Divorce Attorney James Sexton Urges Couples to Prioritize Spouses Over Children

The Diary Of A CEO

Neglecting spousal intimacy and attention in favor of hyper-focusing on children causes the gradual relationship slippage that primary drives marital breakdown.

AI-assisted summary of Divorce Expert: Slippage Is Tearing Marriages Apart! If Kids Are Your Priority You’ll Divorce! — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2024-10-28

Detailed notes

## Background This episode of The Diary Of A CEO, hosted by Steven Bartlett, was published on YouTube on October 28, 2024. It features divorce lawyer and author James Sexton, who shares practical advice from his legal career on how relationships fall apart and what couples can do to stay in love.

## TL;DR Divorce attorney James Sexton breaks down the primary catalysts behind marital breakdown, pointing to subtle emotional neglect, lack of intimacy, and unaddressed communication gaps rather than sudden catastrophe. Drawing on his courtroom experience, hospice volunteering, and personal losses, Sexton challenges traditional ideas surrounding marriage, prenuptial agreements, and societal expectations. He emphasizes that sustaining a long-term relationship requires continuous intentional action, open discussions about sex and finances, and maintaining a strong connection with one's partner even after having children.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation carries a frank, deeply reflective, and pragmatic tone that balances legal realism with raw human vulnerability. Sexton's sharp, candid wit and courtroom anecdotes mesh smoothly with Bartlett's curious, probing interview style. Transitioning from humorous observations about modern dating and tech-fueled infidelity to somber reflections on grief, mortality, and hospice care, the discussion feels like an unvarnished, eye-opening masterclass on human connection.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=0s) Most marriages end not due to sudden catastrophes, but through gradual 'slippage'—the slow loss of effort, attention, and connection over time. - [03:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=236s) The hard choice and the right choice in relationships and life are almost always identical, requiring individuals to confront problems directly rather than run away. - [11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=671s) Financial resources heavily sway outcomes in the legal system, often favoring wealthy individuals regardless of the underlying evidence. - [32:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1939s) Life cannot be 'won' because every human story inevitably ends in death; practicing memento mori helps keep minor everyday anxieties in proper perspective. - [57:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3430s) Suffering stems from resisting reality, whereas emotional acceptance allows individuals to navigate hardship and find joy amidst unavoidable life circumstances. - [01:09:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4144s) Substance abuse serves as the single strongest recurring predictor of divorce across marital cases. - [01:20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4800s) Viewing communication as a time quota misses genuine connection; using written tools like emails or structured walk rituals can reduce defensiveness during conflict. - [01:23:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4995s) The phrase 'happy wife, happy life' is a flawed model; approximately 20% to 30% of couples remain in miserable marriages strictly to protect their financial assets. - [01:32:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5543s) Infidelity is present in roughly 80% of divorce cases, often triggered by emotional distance or predictable intimacy routines. - [01:47:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6440s) Performative displays of love on social media frequently mask internal relationship instability, creating unrealistic romantic standards compared to real life. - [01:59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7183s) Legal marriage is an unnecessary government contract carrying a 56% failure rate, making it a high-risk decision relative to its legal security. - [03:27:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=12423s) Everyone who marries has a prenuptial agreement—either one created custom by the couple or a default set of laws imposed by the state government. - [03:36:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=13000s) Child support in states like New York is calculated on fixed statutory percentages, and primary custodians are not legally required to itemize how those funds are spent. - [03:48:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=13680s) Spousal support is determined purely by income math and marital standard of living, regardless of gender, making high-earning women equally liable to pay ex-spouses. - [03:52:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=13958s) The single most actionable tip to avoid divorce is simply to 'pay attention' by constantly balancing 'the you', 'the me', and 'the we'. - [03:55:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=14104s) Prioritizing children over the marital partnership damages the core relationship; maintaining a strong co-parenting bond models healthy dynamics for kids.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=0s) Overview of Relationships, Death, and the Reality of Slippage

Every single marriage ultimately comes to an end—whether through death or divorce. However, the vast majority of marriages end due to what James Sexton defines as "slippage"—the gradual loss of effort, attention, and connection over time. While society presumes marriage is naturally a good idea, undertaking it without careful preparation is incredibly dangerous because it fails so often. Relationship success has almost nothing to do with abstract love and everything to do with intentional maintenance and risk management.

Entering a marriage without a prenuptial agreement is a risky proposition, but having a child with someone carries even greater personal and legal exposure. Having a child creates a lifelong bond that gives a partner endless leverage if things go wrong. Crucially, when couples become single-mindedly obsessed with their children, they frequently neglect their partner, directly causing the relationship slippage that lands them in a divorce lawyer's office.

[02:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=125s) What Drives People to Seek Help

Following his previous appearance on the podcast—which garnered nearly 10 million downloads and views across platforms—James Sexton experienced an exponential surge in messages from listeners worldwide. While his primary work as a divorce attorney usually brings in clients asking for legal strategy during messy breakups, the broad reach of the interview expanded the scope of conversations people sought to have with him.

In addition to standard queries about navigating divorce proceedings, many listeners reached out about deeper emotional themes, particularly around a poignant discussion on dogs, loss, and aging. These conversations hit a visceral nerve regarding how the death of a pet or the end of a relationship brings human mortality into sharp focus. Sexton makes a point to briefly write back to those whose silent feelings were given a voice through his insights.

[03:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=236s) The Core Message: Wisdom and Doing the Hard Thing

When asked to compress his entire advice into a single message for anyone struggling in life or love, Sexton highlights one core truth: **the hard thing to do and the right thing to do are usually the same thing**. Whenever someone is faced with a grueling personal dilemma, identifying the option that feels most difficult often reveals the correct path forward.

Sexton also notes that people frequently travel far in search of answers, seeking outside validation from experts or spiritual guides. Drawing on a classic Zen principle, he emphasizes that the only wisdom or peace you find on a mountain top is the wisdom you brought up there yourself. People often intuitively know the truth in their gut or soul long before hearing someone else articulate it; an expert merely acts as a mirror that validates what they already knew.

- **Key Principle:** The hard choice and the right choice are almost always identical. - **Internal Wisdom:** True clarity comes from within, not from external experts or geographical escapes.

[06:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=383s) Why You Can't Run Away from Your Problems

People often attempt to solve internal or relational chaos through drastic external measures, such as moving to another country or radically altering their physical appearance. Sexton recalls a conversation with a hairdresser friend who noticed a distinct pattern: clients going through personal crisis would demand to cut all their hair off into a short bob. The underlying motivation was a deeply human desire to stop being themselves under the weight of heavy stress, hoping that looking different would make them feel and act differently.

Rather than granting these extreme hair cuts that clients later regretted, the hairdresser learned to make subtle symbolic adjustments while enthusiastically hyping up the result. This satisfied the client's psychological need for a fresh start without destroying their hair. The same principle applies to people fleeing their marriages or careers by moving away. Sexton admits to feeling this pull himself during chaotic work weeks, threatening to quit law entirely when he is simply exhausted.

When a marriage ends, individuals face a profound identity crisis. After years of defining themselves by their vows—as a spouse or a parent—they are forced to answer the terrifying question, "Who am I now?" Watching clients navigate this existential reset and rebuild their lives proves that people are far stronger and more resilient than they realize in the midst of a crisis.

[11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=671s) The Case That Broke James Sexton's Heart

Reflecting on the emotional weight of his career, Sexton recalls a specific courtroom case that profoundly broke his heart—a case he won, but firmly believes he should have lost. He represented a wealthy client who worked as a pimp, owned various illegal businesses, and was later sent to prison for a long time. At the time, the client had brutally abused his co-parent, leading to a family court proceeding.

Sexton was privately retained at $750 an hour, whereas the victim was assigned an inexperienced court-appointed lawyer making roughly $25 an hour. The key piece of evidence proving the abuse was a photo of the woman's severely beaten face. However, introducing a photograph into evidence requires laying a specific evidentiary foundation by asking if the picture "fairly and accurately depicts" the injuries. Due to her lack of trial experience, the young lawyer failed to use the precise legal phrasing required by procedure.

Instead of intervening to guide the young attorney, an impatient older judge sustained Sexton's strict legal objections, barring the photograph from being admitted. Sexton describes his agonizing internal dialogue as he watched the victim drown in court procedures simply because she was too poor to afford a skilled lawyer. As the case was dismissed, his client patted him on the back, remarking, "You know, a good lawyer is better than a good witness."

- **Sexton's Legal Rate:** $750/hour compared to the state-assigned attorney's $25/hour. - **The Evidentiary Rule:** Photos require establishing that they "fairly and accurately depict" the subject to be admitted. - **Crucial Takeaway:** A flawed legal system can allow justice to be dictated by financial resources rather than actual truth.

[16:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=965s) The Case That Broke James' Heart

Reflecting on a pivotal domestic abuse case early in his career, James Sexton recalls the sickening realization that his client—a man accused of severely beating his wife—was almost certainly guilty, despite claiming his innocence during their initial one-hour consultation. Sexton notes that in a brief consultation, an attorney usually spends time explaining legal rights and procedures rather than getting to know the person. As the trial progressed, Sexton watched his client win through legal technicalities, while the victim was left devastated on the stand, being badgered by an inexperienced defense co-counsel. Looking back on that day, Sexton admits it felt terrible to win a case he knew in his heart he shouldn't have won, describing the profound conflict between advocating for a client and maintaining faith in an imperfect adversarial legal system.

When asked if he would take that exact same case today, Sexton expresses deep reluctance. While he takes pride in watching the opposing lawyer grow into a highly skilled attorney over the years, he candidly admits that he turns down many cases now. He no longer wishes to represent clients who enter his office seeking to destroy their partners rather than reach a fair resolution.

- James emphasizes that while a lawyer represents a client, they also represent the legal system; his role is not to judge, but watching a guilty person win "does not feel good." - He refuses to be used as a "chainsaw" when a surgical "scalpel" is all that's required to resolve a family dispute.

---

[18:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1117s) What Type Of Cases Would You Refuse?

Sexton explains his explicit criteria for turning down potential clients, regardless of how much money they offer. He refuses to take on individuals who want to "weaponize the legal system" to punish an ex-spouse for real or perceived transgressions. These clients often attempt to litigate their partners into submission—forcing them to spend up to $1 million in legal costs through frivolous motions or intentionally withholding access to children to force a fight over every hour of visitation.

The conversation shifts to the heavy emotional burden of family law, specifically how custody battles essentially mean taking children away from a parent. Sexton humorously recalls feeling awkward during "bring your dad to school day" when his children were young, imagining them saying, "This is my dad; he's the reason why your firefighter dad only sees you on alternate weekends." Beyond the humor, Sexton takes his responsibility seriously, noting that while he sometimes reduces a parent's access, he also fights tirelessly to rectify parental alienation and negative gatekeeping—insidious tactics where hurt exes use children as weapons.

- Sexton turns down cases where wealthy clients attempt to exhaust their exes financially by running up $1,000,000 in attorney fees. - He regularly confronts parental alienation, where one parent actively destroys the relationship between the children and the other parent out of anger or resentment.

---

[21:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1284s) Is It Better To Be The One Hurt In A Breakup?

Discussing the universal mechanics of heartbreak, Sexton addresses the dynamic between the person being dumped and the person initiating the split. He points out that society naturally showers the person who got dumped with sympathy, offering drinks and comforting words. Conversely, the person calling off the relationship receives far less empathy because people wonder why they are upset if they chose to end it. Sexton argues that ending a bad relationship often requires being "the grown-up," and that both parties experience a genuine, painful loss. He compares this to someone developing lung cancer after smoking for 50 years—while not entirely surprising, it remains a tragic journey deserving of compassion.

- Sexton holds "something of a PhD" in understanding breakups through his decades of legal experience. - He notes that society tends to view the person initiating the breakup with skepticism, unfairly withholding sympathy even when the relationship was inherently unhealthy.

---

[23:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1425s) Why People Want Control In A Breakup

Sexton highlights the psychological instinct to maintain pride and control during a split, noting how common it is for people to claim, "I was about to break up with them anyway!" He contrasts standard breakups with a scenario that has continually perplexes him professionally: heterosexual marriages ending because one partner comes out as gay or lesbian.

Sexton reflects on how, logically, being left for someone of a different gender orientation feels less like a personal rejection because it isn't about being less attractive or less funny than a competitor—it is about a fundamental incompatibility. However, in practice, these divorces are often the most "brutal and vitriolic." He traces how societal shifts over his 25-year career have changed this dynamic; years ago, widespread homophobia allowed the straight spouse to publicly vilify their ex, whereas today, expressing pain over being left for a same-sex partner can inadvertently expose someone to accusations of homophobia.

- Sexton observes that being dumped triggers intense pride-preservation instincts, leading people to reframe the narrative to feel empowered. - Divorces involving a spouse coming out as gay or lesbian remain among the most contentious cases he handles due to complex feelings of rejection, public perception, and grief.

---

[27:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1641s) Understanding Heartbreak

Addressing the deep pain of romantic endings, Sexton framing heartbreak as the death of an identity and a future that a person had carefully built in their head. When clients undergo a divorce, they aren't just losing a partner; they are losing their identity as a full-time parent who sees their kids every single Thanksgiving or Christmas Eve, forced instead into alternating odd and even years. Sexton stresses the importance of grieving this loss, quoting the phrase that "every beginning is born of some other beginning's end."

To illustrate this, Sexton shares a personal story about his dogs. He explains that he only got his current 13-year-old dog, Cabba, because his previous beloved dog, Buster, passed away 13 or 14 years ago. While he grieved Buster deeply and vowed never to open his heart to that kind of pain again, Cabba brought immense joy into his life. Sexton uses this realization to guide his clients through their darkest moments: while the ending of a marriage feels catastrophic, it creates the essential emptiness required for the next chapter to begin.

- Sexton points out that 86% of divorced individuals are remarried within 5 years, even though almost all of them swear mid-divorce that they will "never do this again." - He shares that clients who spend $1,000,000 in legal fees fighting a bitter divorce frequently refuse a free prenuptial agreement when remarrying because they insist, "This time it's real." - Sexton quips that "perhaps love is a delusion brought on by inadequate lighting," highlighting the human capacity to forget past emotional trauma to love again.

[32:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1939s) Is Life Winnable?

James Sexton views life as a game you simply cannot win, because every person's story ultimately ends in the exact same way: death. Drawing a parallel to Wikipedia entries, he points out that every biography starts with "was born" and ends with "died." Everything in between is our life, but those two milestones are the only absolute inevitabilities. Pursuing material success—whether it is accumulating money, luxury vehicles, or expensive possessions—is ultimately meaningless because you cannot take any of it with you, and it will all eventually be passed on, sold, or scrapped.

``` "To love anything is insane because you are accepting that you're going to lose it." ```

Sexton references the early COVID-19 lockdowns and simple home power outages as grounding reminders of how fragile our grip is on our daily conveniences, health, and status. When a severe splitting headache strikes, all focus shifts exclusively to making the pain stop; yet, once it passes, people rarely wake up expressing gratitude for being headache-free, cancer-free, or having electricity. Instead, people get consumed by minor anxieties, such as view counts or social slights. Invoking the Stoic philosopher Epictetus and the concept of *memento mori*, Sexton argues that keeping death and worst-case scenarios in clear sight stops minor problems from bothering us. Furthermore, because every single relationship and marriage inevitably ends—either through divorce or through death—our modern cultural effort to hide death and avoid discussing endings is profoundly counterproductive.

- **Epictetus & Stoicism:** Sexton highlights the practice of keeping death in your line of sight (*memento mori*) to maintain emotional resilience. - **Media Portrayal of Death:** Hollywood depicts dying as a clean, poetic moment where someone says their beautiful final words and fades out, whereas actual death is physically unglamorous, untidy, and natural. - **Hospice Insight:** As a hospice volunteer, Sexton frequently heard grieving families lament that their loved one "died terribly without dignity," when in reality, they simply died the way humans naturally die. - **Public Appetite:** People are deeply fascinated by conversations about death and divorce precisely because these topics are avoided at dinner tables despite being universally relevant.

---

[37:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2265s) James' Thesis on Death and His Mother's Cancer

Long before attending law school, Sexton earned a degree in psychology and went on to complete a master's thesis focused on death. His deep preoccupation with mortality was seeded at age six or seven, when his mother was diagnosed with leiomyosarcoma, an exceptionally rare soft-tissue cancer. He vividly recalls hearing his mother weeping behind a running bathroom faucet to hide her distress, and later overhearing a phone call where she mentioned having only six months to live. Although his young mind could only digest death through basic religious concepts or a pet gerbil's passing, the fear in his home was palpable.

