Divorce - The End to the Illusion of Oneness

You most likely got married because you wanted to end your separation with the world and find oneness with another person, right? Did that happen? Most likely, not. Even in the most "perfect" marriages, the sense of separation usually exists.

Quick Divorce

Why is that so? That is the question. The answer is subtle and very real. The answer to this question is why you are thinking about leaving the person you promised to stay with for all of your days on earth. Your promise was real enough; it simply didn't hold over time.

The answer is: You feel separated from yourself. Yes, I know, the first response to that answer is "no, I don't". Think about it. How often do you pull away from the truth that you know is in you? How often do you hope that you are not seen by others? How glad are you that others cannot read your thoughts?

This is what I mean - you pull away from you because you already do not condone who or what you are so you hope others will not find out about you. You feel like you are impersonating yourself, that you did not ever really become who you believe you should be.

And who is this person that you believe you should be? It is the little child who was conditioned and programmed by your parents (usually well-meaning), by your schools, by your religion, your peer group, your friends, your extended family, and on and on and on. Whatever they appeared to want you to be, this you attempted to become until, finally, you arrive at the person you are today - you. Yet, that you is not who you thought you would be, is it? So you separate from yourself because you don't know who you are.

In most cases, this is the real reason for quick divorce. Yes, I know there are other causes as well, yet most dissolutions are foundationed in the lack of intimacy (and I don't mean sex) between the two of you because each of you hopes the other does not find out who you really are underneath the façade of the personality. The oneness that you were hoping to obtain by taking your marriage vows is an illusion built upon the transitory personality that you exhibit rather than the person you are in the very quiet of the night, in the dark. That is the person that your marriage partner can become one with once you decide that you will allow yourself to be seen by him or her.

It may be too late. The two of you may have done enough damage to the point of union that you call your married life that there is no turning back. And then again, maybe not. It is definitely only up to you and you alone to decide how much of an illusion you wish to keep living in rather than let yourself fall in love with you. Only then can you, once again, fall in love with your partner.

Toni Elizabeth Sar'h Petrinovich, Ph.D. is a visionary, weaver of grace, quantum physicist and multidimensional traveler. She is the owner of Sacred Spaces in the beautiful San Juan Islands off the coast of Washington State where she conducts personal sessions, retreats and etheric readings for all those drawn to the authentic Self. First and foremost, Toni challenges you to face the fears that are keeping you from living life. She is the author of The Call - Awakening the Angelic Human and its accompanying CD, DNA Re-Awakening. She does long distance healing, spiritual counseling, soul readings, light orb readings and chakra readings by appointment. For more information regarding Toni's work or to contact her by telephone or email, please see her websites:
toni Elizabeth sar h
quick divorce for Canada
quick divorce for england
quick divorce for eeuu
quick divorce for germany
quick divorce for España
quick divorce for Italy
quick divorce for france
quick divorce for suiza
quick divorce for mexico
quick divorce for jamaica

sad woman

I heard a horrible, horrible woman on the radio the other day. Okay, I probably shouldn’t say she was horrible. Looking at her through the lens of Christian charity, it would probably be more accurate to say that she was “sad.” But she was horribly unpleasant and her ideas were pretty horrible and quick divorce.
I won’t give you her name (which I don’t remember) or the title of her book (which I do remember, but don’t care to promote). Suffice it to say that her general thesis was that wives and mothers need to get “back to work” and stop staying at home with their children.
Yes, need to go back to work.


I’ve heard plenty of pundits say that women should have the option of going back to work, or even that women would be more fulfilled if they would combine motherhood with an outside career. I don’t always agree with them, but at least they’re respecting a woman’s judgment when it comes to her own life.
Not this one.
She actually says that women who opt to stay home are being “selfish,” setting back the goals of feminism and harming women everywhere. She and Quick Divorce considers full-time mothering a “low-status job,” a waste of the time and talents of highly educated women. She actually compares mothers to the “untouchables” of India because they “handle human waste.”
Nice lady.
This sad, angry, distorted woman caught my attention for one simple reason — her ideas represent the core of radical feminism, stripped of all of its various disguises and pretensions. She has the “guts” (if you want to call it that) to say what so many on the extreme edges of feminism are thinking, but won’t admit out loud.
At the heart of her argument is the idea that the only real fulfillment in life lies with professional achievement and wealth. (She even goes so far as to say that college women shouldn’t major in the arts. They should study law and business because that’s where the money is to be found.) Mothering is “low-status” because it’s invisible and it doesn’t pay a lot of money. This idea, as old as modern feminism itself, has always struck me as an example of feminists buying into the very same fallacies that fueled discrimination against women — the idea that it’s “better to be a man.” Radical feminists seem to have bought into this notion hook, line and sinker, adopting the mentality that the only goals worth pursuing are the goals typically pursued by men.
It’s a poorly-kept secret that most feminist leaders hold the same views. They’re just shrewd enough to couch it in terms of “choice,” saying that women should have the option to return to work, while they smile condescendingly at those who don’t exercise that option.
This woman was a bit of a “one-trick pony” when it came to defending her position. When the host discussed his own highly-educated wife and her decision to stay home with their children, she called him “childish” for discussing his own wife. When caller after caller shared the fulfillment they find in full-time mothering, she asked the same question. “If it’s so great, why isn’t your husband doing it?”
I’d like to answer that question, in a manner that is as blunt and unpretentious as her style.
Men do stay at home sometimes, when the circumstances within the family work out that way. But they are a tiny minority. It is true that, in a vast majority of cases, the role of child-rearing falls upon the mother. And that happens for a very good, very politically incorrect reason. Quick Divorce
Women are different than men. Not inferior, not lesser — just different. Women’s bodies give birth to babies. Women’s bodies nourish babies. What’s more, research is increasingly showing us that women’s brains and emotional make-up are different from men’s. Studies have demonstrated that, due to structural differences in the brain, women have a much better aptitude for reading a person’s emotions nonverbally, simply by reading facial expressions.
Pope John Paul II spoke frequently of the feminine “genius” — a gift which is largely interpersonal in nature. And he pointed out that the gifts of women are beautifully suited to the most important of roles — forming and nurturing the next generation of souls.
This idea is horrifying only to those who see the world through the filter of “career fulfillment,” who see no value in any role that doesn’t reward us with money or prestige.
Notice that JPII never said that women are suited only to motherhood. In fact, he went out of his way over and over to emphasize that all of society benefits from women’s gifts. The worlds of business, art, politics, government — all are impoverished when deprived of female participation and input. But he emphasized over and over what millions of women have discovered — that raising, nurturing and loving children is the most important job on earth.
Every family is different and every couple works out the career/child-raising equation in their own way, presumably in a way that balances their financial and personal needs with the best interest of their children. Plenty of women have found ways to have meaningful careers without sacrificing the legitimate and important needs of their kids. But a woman who believes that mothering is inherently unfulfilling and demeaning work is indeed a sad, sad woman and quick divorce

Bonacci is a frequent lecturer on chastity.