Posted on 03/27/2014 6:40:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Celebrity power couple Gwyenth Paltrow and Chris Martin are not merely divorcing; they are consciously uncoupling.
In a Tuesday night post announcing the end of their ten-year marriage, under the headline “Conscious Uncoupling” on Paltrow’s lifestyle blog Goop, the couple wrote that “it is with hearts full of sadness that we have decided to separate.” After “working hard for well over a year, some of it together, some of it separated, to see what might have been possible between us,” they “have come to the conclusion that while we love each other very much we will remain separate.” They will always be a family, though, and in some ways are “closer than we have ever been.” They conclude with a request for privacy as they “consciously uncouple and coparent.”
Consciously uncoupling certainly sounds much more amicable and orderly than breaking up or even unconsciously uncoupling. But what exactly does it mean?
Paltrow helpfully followed up her initial announcement by posting a 2,000-word treatise on conscious uncoupling from Habib Sadeghi and Sherry Sami, a married couple living in Los Angeles. (Dr. Sadeghi is an osteopathic doctor who runs an “integrative health center” called “Be Hive of Healing,” pun presumably intended, and whose book Within: A Spiritual Awakening to Love and Weight Loss contains a forward written by Paltrow. His wife is a dentist.)
Sadeghi and Sami begin by explaining that given rapidly accelerating life expectancy, these days it’s unrealistic to expect that we’ll be able to stick it out until death do us part, which suggests we “ought to redefine the construct” of marriage.
“Our biology and psychology aren’t set up to be with one person for four, five, or six decades,” they write. So there’s the science. Now for some New Agey jargon: “Life is a spiritual exercise in evolving from an exoskeleton for support and survival to an endoskeleton,” they write in a section entitled, “Intimacy & Insects.” They mean by this, basically, that you have to look within yourself for support and strength and healing, not to others, or, one can infer, to any kind of external deity.
Finally, they get to the part about how to uncouple consciously and “avoid the drama of divorce.” You shouldn’t think about it in terms of your marriage having failed, because (a) as we learned, the expectation that it would last was based on an outdated construct, and (b) this is actually going to be a positive experience if you just let go of old notions and approach it in terms of building up your partner’s spiritual endoskeleton. “To change the concept of divorce, we need to release the belief structures we have around marriage that create rigidity in our thought process,” they write. The “belief structure” that marriage should be for life “is too much pressure for anyone.”
Conscious uncoupling will bring “wholeness to the spirits of both people who choose to recognize each other as their teachers.” What’s more, conscious uncoupling “prevents families from being broken by divorce and creates expanded families that continue to function in a healthy way outside of traditional marriage.”
They conclude that by “choosing to handle your uncoupling in a conscious way . . . you’ll see that although it looks like everything is coming apart; it’s actually all coming back together.”
One anonymous source offered E! a more prosaic take on the end of the relationship. “They both really believed in the sanctity of marriage and the role model it provided for their kids,” the source said. “Both of their parents were married their entire lives, and they really wanted the same for their kids. They stuck it out for a long time.”
If that’s an accurate description, it sounds like Dr. Sadeghi has some work to do in helping the uncoupling couple to adjust their rigid belief structures.
— Katherine Connell is an associate editor at National Review.
LIberals ALL.........................NBC: Nothing But Crap........................
or Blackberry..................
Lol, pretty funny....but now they will consciously uncouple the confusion.
Just keep in mind that those collectivist Yids are not having children at the rate the Orthodox are and for the most part are conservative. Those Leftists simply breed themselves out over time.
Leftists have about 0-2 children whereas religious people tend to have 2-4. The Haredi and Chassidic Yids start with at least 4 and go upwards of 10 and sometimes even more.
That’s why I encourage all conservative/traditional/religious people to have more children.
Genesis 1:28
New International Version
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Here’s how I see it. A parent who divorces is making the child shed tears on her behalf. It’s wrong. Unless I’m married to a man given to violence or who abuses my child, there is a way to live together in order to maintain the integrity of the marriage. Also, God can repair any relationship if we are willing to live His way instead of ours.
IT’S A COOKBOOK!