``` "It just became familiar. It became sort of this person in our home... this possibility that was always there." ```

Miraculously, his mother's immune system encapsulated the original tumors, allowing surgeons at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to remove them successfully. However, the cancer recurred every few years over the next two decades, totaling seven major surgeries. Doctors repeatedly issued terminal six-month prognoses, leading Sexton to eventually become desensitized to the dire warnings. The aggressive treatments included a bowel resection and an ovary removal that forced his mother into surgical menopause in her 30s. A decade ago, during an intended eight-hour operation, surgeons opened her up only thirty minutes in to discover the cancer had spread like a "bomb," leading them to place her on hospice care where she passed away a year later surrounded by family.

- **Leiomyosarcoma:** A rare and aggressive cancer of the smooth muscle tissue that affected Sexton's mother starting in his childhood. - **Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center:** The cancer center where Sexton's mother underwent multiple life-saving procedures. - **Confronting Phobias:** To explain his habit of leaning into his fears, Sexton shares how he bought a live tarantula in college and kept it by his bedside to cure his childhood arachnophobia. - **Hospice Training Requirements:** As part of his volunteer preparation at age 21, Sexton was required to write his own eulogy and obituary to confront his personal mortality directly.

---

[44:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2663s) Lessons Learned from Hospice Care and the Semantics of Dying

Serving as a hospice volunteer while working as a restaurant waiter during his early 20s completely reshaped Sexton's worldview. His duties ranged from listening to patients to doing household chores, yard work, and providing respite care so family members could step away briefly. Walking out of a patient's home made him feel like a "Zen monk," profoundly attuned to being alive while recognizing that he, too, would face death one day. This profound grounding led him to enroll in New York University’s Department of Culture and Communication, where he worked under the mentorship of Dr. Neil Postman to design a custom curriculum studying cultural and linguistic approaches to mortality.

``` "Death's record is amazing. Death always wins. So if you're setting it up for that battle... that's a bad battle." ```

Sexton’s master’s thesis, titled *Metaphor and Mortality: The Semantics of Death and Dying*, was subsequently published in *ETC: A Review of General Semantics*. His research analyzed how euphemisms reveal human anxiety surrounding death. For instance, society tells children a pet is being "put to sleep," conflating daily rest with permanent extinction. Similarly, the medical community's framing of losing a patient after "fighting a battle" sets up an impossible expectation against an opponent that is 100% undefeated. By refusing to name death directly, language reflects our desperate, futile attempts to distance ourselves from our ultimate reality.

- **Mentor:** Dr. Neil Postman at New York University (NYU), who helped guide Sexton's custom graduate curriculum. - **Published Work:** *Metaphor and Mortality: The Semantics of Death and Dying*, published in the journal *ETC: A Review of General Semantics*. - **Linguistic Euphemisms Examined:** Phrases like "put to sleep" for euthanasia and medical jargon like "we lost the patient" or "lost the battle."

---

[48:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2930s) What Hospice Work Teaches Us About Living Fully

James Sexton reflects on how society uses euphemisms like "passing on" to avoid explicitly naming death, despite it being the only absolute certainty in life. Having spent extensive time with hospice patients in their final days and minutes, he shares that dying individuals rarely express a desire to talk about the mechanics or fear of death. Instead, they want to discuss their families, grandkids, spouses, careers, and the specific moments that brought them joy. Sexton emphasizes that people at the end of their lives focus on the times they felt truly alive rather than their current state of decline.

During his mother's final conscious day before her illness rendered her unable to converse, Sexton chose not to dwell on her impending passing. Instead, he assured her about how well his sons were doing and how happy his life was. He realized that the greatest comfort for a dying parent is knowing that their efforts mattered and that their legacy continues. This experience cemented his belief that people care very little about trivial anxieties when facing the end; what remains paramount are relationships and shared love.

- **Verbatim Quote:** "All people really want to talk about is their grandkids, their kids, their wife, their husband, what they did for a living and what they liked about it." - **Key Insight:** Hospice work demonstrates that love and relationships are merely on loan rather than permanently gifted, making present awareness crucial.

---

[53:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3192s) Psychedelics, Consciousness, and Removing the Fear of Death

Sexton reflects on his earlier realizations—influenced by early experiences with psychedelics—that human existence is interconnected through a single underlying consciousness. He references a bit by comedian Pete Holmes regarding the nature of belief: while some dismiss God because the divine cannot be seen or proven by science, they often claim to believe in "nothingness," which is equally unprovable. Sexton views human existence as temporary drops of water destined to return to a broader ocean upon death. Because he has no memory of suffering prior to being "Jim," he sees no logical reason to fear what comes after.

Instead of viewing death as a tragedy or punishment, Sexton approaches it with profound curiosity. He critiques the death penalty from this philosophical standpoint, noting that ending someone's life is not a true punishment compared to confinement and bad food, because death itself is not inherently bad. For Sexton, the living suffer the grief of loss, whereas the person who passes moves on to whatever state comes next.

- **Verbatim Quote:** "I like to think that we are drops of water and that when we die we return to the sea that we just merge with our creator again." - **Key Perspective:** The period before and after life might actually be the easy part, whereas physical human existence presents the true challenge.

---

[57:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3430s) Surrender, Jiu-Jitsu, and the Zen Parable of Snow

Addressing the role of acceptance during major life disruptions—such as divorce or bereavement—Sexton explains that suffering often stems from resisting reality. He draws a direct parallel to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, where beginners exhaust themselves by frantically resisting every move, whereas experienced martial artists learn to soften, yield, and trust the process. He quotes an old Zen parable: *"If you don't learn to find joy in the snow, you will have less joy in your life and precisely the same amount of snow."*

Sexton uses the metaphor of breaking his favorite teacup to explain emotional detachment. Whether one reacts with anger, sadness, or joy, the teacup remains broken. True acceptance requires acknowledging the reality of a situation first—recognizing that a marriage is ending, health is changing, or a loved one is gone—before adjusting one's internal emotional state.

> **Therapist's Surfing Metaphor:** Sexton recalls his therapist explaining life transitions: swimming against the current drains your energy, while floating passively gets you lost. Surfing represents the ideal middle path—yielding to the wave's power while actively using technique and balance to steer through it.

---

[01:03:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3780s) Breaking the Shell and Embracing Uncertainty

The host notes that humans struggle profoundly with uncertainty, referencing how Uber's "Uber Labs" designed their app specifically to eliminate the anxiety of waiting for an unmetered taxi. Similarly, an indefinite airport delay causes far more mental distress than a clear two-hour delay. Sexton acknowledges that walking down an unfamiliar road without streetlamps is intimidating, but points out that transformation always requires destroying the familiar world.

To illustrate this, Sexton uses the imagery of a caterpillar becoming a butterfly, or a chick breaking out of its egg. To a chick inside a warm, safe shell, cracking through the barrier seems like the end of the world, yet it is the only way to gain wings and fly. He views divorce in the same light: even when a long-standing marriage shatters, the unwritten future holds potential for unexpected beauty.

To prove that unexpected detours can yield positive outcomes, Sexton shares a personal story about getting stranded overnight in Frankfurt, Germany, due to heavy snow canceling his connection from Poland to the United States. Though initially frustrated about missed work, he accepted the delay and explored the city, ultimately having what he considers the single best meal of his life at a tiny local restaurant.

- **Key Takeaway:** Human distress often stems from uncertainty rather than the outcome itself. - **Framing Divorce:** Ending a relationship forces an individual to smash their existing world, but it opens up the only path toward the next phase of personal growth.

[01:05:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3920s) The Value of Uncertainty and Unintended Divorces

James Sexton recalls getting stuck in Frankfurt after a flight was cancelled due to snow, an event that initially felt disastrous because of upcoming court appearances and hectic schedules. However, walking around the city led him to a small restaurant that delivered what he still considers the best meal of his life, along with a favorite hotel he returned to multiple times. Reframing the ordeal, Sexton notes that his life would have been vastly poorer had he not missed that flight, illustrating that people rarely know how an unexpected detour will shape their lives until they are reflecting on it much later.

Steven Bartlett pivots back to relationship dynamics, questioning if anyone actually gets married with the intent to divorce. Sexton explains that within the high-net-worth ($10M–$500M) and ultra-high-net-worth ($500M+) spaces, some individuals marry wealthy partners for financial gain. However, even these individuals usually prefer to stay married to maintain long-term access to wealth rather than cash out through a divorce settlement. Over his 25-year career, Sexton estimates that 99.999% of his clients never intended to divorce; they simply fell in love quickly and overlooked early warning signs.

- **High Net Worth (HNW) Definition**: $10 million to several hundred million dollars. - **Ultra High Net Worth (UHNW) Definition**: $500 million and above. - **Career Scope**: Over 25 years practicing family and divorce law. - **Intended Divorces**: 99.999% of clients enter marriage intending it to last, blinded by the intoxicating nature of early romance.

---

[01:09:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4144s) The Shortest Marriages and Misconceptions About Patterns

When asked about the quickest marriage he has ever dissolved, Sexton reveals that his shortest case went from marriage to annulment or divorce in just **72 hours**. In one instance, a couple got drunk and engaged in an escalating game of dare or "chicken." Starting from casual dating, they dared each other to get matching name tattoos, then bought an engagement ring, and finally got married all in one whirlwind night. After a single night together, the reality set in two days later when they realized they held fundamentally incompatible views on major life goals like having children.

Despite observing thousands of divorces, Sexton notes that he has not found consistent demographic patterns predicting failure—whether analyzing length of engagement, age gaps, religious differences, or cultural backgrounds. The single strongest pattern predicting divorce is **substance use**. Alcohol or drug abuse tends to escalate over time, or one partner matures and scales back while the other stays entangled in addiction, creating an irreconcilable divide.

> "I went bankrupt the same way anybody does: very slowly, and then all at once." — Ernest Hemingway (*The Sun Also Rises*)

* **Fastest Divorce/Annulment**: 72 hours. * **Predictive Patterns**: Demographic markers (age, religion, engagement length) show no consistent link to divorce, but severe substance abuse is a major recurring factor.

---

[01:12:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4338s) Losing the Plot and the Concept of "Slippage"

Addressing how healthy relationships dissolve without explosive arguments, Sexton describes a phenomenon where couples "lose the plot." When two high-achieving individuals—such as two CEOs—get consumed by careers and parenting, they stop nurturing the marriage. Sexton likens it to forgetting to water an indoor plant that you walk past every day: nobody intentionally kills it, but it dies from neglect. When one partner tries to address the neglect by stating, "I feel like we've lost the plot," it is often met with defensiveness rather than an invitation to reconnect.

This gradual decay is what Sexton terms **"slippage."** Borrowing Ernest Hemingway's line on bankruptcy—going broke "very slowly, and then all at once"—Slippage represents tiny, unaddressed micro-choices that accumulate over time. During the initial phase of love, couples celebrate finding "the one" and often put on "happy love weight." But as life stabilizes and priorities shift toward careers or children, small boundary violations or moments of neglect are brushed off as minor, eventually creating a wedge that leads directly to a lawyer's office.

* **Core Concepts**: * **Losing the Plot**: Forgetting the shared narrative of the relationship due to life distractions. * **Slippage**: The subtle accumulation of small neglectful choices that compound into relationship breakdown. * **Borrowed Love**: The reminder that a partner is "borrowed" and can be lost at any point through death or divorce.

---

[01:17:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4677s) Debating Jordan Peterson's "90 Minutes a Week" Rule

Bartlett shares a video clip featuring psychologist Jordan Peterson, who advises husbands that they must spend at least **90 minutes a week** actively listening to their wives. Peterson warns that failing to listen to a spouse incrementally will result in paying to listen to them later in divorce court. Bartlett mentions keeping this clip saved on his phone to send to male friends facing relationship issues.

Sexton pushes back against the framing of Peterson's advice, comparing it to the cliché phrase "happy wife, happy life." He argues that viewing listening as a chore or a mandatory time quota—where a partner counts down the minutes—misses the genuine spark of connection that brought the couple together initially. However, Bartlett notes that for many women, hearing "we need to talk" is a necessary bid for connection that men frequently dread or misinterpret as an impending confrontation.

[01:20:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4800s) Reimagining Relationship Check-ins and "Hit Send Now"

Steven Bartlett and James Sexton discuss how standard relationship interventions, such as forced talks or dreaded phrases like "we need to talk," often act as alarms rather than productive entry points. Sexton questions the value of forcing a partner into a grueling conversation, comparing a mandated 90-minute session to time spent in a "penalty box" where someone endures an ordeal just to earn sex as a reward. When asked whether a weekly 90-minute sit-down could save couples from ending up in his divorce law firm, Sexton suggests that while deliberate structure can help, structured face-to-face sessions often backfire because people become defensive or struggle to speak clearly in the heat of the moment.

Instead of heavy sit-down talks, Sexton advocates for immediate, low-friction communication strategies. In his book, he outlines a practice called "Hit Send Now," where partners promptly email each other when something bothers them. Writing an email allows a person to carefully edit their wording, strip out defensiveness, and give the recipient space to reflect without feeling forced to react right away. Sexton also shares a story about a friend who created a constructive weekly ritual: while going on a walk, the couple shares one to three minor things the other person did imperfectly that week, receiving the feedback with love as a commitment to an "uncomfortable truth" rather than a "comfortable lie." They always balance the walk by concluding with three specific actions that made them feel loved and appreciated, ensuring every check-in ends on a positive note.

- The dreaded phrase "we need to talk" acts as a siren that triggers instant defensiveness. - The "Hit Send Now" rule uses written email so partners can edit their thoughts carefully and give each other room to digest feedback. - Sexton's friend practices a weekly walk ritual: sharing 1–3 constructive critiques followed by 3 expressions of appreciation to avoid letting resentment build up.

[01:23:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4995s) Dismantling "Happy Wife, Happy Life"

The conversation shifts to the widespread cultural cliché "happy wife, happy life." Sexton strongly rejects the phrase, arguing that it reflects a lazy, broken relationship model that contributes to a 56% divorce rate—alongside an estimated 20% to 30% of couples who remain in deeply miserable marriages simply to avoid giving up half their assets. He rejects the notion that relationships must be awful or that men should just appease their partners so they can "shut up and watch football." In reality, a functional marriage requires both partners to be fulfilled: a happy husband and a happy wife equal a happy marriage.

Reflecting on why the cliché took root, Sexton offers a humorous, generalized take on gender dynamics, observing that men are often simpler to satisfy because they are generally driven by basic needs like being "hungry or horny." Men rarely obsess over wedding details or curtain patterns beyond asking about the DJ, the band, and the bar. Women, by contrast, tend to bring more emotional nuance and attentiveness to relationships. While this gender polarity creates intense attraction during dating, long-term marriage complicates things by forcing a romantic partner into multiple mundane roles: roommate, co-parent, travel partner, and bathroom sharer. Citing the French saying that "marriage turns a lover into a relative," Sexton points out that extramarital affairs feel intoxicating precisely because people only experience the best parts without having to manage dirty socks or family disputes.

- Current relationship statistics cited: a 56% divorce rate, plus an estimated 20–30% of couples staying together unhappily to protect their assets. - Sexton's humorous summary of male simplicity: men are primarily "hungry or horny" and easy to keep satisfied. - French proverb highlighted: "Marriage turns a lover into a relative." - Affairs derive their appeal from isolating passion and sex from everyday domestic friction.

[01:27:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5238s) The "Greatest Hits" Trap in Intimacy

Sexton explains how long-term couples often sabotage their sex lives through entirely good intentions. When people first start dating, they experiment with every trick they know to figure out what pleases their partner. As they pay attention to the positive reactions and sounds their partner makes, they naturally become more efficient, cutting out what doesn't work and leaning heavily into what does. Sexton compares this to attending a Bruce Springsteen concert just to hear "Born to Run"—couples end up playing each other's "greatest hits" because it delivers reliable pleasure.

The hidden danger of playing the greatest hits is that it locks the couple into a predictable routine. Once a routine is established over months or years, any sudden departure from it can inadvertently trigger anxiety or suspicion. If a partner suggests trying something new in bed, the other person might wonder, "Where did that come from? Are they watching porn? Are they cheating on me? Do they dislike what I've been doing?" In trying to be great lovers and maximize efficiency, couples accidentally build a rigid dynamic that stifles novelty, making open conversation essential to breaking the cycle.

- Couples build sexual routines out of love and efficiency by repeating what works—their "greatest hits." - Routine creates predictability, causing sudden changes in sexual behavior to be met with confusion or suspicion rather than excitement. - Overcoming the intimacy spiral requires calling out the routine directly before suspicion or boredom sets in.

[01:30:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5407s) Using "Positive Manipulation" to Rekindle Sex

When discussing how to address a stagnant sex life, Sexton warns against approaching the topic with blame or accusations, such as asking, "How come you don't do this anymore?" or "Why won't you ever try that?" These direct attacks immediately force the other person into a defensive stance, sparking a fight about who is at fault rather than resolving the intimacy gap.

As a divorce lawyer who jokes that he manipulates emotional states for a living, Sexton advocates using "positive manipulation" to introduce novelty without creating tension. He recommends framing a secret sexual desire or new idea around a pretend dream: telling a partner, "Oh my god, the dirty dream I had about you last night... you don't even want to know!" Curiosity will naturally prompt the partner to ask for details, creating a risk-free opening to describe the desired act. If the partner responds enthusiastically, the idea can be explored; if they react negatively or with confusion, the person can easily back out without awkwardness by blaming the dream on eating dairy before bed.

- Blame-based questions like "Why don't you ever..." immediately trigger defensiveness and argument. - Sexton recommends "positive manipulation" to test new boundaries gently without risking rejection. - The "dirty dream" strategy leverages curiosity to suggest new sexual ideas while providing a easy exit strategy if the partner isn't interested.

[01:32:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5543s) Sex, Infidelity, and the Root Causes of Divorce

Bartlett asks Sexton how often a lack of physical intimacy in the bedroom leads directly to divorce court. Sexton notes that while people rarely state it so bluntly, infidelity is present in at least 80% of the divorce cases that cross his desk. This massive percentage highlights how crucial physical satisfaction is to maintaining a marriage, as spouses in genuinely fulfilling sexual relationships rarely look elsewhere.

Bartlett points out that some individuals cheat regardless of their home life due to underlying sex addictions or deep-seated trauma tied to the "chase." Sexton agrees that a spectrum of behaviors exists, referencing a previous podcast conversation Bartlett hosted with Evolutionary Psychologist Gad Saad regarding human behavior and relationship dynamics.

- At least 80% of divorce cases handled by Sexton involve infidelity as a major factor. - A dying sex life is rarely isolated; it frequently leads directly to unfaithfulness and marital dissolution.

[01:33:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5618s) Tech-Fueled Infidelity and the Apple ID Debt

The modern landscape of relationships has become completely saturated with sex, largely driven by social media, instant accessibility, and ubiquitous pornography. Drawing from evolutionary biology, James notes that human behavior is fundamentally driven by three core motivators: **sex, food, and avoiding becoming food**. In a hyper-connected era where platforms like OnlyFans and Instagram constantly flood user feeds with provocative imagery, the sheer volume of visual exposure dwarfed anything previous generations ever encountered. As James quips, a grandfather in his entire lifetime would not have seen as many exposed breasts as a teenager sees during a single scroll through Instagram.

