who exited a marriage for the sole purpose of bettering themselves to be one of the "good ones". The more apt term would perhaps be "selfish" (this assumes that both parties accepted the conventional terms of what a marriage implies). On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with ending a long-term relationship to better one's self — no permanent commitment has been established.
So, for me, a good one is absolutely somebody who exits a long term relationship as soon as it isn't optimal enough for them anymore.
Which means that the terms they are on with their ex, are an even stronger indicator of how much of a "good one" they are. Communication skills are important. Foresight to agree on things before hand is also important. All great symptoms of someone who will make a good partner.
Someone trapped in a bad marriage <<< someone on excellent terms with their ex.
Restated, this view asserts that marriage, or, the partner, are of value only in as much as they remain beneficial on a limited horizon extended by limited extrapolation to future goods.
That sounds to me like precisely the same sort of short-term-results focus that is increasingly being criticized for producing non-desirable behaviors by public corporations beholden to hit their numbers, regardless of long term costs, externalities, etc. etc.
I am NOT being critical, btw. This is a total valid and rational formulation, and it has refreshing clarity.
That said at a personal, anecdotal, level, I can report after 15 years of marriage (and 25 together) with a partner, that there seem to be good reasons for the traditional formulations to have evolved as they have.
E.g. that there is great value when the market is down (e.g. under the decade-long stress of parenting young children) is knowing that your partner has committed (is stuck) to you, even when you don't have the resources to give them your best self.
We all err; disaster strikes; forgiveness takes time; sometimes it will take more than a day to heal.
But YMMV :)
Further, divorces are horrible messes, even in the best of circumstances. To "hope" that for anyone else is even more messed up.
Are you basing this off the assumption one of those women eventually divorces? Divorce doesn't necessarily mean someone is an unsuitable partner.
I'll tell the world one thing, I found out about my character that I'm not proud of. I found "the one" a few years ago. She was sweet, caring, had brilliant foresight, knew people, wasen't materialistic, smart, put others before herself, etc. I would have died for this woman. She was the one I measured the others by.
I ran into her at an office a few weeks ago. I didn't recognize her. I talked to her for close to an hour. She didn't have those qualities seemingly left.
I drove home, and asked--still asking myself; "Did I project these qualities on her because of her looks--years ago?
I met her just after a severe life crisis. She was a coworker. Could I have projected these qualities on her because she was so stunning? I'm still questioning myself. I really didn't think I was that shallow. I actually, didn't think, I was shallow in the slightest, but maybe I am?
Plus, given some limited information about a person, we tend to fill it with "wishful thinking" and assign all kind of positive attributes that don't really exists.
On street parlance this is called "putting the pussy on a pedestal". This is a very common thing that most men (and/or women) do when they are young.
Second marriage divorce rates are 67%. Doesn't this strategy imply a fair bit of medium to long run risk?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce...
I agree on the bettering yourself bit.
Agreed. Always baffles me to see people complaining that they can't find "a good guy/girl" as if it was self-evident that they deserve a good partner in a first place. What do you bring to the table? Why would a "good guy" want to be with you? Work on yourself first, I'll give that a +1 :)
Unless someone is themselves a "bad person", then why shouldn't they be able to find a "good guy/girl"? Why should they have to bring anything special to the table for that? Shouldn't there be a ready supply of good datable partners, if most people really are generally good as many people like to believe?
Of course, the real problem is that lots of people aren't willing to settle for just anyone, just because they're a nice person. They want them to be attractive, have a decent job, not have any serious baggage, etc. So what happens is they complain about not being able to find a "nice" or "good" guy/girl, but when they do meet them, they don't meet their other requirements, which may or may not be realistic or too picky. I mean, if you're an athletic guy and you meet some nice girl who weighs twice as much as you, I don't personally think it's wrong for you to not be attracted to her. However there's a such thing as being too picky and unrealistic, like people who reject someone because they don't have an advanced degree, or rejecting someone who was married before when you're over 40 yourself.
But I would hope that finding a "good" person should be a basic requirement. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to date anyone who's evil.
But, to think that the population of people who have already demonstrated a lack of either desire, or ability, or both, to form a lasting intimate relationship with another human, is a better sample to draw your prospects from, than those who have not demonstrated these qualities yet, is a basic arithmetic fail.
This assumes there are not new good ones entering the dating pool, either by aging in or by maturing/developing enough to cross the line from not good one to good one.