The problem with this analysis is that most people with a lot of kids are on some sort of assistance. WIC and CHiP are very common among big families. Most of the big, religious, conservative families I know are Catholic and I'm telling you they are collecting the government bennies. Meanwhile, the typical liberal with 1 or 2 kids doesn't use them (or at least not as many). And what's more, the libs' kids are more likely to go on to high paying careers. Of course there are lots of exceptions, but next time you run into a big, conservative family (more than 5 kids), take a closer look. Odds are, they're getting by with some of your tax dollars.
I'm all for big families - my wife and I raised 11. And we did it without government assistance. But honestly, if we'd have qualified back in the day, I'm not so sure my wife wouldn't have wanted to take advantage of the handouts (of course that would have happened over my dead or mangled body). But there's no denying, times were tough for us, and my wife, as the household manager, had to bear the brunt of it. I'm not blaming these families for doing what they can to make their lives less difficult. In other words, many big families are raising more kids who feel like the government owes them a living - the parents may vote pro-life, pro trad marriage, pro-2nd amendment, but philosophically, they're very often libs and they're raising little libs.
I’ll keep that in mind!
A few months ago, we had an ugly incident down at our Knights of Columbus hall. One guy had just paid his quarterly taxes and after a few beers made the comment that he could've cut out the middle man and just written the check to this father of 7 who was standing there next to him. The father of 7, instead of ignoring the crack or laughing it off, or saying he wished he didn't need the money, accused the taxpayer of not being pro-life and then the taxpayer, who's a father of 4, accused the father of 7 of breeding like a dog in heat. It was tense and very awkward. But things calmed down quickly. One of the other guys filled me in that the big family was on both WIC and CHiP and the wife was pregnant again.
Ever since then I've been paying close attention to the religious big families that we know. And darned if every single one of them (so far, I still have a few families that I don't know either way) isn't on some kind of government benny.
If you believe in the sanctity of marriage I think that kind of leaves out de-coupling. Oh nevermind. :-)
I thought Catholics were encouraged to have large families!
But the thing that shocked me was the guy's attitude - like the world owed his family a certain standard of living. It was a real eye opener for me.
Nearly 100% of the comments in the articles I have read at gossip sites or the Daily Mail in England are against both especially Gweneth. She is so snobbish. A comment I came across - What is the difference between a whining puppy and a whiny Coldplay song is the puppy will eventually stop whining....
Example today from the Daily Mail: Gwyneth Paltrow reckons it’s easier to work a desk job and raise children than be a mommy movie star
Other quotes: On taking a retreat to Sedona, Arizona: “I’ll never forget it. I was starting to hike up the red rocks, and honestly, it was as if I heard the rock say: ‘You have the answers. You are your teacher.’ I thought I was having an auditory hallucination.
On living in Europe: “We have great dinner parties at which everyone sits around talking about politics, history, art and literature—all this peppered with really funny jokes. But back in America, I was at a party and a girl looked at me and said, ‘Oh, my God! Are those Juicy jeans that you’re wearing?’ and I thought, I can’t stay here. I have to get back to Europe. I love America too. It is just a more adolescent culture.”
This is the one that turns everyone off about her:
Criticizing people for being upset about 9/11: “I find the English amazing how they got over 7/7. There were no multiple memorials with people sobbing as they would have been in America. There, they are constantly scaring people but at the same time, people think nothing of going to see a therapist.”
We are! However, we're supposed to try to avoid pregnancy if we have serious reasons. If you can't afford to feed a new kid or provide healthcare for him, that's certainly a valid reason to postpone having another child. Obviously, if God gives you another child, you welcome the child with love and happiness, and if you have to use welfare to do that, a responsible father would put the child's interests before his pride. However, being unconcerned with taxpayer assistance or looking at it as just another way God provides for your family, well, that's irresponsible liberalism in all its glory.
She looks good in this video performance from Tues night:
Outstanding!! Congratulations. My compliments.
Wow - yeah, thanks for sharing that! I like that she was smart enough to pick a Eddie Murphy song that you couldn’t help but to do better than the original. Now if she really wanted to risk it, she could have tried his “Boogie In Your Butt” song....
Well isn't that a comforting way to redefine "failure?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.