``` +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | THE DUAL EDGE OF TECHNOLOGY | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | EASY CONNECTIONS EVIDENTIARY TRAILS | | • Low-friction social entry • Cross-device syncing (iMessage) | | • Private direct messaging • Metadata & geotagged photos | | • "Neutral" casual excuses • Accidental cloud sharing | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

Over his 25-year career as a divorce attorney, James has watched technology dramatically reshape how infidelity occurs and how it is uncovered. What used to require deliberate effort now begins through subtle, "neutral" digital entry points—such as commenting on a fellow parent's vacation photos in a school Facebook group. This casual interaction creates a private, isolated communication channel without the natural social friction of real-life interactions. Furthermore, the ubiquitous nature of smartphones has created both a rise in revenge porn concerns and an unavoidable digital evidentiary trail. Divorce lawyers playfully joke that they owe a debt of gratitude to Steve Jobs: Apple's seamless cross-device synchronization routinely delivers incriminating text messages directly onto family iPads or shared computers, exposing secret affairs overnight.

* "There's a thousand restaurants and there's only one menu... It's all the same stuff just in different permutations." * "I can't tell you how many times... the text message from your lover comes up on your kid's iPad because you didn't realize you logged into the same Apple ID." * Divorce lawyers frequently see cases where affairs are exposed via automated Apple ecosystem syncing at least once a week.

---

[01:38:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5900s) Love vs. Marriage: Why Weddings Are for the Audience

When the discussion shifts to the utility of marriage, James draws a sharp distinction between the legal institution of marriage and the concept of love, asserting that they have very little to do with each other. While host Steven Bartlett expresses frustration with traditional weddings—citing the immense financial pressure, months of planning stress, and hours of dull waiting for sit-down dinners—James passionately defends the value of the wedding celebration itself. He argues that gathering everyone you love in a single room to celebrate a noble human connection is a rare and precious gift, far too valuable to reserve only for a funeral.

James shares a deeply personal story about his own wedding at age 22. Despite explicitly instructing the DJ not to play the "Chicken Dance," his mother secretly overruled his ban and convinced the DJ to play it anyway. Years later, after his mother endured brutal rounds of chemotherapy and ultimately passed away, those vibrant wedding photographs and the joyous memory of her dancing enthusiastically became some of his most cherished possessions. He stresses that couples shouldn't let standard social expectations ruin the event; they should skip the rigid sit-down dinners or three-hour waits and host whatever party truly reflects them.

The underlying tragedy of modern relationship breakdown, James explains, stems from people attempting to live out a pre-packaged script dictated by society rather than building something unique to themselves. Standard marriage models carry an alarming failure rate, yet couples routinely bankrupt their finances and strain their daily happiness to produce a wedding designed for an external audience rather than their own joy.

* Current statistics reflect that standard approaches to traditional marriage fail **56% of the time**. * The legal paperwork of a marriage license is rarely verified or cared about by any guest attending the event. * Steven suggests taking a $100k wedding budget and dividing it into 10 smaller, intimate celebrations over time rather than spending it on a single stressful day.

---

[01:45:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6327s) The Facade of "Perfect" Relationships and Celebrity Gaslighting

The culture of performative perfection has created what James describes as a society with "white teeth and rotting gums"—where individuals prioritize how their life looks to outsiders over how it actually feels to live it. Highlighting his work with high-profile celebrity clients, James reveals that many famous couples who publicly parade their deep devotion on red carpets or Instagram are simultaneously negotiating the legal dissolution of their marriages in his office. These couples often maintain entirely separate lives on opposite coasts for years while selling an idealized romantic fantasy to the public for brand management and financial gain.

This dynamic isn't limited to Hollywood elites; social media has democratized relationship gaslighting. Average couples routinely stage elaborate romantic moments—such as carefully arranged Valentine's Day photo shoots requiring dozens of retakes—to construct a protective cloak over deep-seated insecurities. James likens this collective public deception to the "Rosie O'Donnell phenomenon," where public figures aggressively deny obvious realities for years before casually acting as though the truth was self-evident all along. In reality, heavy public over-compensation often serves as an immediate indicator of internal instability.

* "We have become a culture with white teeth and rotting gums because we don't actually care what it is, we care what it looks like." * Celebrities often utilize multiple luxury residences in Miami, Los Angeles, New York, or Europe to seamlessly live completely separate lives undetected by the media. * Couples who post heavily curated content like `#blessed` or `#bestwifeever` frequently end up in divorce consultations shortly after.

[01:47:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6440s) Performative Love, Social Media Comparison, and Idealized Fiction

James Sexton lives and works in Manhattan right by Hudson Yards, with an office window directly overlooking the Vessel sculpture. As he walks to and from work, he constantly sees dozens of tourists taking photos. He finds it hilarious how people—mostly women, though men do it too—pose as if they are unaware the camera is on them, gazing into the distance while a friend snaps the shot. He wonders who they are trying to fool, asking whether viewers are supposed to believe paparazzi were following them down the street.

Sexton compares this performative behavior to high-fashion magazine photos in *Vogue* or *Elle*, where models contort their bodies into bizarre, unnatural positions that no human actually assumes in real life. The same logic applies to romantic grand gestures posted online—like spreading rose petals across a bedroom or shower sex. These acts are often staged just to put on a show and scream, "Look at how madly in love we are!" Sexton quips that this performative "show" is precisely what leads couples straight into his divorce law office. Host Steven Bartlett notes that people fall for these displays because they desperately want to believe in fairy tales as an antidote to rising divorce statistics, childhood heartbreak, and general misery.

``` PERFORMATIVE vs. REAL RELATIONSHIPS ┌──────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Performative (Social Media) │ Authentic Connection │ ├──────────────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Staged rose petals & photo poses │ Unfiltered, everyday presence │ │ Focused on external audience/views │ Focused inward on each other's joy │ │ Unrealistic standards (like porn) │ Honest, grounded communication │ │ Fueled by comparison and insecurity │ Resilient through life's hardships │ └──────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Sexton argues that consuming idealized relationship content is just like watching pornography: it creates a stylized, unnatural expectation that distorts how real sex and human bodies work logistically. Comparing your actual life to a curated highlights reel creates profound unhappiness. Drawing a parallel to his master's thesis on death, Sexton points out that society tries to hide harsh realities—whether it is mortality or relationship friction—instead of speaking about them honestly.

Bartlett shares a personal anecdote illustrating the danger of online comparison. He recalls waking up in New York City at 6:00 a.m. to an angry message from an ex-girlfriend on Valentine's Day. Because of the time zone difference, he had not texted her happy birthday yet, and she sent him a screenshot of another couple surrounded by rose petals, attacking him for failing to meet that social media standard. Sexton highlights how people daily absorb curated posts of workout routines, cold plunges, "beast mode" diets, and intricate parenting snacks, constantly comparing their personal "gag reel" to someone else's scripted movie.

* "All those performative, 'we're madly in love... look guys, quick, look at how in love we are'—it looks good, but all you're really doing is putting on a show. And that show leads you right to my office." * "You're unhappy with yourself, you're unhappy with your partner... because you're comparing it to fiction. And because it's on your phone instead of on the movie screen, you think it's real."

---

[01:53:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6826s) The Theme Park Moment: Recognizing the Absence of "Magic"

While comparison can be destructive, Bartlett points out that observing others can sometimes offer a necessary reality check. He references a story from Sexton's book about a day at a theme park with his ex-wife and their young children. They were visiting another couple—friends from their college days—who had been married for roughly the same amount of time. Sexton explains that his ex-wife is a wonderful person and that they remain great friends and co-parents, joking that he is a "spectacular ex-husband" even if he left a lot to be desired as a partner.

While at the theme park, a ride seating arrangement arose requiring adults to pair up with the kids in groups of three. Sexton and his ex-wife offered to take the children so the friend couple could walk together. As the friends held hands and walked away, Sexton looked at them and realized with sudden clarity: "They really like each other... and I don't feel that way about her." Years later, while "postgaming" their relationship after deciding to divorce, Sexton brought up that exact moment. To his surprise, his ex-wife revealed she had experienced the exact same epiphany at the very same second, realizing that if the roles were reversed, the two of them would never have held hands walking through the park.

When Bartlett asks what that missing element was, Sexton calls it "magic"—the inexplicable spark of romantic connection and deep mutual affection that cannot be logically engineered or forced.

* Sexton's college friends had been married for 28 years at the time of recording and remained deeply, genuinely into each other. * The friend's wife still refers to her husband as her "boyfriend," while he refers to her as "my girl." * Despite their deep connection, Sexton notes that this couple is the least performative people you could ever meet, keeping their focus entirely on one another rather than an audience.

---

[01:58:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7088s) The Mechanics of a 28-Year Marriage

Exploring why this couple's marriage has thrived for nearly three decades, Sexton notes that they handle conflict privately and always "play fair." Rather than letting small grievances escalate, they maintain perspective and never lose control during arguments. Both partners place the other's happiness at the absolute center of their lives in equal measure, deriving genuine joy from making the other person happy.

``` CORE DYNAMICS OF THE 28-YEAR MARRIAGE

┌──────────────────────────┐ │ Equal Focus on Each Other│ └────────────┬─────────────┘ │ ┌──────────────┴──────────────┐ ▼ ▼ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ │ Joy in Other's │ │ Private, Fair │ │ Happiness │ │ Conflict Resol. │ └────────┬────────┘ └────────┬────────┘ │ │ └──────────────┬──────────────┘ │ ▼ ┌──────────────────────────┐ │ Weathering Crisis Together│ │ (e.g., Cancer Support) │ └──────────────────────────┘ ```

This relationship dynamic was severely tested when the wife fought metastatic breast cancer. Instead of fracturing under the weight of a life-threatening illness, they navigated the crisis with grace, humor, and an even deeper connection. Sexton stresses that while hitting the personal lottery plays a role, their success stems primarily from intentional effort: they continuously pay attention to each other because their relationship remains an absolute priority. Their strong bond also created a healthy environment for their family, resulting in two well-adjusted adult sons.

* "She's always looking out for his happiness and he's always looking out for hers. And it's an equal measure... they both take tremendous joy in each other's joy." * "When you're not in a challenging marriage, being around that is like the warmest, most wonderful place."

---

[01:59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7183s) Why Marriage Is a Dangerous Idea

When asked if he would ever remarry, Sexton states firmly that marriage holds no appeal for him. From his professional standpoint as a matrimonial attorney, marriage is simply a legal contract drafted by the state to impose default rules on a private relationship. Even if a couple modifies those rules using a prenuptial agreement, they are still inviting government oversight into their personal lives—something he finds entirely absurd.

Sexton argues that societal pressure to marry is rooted in medieval traditions, historical land ownership, religious dogma, and structural mechanisms designed to prevent conflict over mates. While he acknowledges that pair bonding is an effective evolutionary arrangement for raising children, he believes modern society is simply executing an outdated, inherited script. Clarifying his stance, Sexton emphasizes that he does not view marriage as inherently "bad," but rather as deeply *dangerous*—comparing it to skydiving, where the immense risks require full awareness before jumping.

* Sexton views marriage as an unnecessary government contract injected into a romantic partnership. * He attributes the persistence of marriage to cultural pressure, performative expectations, and historical societal norms. * He draws a sharp distinction between an idea being "bad" and being "dangerous," asserting that marriage carries massive legal and financial risks that most people enter blindly.

* "Marriage from where I'm sitting is a contract that was written by the state... I have no part of me that in my relationship goes, 'We really need to get the government involved in this situation.'" * "I don't think it's a bad idea. I think it's a dangerous idea... Skydiving is a dangerous idea. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but it's a dangerous idea."

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this section of the transcript, capturing the arguments, specific examples, statistical references, and tone.

---

[02:02:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7338s) Is Getting Married Worth the Risk?

James Sexton questions why society blindly encourages marriage given its exceptionally high failure rate. Drawing a direct parallel to skydiving, Sexton points out that while skydiving is perceived as wildly dangerous, the chances of dying in a jump are minuscule—around 0.00001%—whereas marriage carries a known divorce rate of 56%. Beyond those who officially divorce, countless couples stay trapped in unfulfilling marriages out of fear of losing half their wealth, religious pressures, or societal expectations. Sexton argues that an unhappy marriage acts as a slow death of the self, where people remain alive physically but cease living authentically.

Sexton clarifies that he isn't strictly anti-marriage, but he finds it bizarre that simply asking a couple *why* they are getting married is viewed as impolite or taboo. When pressed, most people give answers that fall apart under scrutiny—such as wanting companionship or regular sex, neither of which strictly requires a marriage license or a government contract.

``` STATISTICAL RISK COMPARISON ┌───────────────────────┬──────────────────────┬──────────────────────┐ │ Activity │ Catastrophic / │ Primary Failure Rate │ │ │ Fatality Rate │ │ ├───────────────────────┼──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤ │ Skydiving │ ~0.00001% Fatality │ Extremely Low │ │ Marriage │ N/A (Loss of Self) │ ~56% Divorce Rate │ └───────────────────────┴──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┘ ```

When people defend marriage by saying "it's good for the kids" or that it provides "security," Sexton challenges the logic. Relying on an institution with a 56% failure rate for emotional or legal security is akin to driving a car with an airbag that fails to deploy 70% of the time—no reasonable person would feel safe in that vehicle. While acknowledging that his line of work brings him massive job security, Sexton admits it is a bittersweet reality, as society shows no signs of getting better at staying together.

- The official divorce rate cited is **56%**. - The chance of a catastrophic skydiving incident is **0.00003%**, and the fatality rate is **0.00001%**. - Common default justifications for marriage—avoiding loneliness, securing sex, raising children, and gaining financial/legal security—fail to justify bringing government contracts into a relationship.

---

[02:06:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7589s) Podcast Sponsor Break: Shopify

Host Steven Bartlett takes a brief break to highlight how he launched the *Diary Of A CEO* Conversation Cards using Shopify. He details the early operational friction his team faced—managing inventory, establishing a seamless checkout flow, and scaling international delivery—and explains how Shopify streamlined those logistical hurdles.

- Bartlett promotes a special listener deal for a **$1-a-month trial period** available at `[shopify.com/bartlett](https://shopify.com/bartlett)`.

---

[02:07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7643s) How to Bring Up a Prenup Without Ruining the Romance

Transitioning to prenuptial agreements, Sexton explains how couples can frame the conversation without causing panic or offense. His core argument is simple: **every single person who gets married already has a prenup**. The choice isn't between having one or not; it's whether you want your agreement written by the government—via changing laws drafted by career politicians who won a popularity contest—or by the two people who love each other most in the world. Writing your own rules establishes a shared, clear contract from day one that either partner can reference when boundary lines or expectations begin to slip.

Bartlett shares his own perspective, stating that he takes immense pride not in having a "perfect" relationship, but in how he and his partner navigate conflicts, resolve tension, and emerge prouder of each other on the other side. Sexton agrees enthusiastically, noting that expecting flawless perfection is an unrealistic trap. Relationships are naturally flawed because humans are flawed, making them "perfectly imperfect."

> "Every single person who gets married has a prenup. It's either written by the government or it's written by the two people who love each other more than the other 8 billion people in the world."

---

[02:12:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7945s) The "Wedding Industrial Complex" and Rejection at the Expos

Sexton recounts a revealing personal story about trying to set up an informational booth at wedding expos across the United States. The "wedding industrial complex" is a multi-billion-dollar business where vendors—photographers, bakers, travel agents, and venue reps—pay thousands of dollars to pitch their services to newly engaged couples. Sexton reached out to four or five different expos offering to pay full price for a booth dedicated strictly to prenuptial education. He promised the messaging would be positive, respectful, and focused entirely on healthy communication.

Not a single wedding expo would accept his money. Every event organizer refused him entry because bringing up prenups breaks the romantic illusion that wedding expos sell. Sexton finds this refusal absurd given that every marriage eventually ends—either in death or divorce—and the statistical majority end in divorce. He argues that discussing prenuptial terms isn't a sign of pessimism, but a deeply realistic and romantic gesture of care: acknowledging fears, planning thoughtfully, and wishing well-being for your partner no matter what the future holds.

- Wedding expos rejected Sexton's booth despite tables costing **thousands of dollars**. - Sexton notes that he holds zero hatred for any of his ex-girlfriends, wishing joy and happiness for all of them whose chapters in his life have closed. - The culture surrounding weddings actively suppresses realistic conversations about divorce in favor of idealized optimism.

---

[02:16:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8197s) Realism in Marriage and the Complexities of U.S. Child Support

Reflecting on how he views marriage, James Sexton explains that he does not attend weddings with a cynical lens calculating divorce percentages; rather, he thinks marriage is wonderful. However, he strongly advocates for pragmatism. He draws a vivid analogy to personal health and driving safety: just as he gets an annual medical checkup to stay healthy or relies on seat belts and airbags when driving, couples should be realistic about their risks. If he knew his car’s airbag wasn't functioning, he would drive far more carefully—and he believes couples should approach relationship health with the same honest, practical mindset.

``` ┌────────────────────────┐ │ 1 Child ─── 17% Gross │ │ 2 Kids ─── 25% Gross │ │ 3 Kids ─── 29% Gross │ │ 4 Kids ─── 31% Gross │ └────────────────────────┘ ```

Turning to legal mechanics, Steven Bartlett brings up a high-profile case involving a well-known actor whose ex-wife sued for increased child support after his acting career surged. Sexton explains that child support in the U.S. is legally modifiable every three years whenever there is a 30% shift in income up or down. Using New York State as an example, child support is calculated as a direct percentage of the paying parent's gross income (minus FICA taxes). While statutory caps exist, judges exercise broad discretion based on factors such as the children's lifestyle during the marriage and their actual needs.

- New York child support baseline percentages: **17%** of gross income for 1 child, **25%** for 2 children, **29%** for 3 children, and **31%** for 4 children. - High-profile child support examples mentioned include Sean "Diddy" Combs paying **$20,000 per month**. - Sexton's highest personal case involved a client receiving **$65,000 per month** in child support, covering costs like private school tuition and private security details. - Primary physical custodians receive child support funds directly and are not legally required to provide itemized receipts showing how every dollar is spent.

---

[02:20:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8408s) The Financial and Emotional Risks of Having Children Together

Sexton cautions that while entering a marriage without a prenuptial agreement is risky, having a child with someone is by far the highest-risk activity in any relationship. A malicious or bitter ex-partner can weaponize a child, alienate their affection, or use parental rights as leverage to inflict massive emotional and financial damage. Because time with children holds immense sentimental value, custody battles often completely override financial logic.

To illustrate how extreme these disputes can become, Sexton shares a case where a high-net-worth client spent roughly **$100,000 in legal fees** arguing over Thanksgiving visitation timing—specifically whether the holiday window should run from Wednesday to Sunday or strictly from Thursday morning to Thursday evening. While an average person would simply choose to celebrate on a different day, ultra-wealthy litigants frequently pursue minor custody details regardless of cost. In contrast, financial asset disputes enforce natural economic boundaries; fighting over a $50,000 bank account using $30,000 in legal fees leaves a net gain of only $20,000 if successful.

- Having children together exposes partners to significant legal vulnerabilities because custody disputes lack the cost-benefit rationales seen in pure asset division. - Highly contentious parents frequently spend tens of thousands of dollars litigating minor schedule adjustments.

---

[02:22:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8549s) Money, Hiding Assets, and the Hidden Wealth of Celebrities

When asked about the primary triggers for divorce, Sexton confirms that money issues—alongside infidelity—rank at the very top. Sudden losses from bad investments, gambling, or reckless trading drive countless couples apart. During the day-trading boom, many individuals took out loans against retirement accounts or shorted stocks, incurring virtually unlimited losses. Similarly, the rise of cryptocurrency created complex legal hurdles, as spouses attempted to conceal funds on physical cold wallets while older judges struggled to grasp basic blockchain concepts.

Sexton also sheds light on the stark disparity between public perception and actual net worth. He breaks this down into two common scenarios:

1. **Leveraged Celebrities:** Public figures who appear extremely wealthy but are deeply in debt. Following initial success in film or music, many burn through cash, maintain expensive entourages, and take on heavy loans. In court, spouses present photos of luxury vehicles like Ferraris, McLarens, or Bentleys, only for disclosures to reveal that every car is heavily leased and over-leveraged. 2. **Ultra-High-Net-Worth Structuring:** Individuals who intentionally obscure wealth using elaborate legal frameworks. Through trusts, shell companies, and intergenerational tax strategies, wealthy individuals avoid personal ownership of assets. While effective for estate planning and tax reduction, these structures make dividing marital property extraordinarily complex, requiring specialized forensic accountants to trace potential fraudulent transfers.

- Reckless financial behavior—such as shorting stocks or hiding funds in crypto cold wallets—frequently leads to marital breakdown. - Many high-profile celebrities are heavily leveraged rather than genuinely liquid. - Complex corporate and trust structures built for intergenerational wealth planning often obstruct standard property division during divorce proceedings.

---

[02:28:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8880s) Spousal Support, Gender Dynamics, and High-Asset Settlements

Addressing unexpected divorce outcomes, Sexton highlights what he once titled in an article as "the last remaining feminist taboo": high-earning women paying alimony (spousal support) to their ex-husbands. In cases where a female executive earns significantly more than her spouse, the law calculates spousal support strictly by math, completely neutral to gender. Sexton recounts humorous yet tense interactions where strongly feminist female clients expressed outrage at paying alimony to their ex-partners, while some ex-husbands simultaneously refused to accept payments due to pride.

``` Marriage Dynamic Legal Outcome ┌──────────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────┐ │ High-Earning Female Executive│ ──►│ Pays Spousal Support │ │ Low-Earning Male Spouse │ │ (Calculated Purely by Math)│ └──────────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────┘ ```

The discussion wraps up with a playful hypothetical exchange where Bartlett asks how much money he could secure if he married pop star Taylor Swift for 20 years. Sexton explains that spousal support is intended to maintain the marital lifestyle or rehabilitate a lower-earning partner's financial standing. Under standard U.S. matrimonial law, assets and wealth generated *during* the course of a marriage are subject to equal division. He points out that ex-spouses of superstar artists—referencing high-profile divorces like those of Adele and Kelly Clarkson—have historically received substantial financial settlements.

- Spousal support (alimony) is mathematically derived to equalize or maintain marital standards of living, regardless of gender. - Wealth generated during a marriage is generally subject to an even division under equitable distribution laws. - Notable examples of male ex-spouses securing significant settlements include the divorces of major recording artists like Adele and Kelly Clarkson.

[02:31:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9061s) Lawyer Fees and High-Profile Divorces

Steven Bartlett and James Sexton discuss high-profile celebrity divorces, using examples like Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos to illustrate how marital timing affects settlements. If someone marries a partner when they are on the "comeup"—like Bezos before Amazon became a behemoth—the ex-spouse is entitled to a massive settlement because they were present for that growth trajectory. However, if a wealthy figure gets remarried later in life, the new partner doesn't get half because of the premarital assets accumulated prior to the marriage.

When Steven jokingly asks if James would take a commission on a hypothetical $500 million settlement for representing someone like Taylor Swift, James clarifies that family law ethics strictly prohibit contingency fees. Matrimonial attorneys are paid purely as hourly wage earners, similar to McDonald's employees on a time clock. This rule exists for a vital reason: contingency fees would create a toxic incentive for lawyers to maximize cash recoveries rather than secure outcomes that actually serve the client's best interests, such as securing real estate, spousal support, or child support over a lump-sum payout.

- **Legal Rules:** Divorce attorneys are legally barred from taking commission or percentage-based contingency fees to ensure objective representation. - **Jeff Bezos Example:** Ex-wives like MacKenzie Scott receive record settlements because they were present during the entire upward trajectory of wealth creation.

[02:32:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9158s) One Tip to Avoid Divorce: Pay Attention

Steven asks for a single piece of actionable advice—excluding "don't get married"—to ensure he and his partner never end up in James's consultation room. James responds immediately with a simple directive: "Pay attention." He breaks this down into monitoring three distinct entities that exist within every relationship: "the you, the me, and the we."

James explains that "you" must stay true to who you are, as that is the person your partner fell in love with, and "me" refers to allowing your partner the space to be themselves as they evolve. Finally, couples must nurture "the we"—watering the plant of the relationship itself, noticing shifts, and seeing each other's blind spots. Addressing relationship issues requires leaning into discomfort, as "the hard thing to do and the right thing to do are usually the same thing."

- **The Three Entities:** A healthy relationship balances individual identity ("you"), the partner's identity ("me"), and the shared relationship ("we"). - **Proactive Communication:** Leaning into uncomfortable conversations when noticing small changes prevents long-term drift.

[02:35:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9304s) James's Most Controversial Opinion: Kids Shouldn't Be Your Life's Purpose

Continuing the show's closing tradition, Steven reads a question left by the previous guest asking for James's most controversial opinion. James delivers a controversial hot take: a person's greatest accomplishment or most important life focus should not be their children. He argues that viewing reproduction as life's highest purpose mirrors the logic of a cancer cell or a virus—growth for the sake of growth—and asserts that humans are called to higher, nobler pursuits beyond basic cellular biology.

While James loves his own sons and looks forward to being a grandfather, he refuses to claim raising them is his single greatest achievement. He notes that people often lose their identity when they become obsessed with being a parent. In his law practice, people who make their kids their absolute sole focus and relegate their spouse to the bottom of the priority list are far more likely to end up getting a divorce.

- **Controversial Claim:** Having children is a biological function shared with squirrels and pigeons; humans should aspire to higher purpose than mere procreation. - **Parental Identity Crisis:** Viewing children as one's entire identity leads to marital breakdown, as spouse relationships are neglected. - **Long-Term Reality:** Childhood is temporary, whereas a marital partnership is intended to outlast the 18–19 years kids spend living at home. - **Modeling Relationships:** Prioritizing and loving a co-parent models healthy relationship dynamics for the children themselves.

[02:40:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9630s) Closing Words and Conversation Cards

Steven praises James for his rare, politically incorrect, and common-sense wisdom, urging listeners to purchase James's book, *How to Stay in Love: Practical Wisdom from an Unexpected Source*, calling it his favorite book ever written on love and relationships. The episode concludes with Steven introducing version two of *The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards*, featuring questions written by past guests alongside QR codes linking to their video responses.

## Notable quotes > [03:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=236s) the hard thing to do and the right thing to do are usually the same thing — James Sexton

> [11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=671s) a good lawyer is better than a good witness. — James Sexton's client

> [32:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1939s) To love anything is insane because you are accepting that you're going to lose it. — James Sexton

> [44:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2663s) Death's record is amazing. Death always wins. So if you're setting it up for that battle... that's a bad battle. — James Sexton

> [48:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2930s) All people really want to talk about is their grandkids, their kids, their wife, their husband, what they did for a living and what they liked about it. — James Sexton

> [53:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3192s) I like to think that we are drops of water and that when we die we return to the sea that we just merge with our creator again. — James Sexton

> [57:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3430s) If you don't learn to find joy in the snow, you will have less joy in your life and precisely the same amount of snow. — James Sexton

> [01:33:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5618s) There's a thousand restaurants and there's only one menu... It's all the same stuff just in different permutations. — James Sexton

> [01:45:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6327s) We have become a culture with white teeth and rotting gums because we don't actually care what it is, we care what it looks like. — James Sexton

> [01:47:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6440s) All those performative, 'we're madly in love... look guys, quick, look at how in love we are'—it looks good, but all you're really doing is putting on a show. And that show leads you right to my office. — James Sexton

> [01:47:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6440s) You're unhappy with yourself, you're unhappy with your partner... because you're comparing it to fiction. And because it's on your phone instead of on the movie screen, you think it's real. — James Sexton

> [01:59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7183s) Marriage from where I'm sitting is a contract that was written by the state... I have no part of me that in my relationship goes, 'We really need to get the government involved in this situation.' — James Sexton

> [03:27:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=12423s) Every single person who gets married has a prenup. It's either written by the government or it's written by the two people who love each other more than the other 8 billion people in the world. — James Sexton

## Mentioned James Sexton, Steven Bartlett, The Diary Of A CEO, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York University, Dr. Neil Postman, Epictetus, Pete Holmes, Ernest Hemingway, Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Steve Jobs, OnlyFans, Instagram, Facebook, Apple, Vogue, Elle, Shopify, Sean 'Diddy' Combs, Taylor Swift, Jeff Bezos, MacKenzie Scott, Adele, Kelly Clarkson, How to Stay in Love: Practical Wisdom from an Unexpected Source, New York State

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ)

中文简报

离婚律师James Sexton呼吁夫妻将伴侣置于子女之上因过度聚焦孩子而忽视对伴侣的亲密与关注，会导致关系逐渐“滑坡”，这也是导致婚姻破裂的主要诱因。离婚律师James Sexton剖析了导致婚姻破裂的主要根源，指出比起突如其来的变故，不易察觉的情感忽视、亲密感缺失以及未化解的沟通隔阂才是关键所在。结合自身的法庭经验、临终关怀志愿经历以及个人失去亲人的过往，Sexton对围绕婚姻、婚前协议和社会期待的传统观念提出了挑战。他强调，维系长久的关系需要持续且有意识的行动，坦诚探讨性与财务问题，并在有了孩子之后依然与伴侣保持紧密的联结。绝大多数婚姻破裂并非由于突发性灾难，而是源于日常关系中注意力、付出与情感连接逐渐消磨的“渐行渐远（slippage）”。 (0:00) 在人际关系与生活抉择中，最艰难的选择与最正确的选择往往是同一条路，勇于面对现实远胜于逃避。 (3:56) 司法诉讼深受经济资源不对等的影响，资金充裕的一方往往能凭借高超的法律程序技巧压制缺乏经验的弱势方，导致结果偏离实质正义。 (11:11) 人生终将以死亡落幕，因此无法被彻底“赢下”；践行“向死而生（memento mori）”并接纳既定现实，有助于摆脱日常微小焦虑的困扰。 (32:19) 年龄差距、订婚时长等常规人口学特征并不能有效预测离婚，而药物或酒精滥用则是导致婚姻破裂最显著且持续的预测指标。 (69:04)

Reading summary

Divorce attorney James Sexton contends that marriages predominantly collapse not from sudden catastrophes, but from "slippage"—the slow accumulation of unaddressed neglect and complacency. He argues that preserving a partnership requires treating marriage as a hazardous legal institution, prioritizing the marital bond over child-centric devotion, and proactively managing relationship friction. How Slippage and Routine Erode Intimacy (72:18) Sexton defines "slippage" as the gradual decay of a relationship, comparing it to an indoor plant that withers from lack of water or Ernest Hemingway's aphorism on going bankrupt "very slowly, and then all at once." In his legal practice, infidelity surfaces in at least 80% of divorce cases, functioning largely as an end result of lingering emotional and sexual disconnection rather than an isolated misstep. Long-term couples often sabotage their physical intimacy by repeatedly relying on each other's proven "greatest hits." While this predictability is initially born of love and efficiency, it creates a rigid pattern where any unexpected departure or request for novelty risks sparking suspicion, insecurity, or defensiveness. Rather than subjecting partners to adversarial confrontations with loaded phrases like "we need to talk," Sexton advocates for low-friction, structured communication. He highlights practices like "Hit Send Now," where partners email minor grievances promptly. This allows the sender to edit out defensive hostility and gives the recipient space to digest feedback without being forced into an immediate, combative reaction. Legal Contracts, Prenuptial Agreements, and Custody Exposure (119:43) Sexton views marriage not as inherently bad, but as inherently dangerous, citing an estimated 56% divorce rate. From a legal standpoint, every married couple already has a prenuptial agreement: either one intentionally customized by the partners or a default framework established by state legislators. Despite the statistical prevalence of marital dissolution, the commercial wedding industry actively discourages practical planning; Sexton recalls being barred from purchasing educational booths at multiple wedding expos because discussing prenuptial realities disrupted the romantic fantasy sold to engaged couples. Furthermore, Sexton cautions that having children introduces far greater legal and financial exposure than entering a marriage without a prenuptial agreement. Unlike asset division, where financial boundaries naturally constrain litigation—such as recognizing the futility of spending $30,000 in legal fees over a $50,000 account—custody fights frequently abandon economic logic entirely. He points to high-conflict cases where clients have spent roughly $100,000 in legal fees solely litigating holiday schedules. In addition, statutory obligations like child support remain open to ongoing legal revision, such as in New York where support awards can be recalculated every three years upon a 30% shift in income. The Hazard of Child-Centric Marriages (155:04) In what he identifies as his most controversial position, Sexton argues that raising children should not be considered an individual's supreme life achievement or single purpose. He contends that equating procreation with ultimate fulfillment mirrors basic biological survival instincts shared with other species, urging humans to pursue higher personal and intellectual callings. In his matrimonial practice, couples who treat their children as their sole focus while pushing their spouse to the periphery consistently invite the relational slippage that leads to divorce. Because direct parental stewardship is temporary—spanning approximately 18 to 19 years before children leave home—neglecting the underlying spousal partnership leaves couples emotionally estranged once the household empties. When a split occurs, individuals who anchored their entire identity to the daily presence of their children suffer acute crises, suddenly navigating the grief of alternating holiday schedules and wrestling with who they are outside the parental role. Performative Romance Versus Acceptance of Mortality (105:27) Sexton characterizes contemporary culture as having "white teeth and rotting gums," where people obsess over how their lives look on social media rather than how they actually feel. He notes that celebrity couples frequently project blissful devotion on red carpets while quietly negotiating their divorce settlements in his office. These performative gestures, designed to convince outsiders of relationship strength, frequently conceal deep-seated structural fragility. Drawing on his academic background analyzing the semantics of mortality and his early work as a hospice volunteer, Sexton grounds relationship dynamics in the inevitability of death. Citing Stoic *memento mori* principles and Zen parables on yielding to reality, he asserts that suffering stems from futile resistance to change. Heartbreak, though painful, involves grieving the death of an envisioned identity and future. Recognizing that every relationship ultimately terminates through either divorce or death allows individuals to accept disruptions, detach from minor anxieties, and make space for subsequent life chapters. Sexton's perspective reframes relationship health as an ongoing exercise in risk mitigation, radical acceptance, and self-awareness rather than romantic idealism. His critique leaves couples with the delicate challenge of maintaining legal and emotional realism without letting detached pragmatism extinguish the genuine intimacy required to keep a partnership alive.

精炼阅读摘要

资深离婚律师James Sexton指出，大多数婚姻的破裂并非源于剧烈冲突，而是源于日常微小疏忽不断累积的“滑坡”效应；将孩子置于伴侣之上或回避风险管理，往往会让伴侣关系走向解体。婚姻解体的核心机制：疏忽累积与“滑坡”效应 (72:18) Sexton认为，除死亡之外，绝大多数婚姻走向终结的原因在于“滑坡”（slippage），即伴侣在日常生活中逐渐减少投入、关注与情感联结。他借用海明威在小说中对破产的描述“极其缓慢，然后突然崩塌”来形容这一过程：伴侣双方因事业打拼或育儿重心转移，往往忽视了对婚姻本身的滋养，微小的边界侵犯和冷淡被轻视，最终演变成无法弥合的鸿沟。在其实务中，虽然少部分极速闪婚可能在72小时内闪离，且年龄差距或宗教文化等人口统计学变量对离婚率无明显预测性，但物质滥用以及长期的情感疏忽是导致关系瓦解的最强诱因。育儿重心的偏离与共同抚养的隐形法律风险 (155:04) Sexton提出了一项极具争议的观点：不应将子女视为人生的终极成就或唯一重心。他指出，将纯粹的生物繁衍当成最高追求混淆了人生价值，过度沉溺于父母身份会导致个人身份认同丧失，并使伴侣沦为次要顺位，从而直接促成婚姻解体。此外，在法律层面，与他人生育子女是亲密关系中风险最高的一环。不同于财产分割存在明确的财务得失边界，争夺子女抚养权往往失去经济理性——曾有高净值当事人花费约10万美元诉讼费仅为争夺感恩节几小时的探视时间。由于美国抚育费可随收入大幅变化进行法定调整（纽约州依据总收入扣除社会保障税后的一定比例计算，如1个孩子对应17%、2个孩子对应25%），子女权益极易被怨恨的前任武器化，演变为旷日持久的情感与经济消耗战。亲密关系的日常维护：沟通减阻与打破常规 (80:00) 为了防止关系走向枯竭，Sexton主张伴侣必须主动关注“你、我、我们”这三个维度的动态平衡。面对冲突时，最艰难的抉择往往也是最正确的抉择。相比强制推行每周90分钟这种充满说教意味和防备心理的坐谈模式，他推崇阻力更小的即时沟通方式，例如在产生摩擦时通过邮件记录真实想法并“立即发送”（Hit Send Now），利用文字推敲过滤防御情绪。在性生活方面，许多长年伴侣容易陷入只重复已知偏好的“热门金曲”陷阱，导致日常体验僵化且对尝试新事物产生猜忌。Sexton建议借助“积极操纵”，例如借称做了一个关于对方的春梦来试探伴侣对新体验的接受度，以此安全打破沉闷，避免直接指责引发的防御反弹。契约本质与务实主义：婚前协议与去表演化从婚姻法角度审视，Sexton强调婚姻本质上是政府推行的标准化法律合同，而社会统计中高达56%的离婚率证明其具有显著的法律与财务风险。他主张每对结婚者都应该签署量身定制的婚前协议，因为不主动起草协议就等于被迫接受由政客制定的默认法规；主动协商规则反而是对彼此理性负责的表现。同时，他警示公众警惕社交媒体上的“表演型恩爱”，这种粉饰太平的举动常掩盖内部裂痕，正如许多高调秀恩爱的公众人物私下已在律师事务所办理分居协议。在涉及离婚导火索的统计中，Sexton指出其办理的案件中至少有80%存在不忠行为，这常与技术便利、财务纠纷或资产隐匿交织在一起，印证了脱离现实幻想、直面法律与人性本质的必要性。直面终局的哲学视角：接纳变故与向死而生 (32:19) 结合早年失去至亲的经历、临终关怀志愿者经历以及对死亡语义学的研究生课题研究，Sexton将婚姻与人生置于必然走向终局的宏观视角下。他认为生命在物理层面上无法真正“获胜”，因为所有人的结局都是死亡；爱上任何事物都意味着必须接受最终失去它的现实。在面对离婚或重大变故时，人们的痛苦大多源自对客观现实的抗拒。他引用巴西柔术和禅宗公案指出，一味挣扎只会耗尽精力，真正的解脱在于承认既成事实，如同冲浪般顺应变化。婚姻的破裂往往是一段身份认同的消亡，但唯有击碎坚硬的外壳，个体才能腾出空间开启崭新的人生阶段。本期节目的讨论揭示了现代婚姻制度在法律契约与浪漫幻想之间的巨大落差。尽管Sexton提出了以警惕疏忽、务实签署婚前协议和克制育儿执念为核心的维系策略，但当一段关系已经彻底失去情感火花或陷入成瘾、背叛时，如何在最小化创伤的前提下体面退场，仍是一个缺乏标准答案的复杂现实课题。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本期内容由知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2024 年 10 月 28 日发布在 YouTube 平台上。视频特邀美国资深顶级离婚律师兼畅销书作家詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）做客，深入探讨亲密关系中不知不觉发生的滑坡效应（slippage）、生育与婚姻的真实法律与情感风险，以及维系长久爱情的底层智慧。 ## TL;DR 詹姆斯·塞克斯顿结合其 25 年的离婚诉讼代理经验与临终关怀志愿者经历，直言婚姻破裂的根源往往不是剧烈出轨，而是日常微小的疏离与冷漠。他深刻剖析了现代人把孩子置于伴侣之上、盲目照搬传统婚姻模板以及在社交网络上表演虚假完美的病态现象，并指出共同育儿实际上是亲密关系中风险最高的一步。面对婚姻与生命的终局，他主张放下对抗、主动接纳现实，通过在“你、我、我们”三者间保持觉察与艰难沟通，才能真正打破滑坡循环、守护真实的爱。 ## Atmosphere & style 访谈氛围通透、坦率且充满哲思，兼具法庭实务的冷峻残酷与直面生死的悲悯温情。塞克斯顿犀利幽默、妙语连珠，毫不避讳地戳破世俗童话与政治正确，与主持人巴特利特展开了高度默契、层层递进的心灵对话。整场对谈既有对荒唐人性与司法现实的辛辣嘲讽，又流淌着面对衰老、病痛与告别时的超然释怀，带给听众一种如当头棒喝般清醒而深沉的震撼体验。 ## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=0s) 顶级离婚律师詹姆斯·塞克斯顿指出，亲密关系中最危险的行为不是未签婚前协议结婚，而是共同抚养孩子；孩子不仅最易被武器化，对育儿的过度痴迷还会加速导致伴侣间感情枯萎与离婚。 - [01:10:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4208s) 文化、种族或年龄差并非婚姻走向失败的有效预测指标，成瘾物质滥用（酗酒或吸毒）才是最确定的离婚预警信号。 - [01:15:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4518s) 现代婚姻失败率高达56%，而绝大多数破裂并非始于剧烈背叛，而是源自日常细微妥协累积而成的“滑坡效应”（slippage）以及对伴侣停止关注。 - [01:32:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5543s) 长达25年的执业经验显示，走进离婚办公室的案件中至少有80%夹杂着不忠因素，而智能手机与科技生态的普及让数字出轨与证据留存变得空前普遍。 ## Key takeaways - [03:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=236s) 亲密关系终结与人生抉择的核心法则是：最艰难的选择往往就是最正确的选择，逃避现实无论搬到哪里都无法摆脱旧有的内在问题。 - [21:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1284s) 主动提出分手的人往往同样承受着巨大的丧失与痛苦，他们只是被迫承担起说出残酷真相的“成熟成年人”角色，不应被剥夺社会的同情。 - [27:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1625s) 心碎的本质在于终结，但每一个新的开端都孕育自旧开端的终结；约86%的离异人士会在五年内再次选择步入婚姻。 - [48:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2928s) 临终关怀的经验揭示，人们在生命终点从不谈论死亡本身，而是聚焦于至亲的爱、鲜活的经历以及后代是否幸福生活。 - [58:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3514s) 真正的“接纳”始于承认事实并放下心理与生理上的紧绷对抗，意识到生命与爱意皆非永恒赠予，而只是暂借给彼此的礼物。 - [01:23:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4995s) 俗语“妻子开心，生活舒心”（Happy wife, happy life）是一种将沟通视为坐牢惩罚的错误妥协模式，健康的婚姻应当建立在丈夫与妻子双方需求皆被满足的基础之上。 - [01:25:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5145s) 长期关系中的性生活僵化常源于双方最初为了取悦彼此而形成的“精选金曲”常规套路；想要打破死板循环，需要运用无压力的沟通试探策略。 - [01:59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7183s) 现代婚姻制度是一项比跳伞故障率高出上百万倍的陈旧危险技术；举办婚礼庆典见证彼此相遇具有非凡情感价值，但盲目签署政府主导的法律契约并无必要。 - [02:07:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7673s) 每一个走进婚姻的人其实都有一份婚前协议，区别只在于这套规则是由彼此深爱的两人量身制定，还是由素未谋面的政客默认代写。 - [01:50:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6624s) 社交媒体上的虚假恩爱往往是关系层面的“色情片”，人们拿他人的高光剪辑对比自己日常的穿帮镜头，是现代亲密关系产生裂痕的主要元凶。 - [02:28:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8880s) 配偶赡养费与财产分割是严格的法律数学计算，对性别完全中立，并非女性专属的保障机制，高收入女性同样依法需向低收入丈夫支付支持。 - [02:32:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9175s) 维系亲密关系的终极法则是持续关注“你（You）”、“我（Me）”与“我们（We）”三个维度的独立平衡，在呵护关系的同时绝不能抹杀个体自我。 - [02:35:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9304s) 单纯为了生物繁殖而把生儿育女视作人生最高成就类似于病毒的扩增逻辑；给孩子最好的礼物是相爱的父母，将全部生活献祭给孩子往往会彻底摧毁婚姻。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=0s) 婚姻的终点与最危险的关系风险每一段婚姻最终都只有两种结局：要么是死亡，要么是离婚。然而，绝大多数婚姻走向破灭的根源并非剧烈的背叛或突变，而是“滑动与疏离”（slippage）——一种在日常琐碎中不知不觉发生的感情滑坡。当代社会普遍建立在一种“结婚理所当然是一件好事”的默认假设上，但从现实数据来看，步入婚姻是在做一件极度危险且失败率极高的事情，甚至在很多层面上“与爱情几乎没有关系”。作为拥有二十多年执业经验的顶级离婚律师，詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）直言，如果不签婚前协议（prenup）就结婚，是一场高风险的赌博；然而，在所有亲密关系行为中，真正最危险、风险最高的事情其实是**与某人生一个孩子**。当双方共同拥有一个孩子时，对方在法律和情感层面折磨、牵制你的手段将数不胜数。更残酷的现实是，许多人有了孩子之后，便将全部注意力狂热地倾注在孩子身上，彻底停止关注自己的伴侣，而这种关系的失衡，最终会把他们一步步推向离婚律师的办公室。在法庭的见证下，法律的公正有时也会呈现出令人心碎的异化。詹姆斯回忆起职业生涯中一场让他感到无比心碎的案子——那是一场他在法律意义上大获全胜、但良心上觉得“自己本应该输掉”的官司。法庭上，女方因为贫困雇不起合格的代理律师，只能眼睁睁地输掉一切；而男方仅仅因为有钱聘请像詹姆斯这样精通程序、知道如何将关键证据合法呈交法庭的律师，便赢得了胜利。审判席上的法官放任了这一切的发生，金钱与资源直接左右了司法博弈的倾斜，展现了法律现实中冰冷而荒谬的残酷面。 ### [02:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=125s) 爆火播客后的来信：关于失去、衰老与死亡在主持人与詹姆斯上次对话斩获全网近千万次播放与下载后，詹姆斯收到的求助与交流信息呈现出爆发式增长，并且探讨的话题范围有了极大的扩展。早先读者和当事人找他，几乎全是因为具体的婚姻危机或离婚诉讼问题，例如陷入痛苦的离婚拉扯、在不同州或不同国家面临法律盲区，希望寻求宏观层面的法律指导。但在上一期节目播出后，大量听众开始主动与他讨论更深层的情感命题：关于两人曾谈及的爱犬、关于生命中的丧失、衰老，以及各种形式的终结。人们意识到，无论是面对一段婚姻的死亡、一条狗的生命终点，还是人类自身的寿命极限，宠物的离去就像一面镜子，极其锐利地照出了周遭一切事物的有限性（mortality）。许多人来信表示，詹姆斯精准地说出了他们内心深处潜藏已久却无法言说的感受；听到有人替自己发声，带来了巨大的情感共鸣与慰藉。 ### [03:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=236s) 人生核心法则：最难的事通常就是对的事当被问及如果只能用两三句话给所有在爱情、婚姻、离婚与痛苦中挣扎的人发送一条广播信息，那条根本性的法则会是什么时，詹姆斯给出了自己一生的核心感悟：**“在生活中，最艰难的选择（the hard thing to do）往往正是最正确的选择（the right thing to do）。”** 每当有人带着无解的痛苦向他求助，他都会反问对方：在这个局面下，哪条路是你最害怕、最难走的那条？因为那大概率就是你真正应该迈出的方向。关于向外寻求智慧，詹姆斯提出了一个富有禅意的比喻：“你在山顶上唯一能找到的禅（智慧），就是你自己一路带上去的那些。”很多人迷恋影视作品中那种像《蝙蝠侠：侠影之谜》（Batman Begins）里苦行僧般的场景：身穿长袍、脚踏拖鞋，在严寒中一步步爬上风雪山巅，去拜求隐居大师赐予顿悟。但事实是，终极的智慧早就存在于每个人的内在——无论你将其称为直觉（gut）还是灵魂（soul）。人们不远万里去寻求解脱，其实只是希望有人能替自己把已知的真理大声讲出来，借由他人的确认来验证自己内心的声音，确认“原来我并不是疯了，原来不止我一个人这样想”。 ### [06:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=383s) 逃避的幻觉：带上机票的不是新生，而是旧痛面对生活和婚姻的废墟，许多人会产生一种本能的逃避冲动，误以为地理位置的转移能彻底治愈关系顽疾。主持人分享了身边朋友的真实经历：在生活一团糟、伴侣出轨怀了别人的孩子之际，那位朋友坚信只要辞掉一切、买张机票搬去西班牙，所有痛苦就会迎刃而解。但事实是：“无论你逃去哪里，所有的麻烦都会跟你买同一张机票飞过去。无论你走向何方，你依然带着那个原本的自己。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 逃避现实的心理机制循环 accDescr: 展示当事人面对重压时试图通过换环境或换外形来逃避自我，最终发现根本问题未解决的心理循环过程。 subgraph InternalCrisis ["内在危机与重压"] A["关系破裂 / 职业倦怠 / 生活混乱"] B["心理不堪重负 '我不想再做现在的自己'"] end subgraph AvoidanceAction ["外在表象的逃避行为"] C["换发型 / 彻底剪短发"] D["搬家至新城市 / 飞往异国（如西班牙）"] E["冲动决裂 / 彻底辞职放弃事业"] end subgraph InevitableReality ["不可避免的现实回归"] F["核心创伤与旧问题如影随形"] G["疲惫与本质矛盾依然未解"] end A --> B B --> C B --> D B --> E C --> F D --> F E --> F F --> G G -. 重新循环.- B ``` 詹姆斯用一个生动的理发师故事印证了这种人类共通的脆弱心理： - **理发师的洞见**：詹姆斯的一位发型师朋友透露，很多女性在人生遭遇剧烈压力或情感创伤时，会冲进理发店强烈要求“把长发全部剪光、剪成极短的波波头（bob cut）”。早年这位理发师会照做，但几天后通常就会接到顾客悔恨交加的求助电话。 - **改头换面的潜台词**：发型师后来意识到，顾客嘴上说的是“剪短头发”，心底真正的呼喊其实是：“我再也不想做我自己了，现在的一切太沉重了，我承担不起。如果我的外貌完全变了，我是否能感觉到自己换了一个人？我是否就能不再按过去那种糟糕的方式活着？” - **高压职业的逃跑冲动**：詹姆斯坦言自己同样无法免俗。当作为离婚律师经历极其残酷的一周，每天承接委托人倾倒的情感废墟，处理四处乱飞的“生活炸弹”时，他脑海里也会无数次闪过极端的逃避念头：“去他的，我不干了，彻底退出！以后只做媒体、只写书，再也不踏进法庭一步，直接潇洒离场！”但冷静下来后他明白，这只是人在极度疲惫（tired）状态下产生的情绪代偿，真正的转型与解脱从来不可能靠冲动逃跑来完成。 ### [09:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=542s) 象征性的改变与离婚后的身份危机詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）继续借用发型师朋友的故事：面对遭遇变故、冲动想要把长发全部剪掉的女顾客，理发师并不是极力劝阻，而是使了个“小花招”——他只修剪一点点，但在镜子前极度夸张地赞美效果，女顾客往往就会非常开心。这种剪发行为本质上是一种心理象征：人们试图在镜中看到一个略微不同的人，以此提醒自己必须开始改变。但塞克斯顿强调，真正的蜕变来自内心深处，人每天醒来都在决定自己究竟是谁、要不要继续维持现有的状态。作为一名离婚律师，塞克斯顿常常见证身份认同的坍塌。人们穿上婚纱和燕尾服、许下誓言时，对于未来抱有极其清晰且固定的设想：“我是鲍勃的妻子”、“我是珍的丈夫”，要成为父母、共度余生。然而无论是五年、十年，还是二十年孩子离家上大学之后，婚姻突然分崩离析。他们最难受的往往不是财产分割，而是陷入深层的迷茫：“我的谷仓烧成灰烬了，我不再是鲍勃的妻子，那我算什么？鲍勃的前妻？我不想用‘我不再是谁’来定义我自己。”看着当事人在离婚危机中重塑自我、意识到自己远比想象中更强大坚韧，是他认为这份工作最鼓舞人心的部分。 --- ### [11:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=671s) 一桩心碎的胜诉：不公平的法庭对抗当主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）询问有没有哪个案子让他彻底心碎时，塞克斯顿分享了一桩记录在他书里的往事——那是一场“本该输掉却赢了”的官司。当时他代理一名皮条客（名下有多项非法产业，如今早已长期服刑），此人极其残忍地殴打了一名与他育有子女的女性伴侣。在家庭法院的法庭上，受害方由政府指派的法律援助律师代理，对方刚从法学院毕业、毫无实务经验，按法援标准每小时仅拿约 25 美元；而塞克斯顿经验丰富，当时收费高达每小时 750 美元。雪上加霜的是，当天的法官是一位年事已高、即将退休的老法官，情绪极差且毫无耐心。受害方最核心的证据是一张受害者被严重殴打后的脸部伤情照片。在法庭上将照片作为证据呈递本应非常简单，只需特定的标准化程序：请求将其标注为识别物，递交给证人，并询问：“这张照片是否公允且准确地反映了受害当天的面部情况？”但新手律师由于缺乏经验，直接提问“照片上是什么”。塞克斯顿出于律师职责当即提出异议（指其询问未入证文件的内容），法官裁定异议成立。面对屡次卡壳的新手律师，法官不仅没有给予通常会有的指引，反而冷眼旁观。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 证据呈堂流程与新手失误对比 accDescr: 展示标准呈堂程序与新手律师失误导致的证据受阻过程 subgraph Standard["标准呈堂程序 (Standard Procedure)"] S1["标号为识别物 (Mark for identification)"] --> S2["递交给证人核对 (Hand to witness)"] S2 --> S3["询问程序核实语： '是否公允且准确反映？'"] S3 --> S4["正式获批作为证据采纳 (Admitted into evidence)"] end subgraph Error["庭审现场失误 (Courtroom Breakdown)"] E1["新手律师直接提问： '照片上是什么？'"] --> E2["塞克斯顿依规异议： '询问未入证文件内容'"] E2 --> E3["不耐烦法官： '异议成立' (不予指引)"] E3 --> E4["新手律师崩溃放弃 案件因举证不足被驳回"] end ``` --- ### [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=900s) “一个好律师胜过二十个持枪歹徒” 塞克斯顿回忆当时的内心挣扎：看着对方律师慌乱无措，他心里不断呐喊“快说出那句程序套话啊”，看着法官任由她沉没，他感到无比刺痛。受害者之所以会输，唯一的原因是她太贫穷，请不起懂证据规则的资深律师；而施暴者能赢，仅仅是因为他有钱聘请塞克斯顿。新手律师在追问几个错误问题后当庭痛哭放弃，案件随即被驳回。走出法庭时，被告客户拍了拍塞克斯顿的后背，轻蔑而得意地说道：“你知道吗，一个好律师胜过二十个持枪抢劫犯（A good lawyer is better than 20 stickup men）。”这句话令塞克斯顿骨鲠在喉。虽然对抗式司法制度要求他忠于代理人和程序正义，但他深知在这场审判中正义缺席了。当被问及若今天再遇到完全相同的案子是否还会接时，他坦言如果预知会以这种方式收场，自己极大概率会直接拒绝代理。 - **悬殊的资源对比**：政府指派法援律师时薪约 25 美元 vs. 塞克斯顿当时每小时 750 美元的私聘费用。 - **初访咨询的盲区**：客户绝不会在初次踏入办公室时承认自己的暴力罪行，往往声称“被诬告”，真实面目只有在漫长代理过程中才会逐渐暴露。 --- ### [18:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1104s) 什么样的案件会断然拒接？面对主持人的追问，塞克斯顿阐述了如今他在筛选委托人时的明确底线。第一类是“过度防御/杀鸡用牛刀”的案子：如果当事人的矛盾只需一把手术刀就能解决，就没必要找他这把“电锯”；他会直接告知客户并不需要他，不必把手枪带到普通小争执里。第二类则是他坚决回绝的案子：当事人企图将司法系统“武器化”（weaponize the legal system），纯粹为了报复配偶在情感或道德上的过错。例如，因配偶出轨而怀恨在心，不惜提出各种荒谬无理的程序动议，故意拉长诉讼，强行迫使对方烧光上百万美元的律师费，甚至以剥夺子女探视权为筹码去折磨对方。塞克斯顿拒绝充当他人宣泄私愤、将前任彻底碾碎的工具。 ### [19:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1159s) 监护权争夺与将孩子当成武器的残酷现实谈及离婚律师的职责，史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）指出，詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）的工作有时本质上是为某一方争取近乎全部的监护权，这意味着硬生生地将孩子从另一位父母身边带走。詹姆斯坦言这种说法虽然刺耳，但确实道出了事实。他甚至开玩笑地回忆起儿子小时候学校举办的“带爸爸来学校日”：其他小朋友会骄傲地介绍自己的父亲是消防员或医生，而詹姆斯总觉得自己的儿子会说：“这是我爸爸，他就是导致你那位消防员爸爸只能隔周末探望你的罪魁祸首。”现实中，他甚至经手过儿子同班同学父母的离婚案。詹姆斯指出，自己在当事人接触孩子的权利上确实扮演着举足轻重的角色，既有消极一面，也有积极一面。他协助那些探视权被恶意剥夺的父母重新见到孩子，并努力解决在当今文化中愈演愈烈的“父母离间”（parental alienation）和“消极把关”（negative gatekeeping）现象。越来越多因愤怒而失去理智的伴侣，正将无辜的孩子当作惩罚前任的武器。詹姆斯强调，任何层面的分手都充满伤痛与愤怒，这种情绪是普遍的人性： > “你不再爱我了吗？你为什么不能像我爱你那样爱我？你为什么不想再和我在一起了？这对我意味着什么？难道因为你不要我了，就说明我是个糟糕的人吗？” 无论在何种文化背景下，面对破裂的关系，人们内心的这种被抛弃感与愤懑都是完全相通的。 ### [21:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1284s) 被甩者与主动提分手者：谁更值得同情？巴特利特分享了自己朋友的经历：这位朋友与伴侣在一起八年，分分合合四次，如今再次被对方甩掉，成了一个表面上的“受害者”。针对“分手时究竟做哪一方更好”的问题，詹姆斯凭借自己在这个领域堪比“博士学位”的丰富阅历，给出了反直觉的洞察。通常情况下，被甩的一方（只要不是因为当场捉奸等极端恶劣行径被扫地出门）往往会收获如潮的同情；朋友们会立刻抱打不平、带他出去散心，痛骂对方无情。相比之下，主动提出分手的人所获得的社会支持却少之又少。人们往往冷眼旁观：“既然是你甩的人，你难过什么？后悔了就复合啊。”但詹姆斯指出，主动叫停的人往往只是承担了那个不得不清醒的角色： * 他们同样不想让这段感情终结，他们也渴望关系能保持美好，只是现实残酷地证明了关系已无法继续。 * 必须有人站出来当那个“成熟的成年人”，说出“一切结束了”这句艰难的话。 * 詹姆斯用吸烟作比喻：一个人如果吸烟50年最终患上肺癌，虽然并不令人意外，但依然是一场真切的悲剧与苦难。主动提出分手的人同样经历着巨大的丧失之痛，仅凭“谁甩了谁”来决定向谁倾注同情，是极其不公平的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 分手角色的社会认知与真实困境 accDescr: 对比被甩者与主动提分手者在社会眼光与内心真实体验上的巨大反差 subgraph 被甩者["被甩的一方（被动接受）"] A1["社会感知：绝对受害者"] --> A2["获得大量同情与安慰"] A3["内心体验：遭遇排斥、自尊受创"] end subgraph 提分手者["主动提分手的一方（决策者）"] B1["社会感知：加害者或无病呻吟"] --> B2["缺乏同情（'既然你难过为何要分'）"] B3["内心体验：被迫做成年人、承受同样的丧失之痛"] end ``` ### [23:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1409s) 掌控欲、自尊心与因性取向破裂的婚姻困境人们在分手时往往执着于争夺“叙事所有权”，甚至在被甩后嘴硬宣称“其实我早就想甩了对方”。詹姆斯指出这纯粹是出于虚荣与自尊，因为人类天生恐惧“被排斥”的羞辱。他以职业生涯中极为棘手的一种案件为例：异性恋婚姻中，一方坦白自己是同性恋并决定终结关系。从常理推断，若伴侣离开是因为爱上同性别的人，被抛弃的一方理应更容易接受，因为这并非自己不够优秀（不是输给更幽默或舞跳得更好的人），而是性别特征决定的排他性。然而现实却恰恰相反，这类离婚往往充斥着极端恶毒的仇恨。詹姆斯回顾了执业25年来的文化巨变： * **25年前的社会语境**：恐同情绪普遍，伴侣以出柜为由离婚，另一方在法庭和舆论中大骂其为“变态”是被普遍接纳的。 * **当下的社会语境**：多元性取向得到极大尊重，但如果被抛弃的一方表达对同性出轨的愤怒，反而面临被扣上“恐同”帽子的巨大风险。现实的痛楚在于，无论配偶出轨或离开是投向男人还是女人的怀抱，对留下的一方而言，背叛与被弃的剧痛丝毫未减，却在舆论上失去了正当发泄的权利。 ### [27:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1625s) 心碎的本质：告别过去与迎向新的开端巴特利特提出疑问：心碎的本质究竟是什么？是对自尊的毁灭性打击，还是脑海中构筑的既定未来的瞬间崩塌？弄清这一点，才能对正处于痛苦中的朋友提供切实有效的安慰。詹姆斯肯定了这些维度的存在，但他认为心碎最根本的属性在于它是一场“终结”，而人类极其抗拒终结。在开导当事人与朋友时，他始终坚信一句话：“每一个新的开端，都孕育自另一个开端的终结。”他动情地提到了自己的爱犬： * 他如今陪伴了13年的爱犬卡巴（Chabba），正是因为前一只狗巴斯特（Buster）在13、14年前离世才来到他身边的。 * 尽管这听上去有些残酷，但他坦诚地承认：如果巴斯特没有离开，就不会有与卡巴相遇的缘分。死亡与终结本身就是生命的一部分，它们残酷地腾出空间，才让下一个生命阶段得以生根发芽。在面对破碎的关系时，唯有真正正视并缅怀这段逝去的经历，才能从废墟中走向未来的新生。 ### [28:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1721s) 失去的身份认同与爱之轮回：从爱犬之死到二次婚姻面对一段关系的破裂，人们必须经历哀悼与痛苦，将其视为人生的必经转折。然而，每一次终结往往也预示着下一段旅程的开端；唯有旧篇章彻底翻过，新的开始才有可能降临。在长达二十五年的执业生涯中，詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）见证了数以千计的当事人经历这种生命支柱崩塌的绝望时刻。对许多人而言，离婚撕裂的不仅是一份婚约，更是他们多年赖以生存的身份认同：“我是某人的丈夫”、“我是某人的妻子”，或者“我是一个全职陪伴孩子的父亲，过去每年感恩节和平安夜他们都在我身边，而不是像现在这样奇数年归我、偶数年归前妻”。当事人会感到过去那个真实的自我正在死去，陷入不知未来何去何从的巨大恐慌。詹姆斯指出，这种初次遭遇婚变时的心碎，与经历亲人离世并无二致。他以自己养狗的心路历程作类比：当年他的爱犬巴斯特（Buster）离世时，他悲痛欲绝地发誓：“我再也不会养狗了，我再也不要这样去爱任何事物，再也不让自己的心碎成这样，绝不再向世界敞开心扉，因为爱上任何东西都是愚蠢且疯狂的，这等于主动迎向必然失去的宿命。”然而没过多久，另一只狗卡巴（Cabba）来到了他的生命中，为他带来了无与伦比的快乐。如今卡巴也步入暮年，詹姆斯虽然清楚那一刻到来时依然会痛苦万分，但他不再觉得世界会就此毁灭。他深刻领悟到，卡巴带来的美好，恰恰诞生于失去巴斯特后腾出的情感空缺。在爱情与婚姻中，这种遗忘痛苦并再次投身其中的循环同样不断上演。上周一位正在办离婚的客户信誓旦旦地对詹姆斯说绝不可能再婚，詹姆斯却淡然告知对方一个数据：86%的人在离婚后五年内都会重新步入婚姻。面对客户斩钉截铁的反驳，詹姆斯常常哑然失笑，因为他见过太多当事人为上一段离婚官司砸了上百万美元的诉讼费、熬过生不如死的折磨，然而一旦坠入新爱河，他们便瞬间坚信“这次是命中注定的真爱”。即便詹姆斯主动提出免费为他们起草婚前协议（Prenup）以防重蹈覆辙，他们也会断然拒绝，坚信“这次和以前不一样”。在詹姆斯看来，爱情或许就是一种“因灯光不足而引发的错觉”，但人类能在剧痛之后逐渐淡忘创伤、重新去爱，本身正是人性中值得庆幸的修复机制。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 关系的破裂与重生循环 accDescr: 展示从亲密关系破裂、身份崩塌、痛苦立誓到走出创伤并重新接纳爱的心理与现实循环过程。 subgraph Phase1["破裂与丧失"] A["关系终结 / 亲人离世"] --> B["身份认同崩塌\n失去既有生活秩序"] B --> C["剧烈心碎与痛苦防御\n'我再也不会去爱了'"] end subgraph Phase2["重生与循环"] D["创伤后的情感留白"] --> E["新联结的建立与治愈"] E --> F["遗忘旧痛，再次笃信真爱\n五年内再婚率达 86%"] end C --> D F -.->|"宿命规律：终有尽头"| A ``` - **再婚统计**：约 86% 的离异人士会在离婚后 5 年内选择再婚。 - **极端案例**：有客户在上一段婚姻中耗费了超过 100 万美元的律师费、经历身心摧残，但在开启下一段亲密关系时，依然因沉浸在爱意中而拒绝签订任何婚前协议。 --- ### [32:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1939s) 一场无法赢的游戏：向死而生的现实与死亡常态主持人引用了詹姆斯曾说过的一句话：“人生是一场你注定赢不了的游戏，所以你必须全力以赴去玩；去爱任何事物都是疯狂的，因为这意味着你从一开始就接受了终将失去它。”詹姆斯对此深表赞同，直言人生的唯一铁律就是“人终有一死”。正如每个人的维基百科词条无论开篇多么繁复，都始于“出生”，而结局也无一例外都是“死亡”。在这两点必然性之间所经历的起伏才是生命本身，但因为终点早已注定，人生在世俗层面根本不存在最终的“赢家”。当一个人认清死亡的底色，物质财富的虚妄便一览无余。詹姆斯指出，追逐再多的金钱、豪车与资产，最终这些东西要么易手他人，要么沦为废铁。就像新冠疫情初期封控开始时，人们纵有巨额财富和飞行里程兑换券，也寸步难行；又如家中突然停电的那一刻，现代人引以为傲的掌控感瞬间荡然无存。人对健康的态度同样如此：平时毫无察觉，可一旦偏头痛剧烈发作，整个世界就只剩下了那阵剧痛；当头痛褪去后的短短一天里，人们或许会庆幸自己恢复了正常，但到了第二天，几乎没有人会在晨光中由衷感激“今天我没头痛、家里有电、我没得癌症”，反而会迅速被诸如“页面浏览量为何下滑”、“某人为何对我态度恶劣”等琐事重新绑架。斯多葛学派哲学家爱比克泰德（Epictetus）曾提出将死亡与苦难置于视线之内的“死亡提醒”（Memento Mori）理念——唯有直面这层终极现实，尘世的纷扰才不足以动摇心智。世间所有的爱与亲密关系，终局无非是两扇门：要么走向离婚，要么走向死亡。即便是对子女的爱，父母即便有幸先于孩子离世，孩子也终归难逃一死。然而，现代文化却极力将这种不可避免的结局扫入地毯之下，在大众传媒中制造荒谬的粉饰。电视剧里的临终场景往往被美化为主角在病榻上深情说出一句“我爱你们所有人”，随后优雅、安详地闭上双眼。詹姆斯曾多年担任临终关怀（Hospice）志愿者，亲身陪伴过大量生命垂危的患者。他直言，真实的死亡往往并不体面，它伴随着身体机能的衰竭，气味难闻、声响可怖，但这正是自然规律的一部分。许多家属在亲人离世时痛苦地自责“他走得毫无尊严”，其实只是因为真实的死亡与电视虚构的诗意相去甚远。社会对死亡与离婚避而不谈，往往源于一种潜意识的迷信——以为闭口不谈就能阻止厄运降临。詹姆斯坚持在公共场合探讨这些沉重议题，正是为了打破这种虚妄的禁忌，因为人们虽然羞于在晚餐桌上谈论，但内心深处都清楚这是生命中避无可避的关键课题。 --- ### [37:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2248s) 临终关怀与童年创伤：硕士论文与母亲的罕见癌症在进入法学院成为一名离婚律师之前，詹姆斯有着截然不同的学术与生活背景。他本科毕业于心理学专业，并在攻读硕士期间完成了一篇专门探讨死亡的学位论文，题为《隐喻与终有一死：死亡与临终的语义学》（*Metaphor and Mortality: The Semantics of Death and Dying*）。与此同时，他还长期投身于临终关怀志愿者工作，陪伴处于生命最后阶段的人群。当主持人好奇他为何年纪轻轻就对死亡这一晦暗课题抱有如此强烈的执念时，詹姆斯回忆起了一段深刻刻在童年记忆中的家庭变故。大约在他六七岁时，他的母亲被确诊患有一种极为罕见的恶性软组织肉瘤——平滑肌肉瘤（Leiomyosarcoma）。当时年幼的詹姆斯根本无法理解癌症与死亡的真正含义，在他的认知里，死亡不过是家中死掉的小仓鼠，或者如同天主教教义所描绘的那样：人死后会去往一个听起来相当不错的美好天堂。真正让他直面死亡阴影的，是感官层面的真实冲击。他清晰地记得母亲躲在浴室里哭泣的声音。为了不让年幼的他听见，母亲特意拧开了洗手池的水龙头，试图用哗哗的流水声掩盖压抑的呜咽，但门外的詹姆斯依然真切地感受到了母亲崩溃的泪水与绝望。不仅如此，他还偷听到母亲在电话中向自己的姨妈倾诉病情时的恐惧。正是这场突如其来的母体危机，在年幼的詹姆斯心中埋下了对生命脆弱性与死亡语义最初的探寻火种。 ### [38:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2330s) 母亲的癌症反复与家中“死神”的常驻詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）回忆起童年时第一次面对死亡的记忆。当时医生断言他的母亲只剩下六个月的生命。比他大六岁的姐姐试图向年幼的他解释：妈妈生了重病，而且好不起来了。那时他还太小，并不明白死亡的真正含义，但屋子里凝重的恐惧与悲伤让他深深感到不安。令人意外的是，母亲当时奇迹般地挺了过来。无论是归功于奇迹还是现代医学，肿瘤自身发生了包裹（encapsulation），免疫系统将其严密阻隔，使得癌细胞并未发生扩散或转移。纪念斯隆-凯特琳癌症中心（Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center）的医生随后通过手术切除了肿瘤，母亲康复如初。然而好景不长，五六年之后，癌症再次复发，医生又一次给出了“只剩六个月”的判决。到了这时，詹姆斯已经足够大，能完全体会这一判决背后的沉痛与恐怖。但母亲再次历经手术与各种痛苦的治疗，不可思议地躲过了致命的一劫。又过了三年，癌症第三次卷土重来。第三次听到医生说母亲“只剩六个月”时，詹姆斯的心境已经彻底改变：“你们根本不知道我们经历过多少次这种谈话了，我不再相信你们的说辞了。”在二十多岁之前，母亲总共经历过七次大手术。每一次医学预后都极其悲观，每一次医生都不得不从她身上切除更多器官以阻止癌细胞蔓延：为了防止扩散，医生切除了她的卵巢，迫使她在三十多岁就进入更年期；随后又进行了肠道切除术等极其痛苦的改造。母亲的生活充满了无休止的折磨与痛苦，而詹姆斯也因此在很小的时候就被迫直视死亡。死亡在他们家中不再是遥远的概念，反而像是一个同住在一个屋檐下的常驻家庭成员，这种宿命感无处不在。 - 母亲经历了多达七次大手术，切除卵巢、部分肠道等器官，三十多岁即被迫绝经。 - 每次接到癌症复发的电话，詹姆斯总会不由自主地闪过念头：“这是不是最后那个电话？”但大多数时候奇迹都发生了。 --- ### [41:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2499s) 最后的告别：五十载婚姻的终局与临终关怀十年前，母亲的癌症迎来了最后一次复发。当时父母已经结为夫妻整整五十载。原本计划在医院进行一场极其复杂、预计长达八小时的手术，詹姆斯和父亲在手术室外焦急等待。然而手术仅开始了半个小时，主刀医生便从手术室走了出来，对他们沉痛地说道：“我们切开后发现里面宛如炸弹引爆过一样，癌细胞已经彻底失控，我们无能为力了。我们只能缝合伤口，将她转入临终关怀（hospice）。” 随后，母亲在临终关怀中度过了一年多的时光，并在八年前离世。临终的那一刻，全家人都守候在她的病榻周围。詹姆斯指出，正是因为全家人这么多年来一直直面死亡、坦诚地谈论死亡，当生命的终点真正到来时，病房里反而充盈着难以言喻的平静。母亲自身也展现出超然的安详，因为死亡早已与她的生命纠缠相伴了数十年，这成为了一种早已接受并释怀的必然。 --- ### [42:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2570s) 直面恐惧：二十岁青年走进临终关怀中心面对死亡在生活中的阴影，詹姆斯展现出了非常奇特的情感处理方式。他用自己大学时克服“蜘蛛恐惧症”的经历作比喻：因为从小怕蜘蛛，他上大学后特意买了一只狼蛛（tarantula）放在床头的玻璃箱里养着，每天一睁眼就看着它，很快就彻底根除了恐惧。他觉得死亡也是如此——既然它是无法逃避且一直萦绕身边的存在，与其逃避它，不如主动去正视它。大学刚毕业、年仅21岁时，詹姆斯报名参加了临终关怀志愿者的系统培训。整个培训班里，除他之外全都是60岁以上的老人。詹姆斯强烈建议每个人都应该参加一次临终关怀志愿培训，因为课程设置非常残酷而深刻： - **撰写自己的悼词**：学员必须现场写下自己的悼词（Eulogy），思考如果是今天立刻死去，别人会如何评价自己；或者如果在理想的老年逝去，悼词又会是怎样。 - **撰写自己的讣告**：学员被迫起草属于自己的讣告（Obituary），逼迫思维直面个人终将化为灰烬的现实。培训结束后，机构开始给他分配临终家庭。当时詹姆斯晚上做服务员，白天拥有大量空闲时间，本打算只在暑期兼职做做，却没想到这份志愿经历彻底改变了他的人生轨迹。 --- ### [44:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2663s) 作为临终关怀志愿者的觉醒时刻在临终关怀病患的家中，志愿者的职责往往极其朴素且充满温度。如果病患想聊天，就陪他们倾听交流；如果家属疲惫不堪，志愿者就帮忙洗碗或做院子里的体力活，让家属能够有喘息的机会外出购物，或者专心陪伴垂危的亲人。对于照料重症患者的家庭而言，志愿者就是那份至关重要的“替班喘息（relief）”。每一次走出临终病患的房屋，詹姆斯的精神世界都会经历一次洗礼。他觉得自己就像一名看透生死的“禅宗僧侣”（Zen monk），突然能敏锐地听到雨滴的声音，切实体会到生命跳动的张力：“我还活着！躺在病床上的还不是我，那还不是我深爱至亲的倒计时。总有一天会轮到他们，也总有一天会轮到我——正如多年后确实轮到了我的母亲——但至少此时此刻，我还活着。”二十岁的人通常被允许且理应以自我为中心去探索世界、思考未来，但在人生最自我的黄金年龄，亲眼目睹生命的必然归宿，詹姆斯彻底顿悟：无论双手多么有力、未来如何辉煌，每一个人的终局都已经注定——最好的结局是在亲人环绕的家中安详告别，最坏的结局则是横尸街头、猝然离世。 --- ### [46:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2799s) 死亡语义学研究：语言如何折射人类对死亡的逃避这段经历让詹姆斯对死亡学（thanatology）产生了极大的学术兴趣。在研究生阶段，他希望系统研究死亡与临终，但当时并没有独立的死亡学研究生专业。最终，他在纽约大学（NYU）文化与传播系找到了著名学者尼尔·波兹曼博士（Dr. Neil Postman）。NYU允许学生根据跨学科课程自主构建学术课题，詹姆斯借此深入研究了人类文化如何看待并谈论死亡。他的硕士学位论文题目为《隐喻与终结：死亡与临终的语义学》（Metaphor and Mortality: The Semantics of Death and Dying），随后发表在普通语义学学会的知名期刊《ETC: A Review of General Semantics》上。詹姆斯在论文中剖析了人类在面对死亡时使用的各种语言隐喻，揭示这些用词如何反映出人类对死亡的抗拒与粉饰： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 死亡修辞与文化心理机制 accDescr: 展现人类面对死亡时采用的不同委婉隐喻及其背后的心理逃避机制 A["直面死亡 Reality of Death"] --> B["日常委婉语 '安乐死 / 睡着了' (Put to sleep)"] A --> C["医疗界委婉语 '我们失去了病人' (Lost the patient)"] A --> D["军事化对抗隐喻 '与死神的战斗' (Battle against death)"] B --> E["将死亡包装为永恒睡眠 掩盖肉体消亡的事实"] C --> F["回避医治无能的真相 仿佛只是位置迷失而非消亡"] D --> G["设立注定全败的战场 '死神的战绩完美无缺，它永远获胜'"] ``` 詹姆斯在访谈中举例说明： - **“让他睡过去”（Put him to sleep）**：小时候家里的狗需要接受安乐死，医生说要把狗“送去睡觉”。小詹姆斯当场在心里反驳：“不，它不是睡觉，它要去死！我晚上才是去睡觉，狗是要死了，为什么要这么叫？”原始文化习惯将死亡视为“长眠”，因为尸体的外观与熟睡相似，人们试图借此回避死亡的绝对性。 - **“我们失去了病人”（We lost the patient）**：医生在宣告抢救失败时常说“失去了病人”。詹姆斯讽刺道：“怎么，你是不知道他在哪个病房了吗？你当然知道他在哪。” - **“抗癌搏斗 / 与死神的战斗”（Lost the battle against death）**：医学话语喜欢用“战斗”来定义对抗死亡的过程。但在詹姆斯看来，这是一场从一开始就注定全盘皆输的战争——“死神的战绩不可战胜，死神总是赢家（Death's record is amazing, death always wins）”。如果把生命与死亡定义为一场对抗性的搏斗，人类就永远注定生活在失败者的宿命之中。 ### [48:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2928s) 临终关怀的启示：临终之人从不谈论死亡人们之所以倾向于使用像“离开”（pass on）或“过世”（pass）这样委婉的措辞，本质上是因为人们始终抗拒直面死亡。死亡是人类生命中唯一不可避免的确定事实，然而大多数人却下意识地认定它是一件极其糟糕的事，尽管事实上从来没有任何人能够确切地证明死亡究竟意味着什么，以及死后究竟会发生什么。作为一名不仅处理婚姻破裂、还曾深入参与临终关怀（hospice）陪护工作的律师与写作者，James Sexton 发现，那些处于生命最后几天、几周乃至最后几分钟的人，所关注的焦点彻底颠覆了外界的预设。临终关怀机构在对志愿者进行培训时，往往重点指导他们如何应对病患对死亡的恐惧或行将就木的逼近感；但在实际接触中，绝大多数临终者根本不谈论死亡本身。相反，人们只想谈论真正让他们感到幸福与鲜活的人与事：他们的孩子、孙辈、伴侣，或者年轻时所从事并深爱的工作。James 倾听了无数个关于生命中美好瞬间的故事。他提到，如果现在让任何一个人闭上眼睛，去回想生命中五个真正感受到被爱与幸福的时刻，那将是极大的心灵慰藉。然而很多时候，人在经历那些温柔美好的瞬间——比如一次深情的亲吻、一顿难忘的晚餐——时，往往浑然不觉，直到多年后回望才会惊觉其珍贵。临终者渴望分享的，正是他们真正“活着”的时刻，而不是躺在病床上等待凋零的现状。这种感悟在 James 陪伴母亲生命最后一段时光时尤为深刻。在母亲病情恶化到无法行动、丧失交流能力的前一天，他们母子静静地坐在一起。James 并没有沉溺于悲伤，而是向母亲讲述孙辈们生活得多么出色，自己如今过得多么幸福、生活多么充实。母亲流露出的欣慰让他顿悟：当一个人走到终点时，最渴望确认的不过是“你做得很好，看看这世上因你而留下的美好一切”。在生命的尽头，平日里看似至关重要的世俗琐事其实根本无足轻重，留到最后的唯有人际间的爱与连结。 - 临终者的核心话题聚焦于至亲（配偶、儿女、孙辈）以及带来成就感与快乐的生活经历。 - 常人在日常中极少能即时意识到幸福时刻的珍贵，只有在事后追忆时才赋予其分量。 - 面向临终亲人最大的安慰，是向他们证明其生命所培育出的下一代正健康、幸福地活着。 --- ### [53:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3191s) 存在与意识的归宿：水滴终将汇入大海针对此前讨论中提到的“我们只是自身的想象，无须害怕，万物相连，此刻只是一种存在状态，之后会进入另一种状态”这一观点，James 分享了其思想根源。这部分认知源于他年轻时接触迷幻剂（psychedelics）的深刻体验，加上成长在一个死亡如影随形、无法回避的家庭环境中，使他很早就形成了关于宇宙存在某种“仁慈力量”（benevolent force）的信念。他借用喜剧演员皮特·霍姆斯（Pete Holmes）的一段脱口秀调侃道：许多无神论者宣称“我不信上帝，我只相信虚无（nothing）”，但这同样充满反讽——如果一种看不见、摸不着、无法被科学证实或证伪的“虚无”，能够自发孕育出世间万物，那这种“虚无”本身就已经极其不可思议。 James 倾向于将个体的生命比喻为一滴水：死亡并不是彻底的毁灭，而是水滴重新汇入汪洋大海，回归与造物主的融合。他坦言自己丝毫不担心“Jim”这个世俗身份的消亡，因为在成为“Jim”之前，他不记得自己曾经历过什么可怕的事，因而没有理由预设死后会坠入灾难。他甚至带着幽默揣测，也许彼岸是一片超乎想象的奇妙境地，甚至造物主会反问：“你们活着的人为什么那么执着于逃避来到这里？这里其实棒极了。” 从生物学和存在主义的角度来看，活着往往伴随着病痛、折磨与艰难抗争，甚至现实世界才更像是“炼狱”。真正承受痛苦的往往是活着的人，而非逝者本身。正因如此，James 反对死刑——因为将死亡视作一种惩罚在逻辑上站不住脚；如果真正要施加惩罚，监禁、糟糕的伙食和精神上的折磨才算得上惩罚，而死亡只是一种终结与解脱。他热爱当下的肉身与生活体验，但面对终点，他充满好奇，希望届时能够心怀坦荡、双手洁净地迎接它的到来。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 生命状态演变图 accDescr: 展示个体从起源到生命状态，再到死后回归整体意识的过程。 subgraph Origin["前生命状态"] A["未知的本源 (无痛苦/无恐惧)"] end subgraph Life["个体存在 (肉身)"] B["具象个体 (如独立水滴)"] C["世俗挑战与体验 (感知、爱、苦难)"] B --> C end subgraph Transition["归宿"] D["消解个体边界 (汇入汪洋)"] E["统一的意识/造物主 (重归整体)"] D --> E end A --> B C --> D ``` --- ### [57:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3430s) 终结与接受：从承认现实到身体的“软化” 主持人将话题引回现实与婚姻法律业务中，探讨“接受”（acceptance）在面对关系破裂与生活变故时扮演的角色。许多人深陷痛苦，很大程度上源于对眼下局面的剧烈抗拒；然而人们常将“接受”误解为“为对方的行为辩白或合理化（justification）”，事实上接受仅仅是指承认自身当下的客观处境。 James 极为赞同这一观察，并指出在达到真正的“接受”之前，必须经历前置步骤，其首要前提是**“承认”（acknowledgement）**。只有先从认知上客观承认事实的发生，才谈得上调整情绪反应与身体状态。接受不仅是心理认知，更伴随着身体机制的变化——即消除躯体中的过度紧绷与戒备： - **看牙医的隐喻**：James 提到自己每次坐上看牙的躺椅，身体总会不自觉地紧绷、防备，在心里预警“痛苦要来了”，此时必须主动提醒自己停下来，在生理上反复默念“放松、软化（soften）”。 - **巴西柔术的启示**：在巴西柔术（BJJ）中，白带初学者的本能反应通常是拼尽全力对抗一切外力、试图硬抗所有动作；但随着修习深入，学员才会明白对抗只会加速消耗与受伤，真正的技术在于学会“顺应、软化与卸力”（yield and soften）。在处理离婚乃至任何形式的告别时，唯有停止徒劳的身体与心理对抗，学会承认现实并主动“软化”内心的坚冰，个体才能真正从抗拒带来的二次创伤中走出来。 ### [58:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3514s) 接纳现实：爱不是永久的赠予，而是暂借詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）从柔术中的防守技术谈起，指出当面临威胁或困境时，最重要的不是徒劳地盲目对抗，而是相信自然的律动，并首先认清现实的客观存在。婚姻走到了尽头，这就是摆在面前的事实。他引用了一句多年前听到的禅宗谚语：“如果你学不会在雪中寻找快乐，你的生活中就会少一份快乐，而雪依然下得一样多。”现实就是如此残酷却简单——“我摔碎了我最心爱的茶杯，我可以为此高兴，也可以为此愤怒或悲伤。但无论如何，茶杯都已经碎了。” 要真正做到“接纳”，核心前提是意识到生命是有尽头的，世间的一切拥有都不是永恒的赠品，而只是“暂借”。塞克斯顿强调，无论是自己的生命、宠物的陪伴、伴侣的爱意，还是子女的亲情，它们全部都只是暂借给我们的，随时可能被收回。认识到这一点后，人才能学会放软身段（softening），顺应事态的发展，而不是一味消耗心力去无谓地拉扯。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 面对丧失与变故的心态演进 accDescr: 展示从执着抵触到接纳臣服，最终以冲浪心态开启未知新生的演变流程 subgraph 认知觉醒 A["遭遇重大变故 （婚姻破裂 / 亲人离世）"] --> B["看清客观现实 （茶杯已碎 / 大雪照落）"] B --> C["领悟无常本质 爱与生命皆为暂借"] end subgraph 应对策略 C --> D["放弃对抗：顺流而下（徒劳）"] C --> E["死死较劲：逆流硬抗（耗竭）"] C --> F["冲浪心态：顺应浪潮并运用技巧"] end subgraph 破局新生 F --> G["破壳与羽化 勇敢打破既有世界的边界"] G --> H["步入未知的幽暗长路 孕育出全新维度的生命体验"] end ``` ### [01:00:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3618s) 心理咨询师的冲浪隐喻：既顺应浪潮，又积极掌舵詹姆斯分享了他经历人生低谷与转型期时，心理咨询师给他的当头棒喝。当时他拼命抗拒生活中的巨变，咨询师敏锐地指出了他性格中的极端与徒劳：“你太奇怪了。你要么试图逆流而上，那根本行不通；要么你就彻底撒手任由水流冲走，那也不会奏效；甚至你还妄想自己化身为整片海洋，这更是天方夜谭。你应该去‘冲浪’（surf）。” 冲浪是顺应与掌控之间的绝佳平衡。在浪潮袭来时，冲浪者不会试图与海浪蛮干，而是借着海浪的力量前行，同时凭借身体素质、技术与耐心，在浪头上施加自己的主动影响力。无论是巴西柔术、伴侣关系的终结、痛失至亲，还是人生的重大转折，道理完全相通： - **直面现实**：清楚曾经拥有过什么、彼此的关系到底如何，并承认事物已经彻底改变。 - **顺应而非对抗**：不怨天尤人，接受“天下雪了、茶杯碎了”的既成事实。 - **重塑自我**：在不可控的洪流中保持主动权，积极探索接下来该如何走。 ### [01:01:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3685s) 破壳与新生：离婚是摧毁唯一已知的世界在塞克斯顿看来，生活中那些让人感到“天塌下来、我绝对撑不过去”的绝望时刻，往往正是人生最大转机的起点。“正当毛毛虫以为生命即将终结时，它破茧成了蝴蝶。”然而，蝴蝶若想诞生，它原本的世界就必须彻底毁灭。他用雏鸟破壳与胎儿分娩作了极为生动的比喻： - **蛋壳与母腹的舒适**：在卵或子宫里，生命温暖、安全、被无条件滋养，在羊水中悠然漂浮。 - **血与挣扎的剧痛**：但要想继续生存，雏鸟必须用喙啄碎蛋壳，跌入寒冷而陌生的外界；胎儿也必须经历充斥着鲜血与尖叫的分娩阵痛。 - **飞翔的代价**：雏鸟最初甚至不知道如何挥动翅膀，可它唯有鼓起勇气摧毁自己唯一熟知的世界，才能换取翱翔天空的自由。他认为，无论主动提出还是被动承受，离婚在本质上就是这样一场世界破碎的过程——一段本以为会白头偕老的约定戛然而止，未来的路灯全灭，眼前是一条完全笼罩在黑暗中的未知长路。但这绝不意味着未来注定可怕，它完全可能通向超乎想象的美好。 ### [01:03:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3817s) 无法容忍的不确定性与法兰克福的“完美延误” 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）补充道，人类天生对不确定性抱有极大的恐惧与抗拒。他在研究 Uber 行为实验室（Uber Labs）时发现，Uber 之所以彻底颠覆传统出租车行业，关键在于它消除了乘客的不确定感。以往站在街头打电话叫车，人们要忐忑等待 7 分钟甚至 17 分钟，完全不知道车到底会不会来；而在机场看到“航班延误”四字会让人陷入精神折磨，但如果明确标注“延误 2 小时”，乘客反而能坦然接受并妥善安排时间。塞克斯顿完全认同不确定性带来的折磨，但他紧接着分享了一段亲身经历，说明意料之外的失控往往藏着命运的馈赠： - **意外滞留**：有一次他从波兰回国，原本只在德国法兰克福转机停留 1 小时，却遭遇暴雪，所有飞往美国的航班全线取消，他被迫滞留在人生地不熟的法兰克福。 - **从暴躁到接纳**：起初他怒不可遏，半夜给助手打电话紧急取消改期全部庭审与日程。但他很快意识到：“你再怎么生气，飞机也不会飞起来，你又不能从法兰克福走回家，还能怎么办？” - **意外的珍宝**：他索性出门在雪夜里闲逛，偶然走进一家逼仄的小餐馆，结果吃到了至今为止“人生中最棒的一顿饭”。因为这家餐馆和临时订到的一家绝佳酒店，他后来专程重返法兰克福三次。塞克斯顿感慨，如果在出发前告诉他航班会被迫取消、错过法庭出庭，他一定会觉得这是灭顶之灾；但若没有这场大雪，他的生命体验将匮乏得多。“当你生命垂危躺在临终关怀病房的床上时，你跟陪护志愿者讲的绝不会是某次航班又延误了的懊恼，而是你在法兰克福那家小餐馆吃到的绝妙美食。” ### [01:06:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4000s) 真的有人为了离婚而结婚吗？针对史蒂芬提出的是否有人“从结婚第一天起就盘算着离婚”的疑问，塞克斯顿根据自己在高净值（High Net Worth，资产在 1000 万至数亿美元之间）及超高净值（Ultra High Net Worth，资产在 5 亿至数十亿美元以上）领域的执业经验进行了拆解： - **掠夺者的实际算盘**：在这类顶层财富圈中，确实存在带着强烈金钱目的与富豪结婚的人。但出人意料的是，这部分人大多数并不急于“套现离场”（cashing the chips out）。相反，他们的策略往往是“尽可能久地留在摩天轮上”，因为维持婚姻所能调动和享受的庞大财富与特权，远比撕破脸离婚分得的一笔有限财产要多得多。 - **绝大多数人的真心沦陷**：塞克斯顿严肃指出，在他长达 25 年的职业生涯中，接触到的客户里有高达 99.999% 在结婚时绝没有预谋离婚。爱情具有极其强烈的迷惑性与致幻性（intoxicating），让人在早期陷入盲目，对伴侣的所有缺陷与潜在危机视而不见。哪怕许多人在事后回忆时会感叹“其实我一开始就知道我们注定完蛋”，但在热恋的开端，每个人都全心全意地相信自己会是那个幸福的例外。 ### [01:08:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4106s) 激情的消退与闪婚闪离：72小时的荒唐闹剧刚陷入热恋时，情侣间的每一次肢体触碰都仿佛带有电流，那种强烈的触电感令人神魂颠倒。詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）幽默地指出，幸好这种极致的生理狂热会随着时间逐渐淡化并变得可控，否则如果结婚十年后伴侣在水槽边轻轻擦过，你依然激动得无法自持，整个世界将毫无生产力可言，人类什么事也干不成。这种狂热退潮后，人们才能以更清醒、但依然抱有美好希望的眼光审视对方。谈到极端的冲动婚姻，詹姆斯分享了他职业生涯中经手过最快走向终结的婚姻——从结婚到申请撤销（或离婚）仅仅过了72小时。其中有因为酗酒冲动结的婚，更有一桩像是两个人在玩一场失控的“胆小鬼博弈（Game of chicken）”。这对男女才刚开始约会，一方挑衅说“我敢打赌你不敢把我的名字文在身上”，另一方不甘示弱立刻去文身；接着又赌“敢不敢去买订婚戒指”，两人随即买了戒指；最后甚至赌“你敢不敢真跟我结婚”，结果真把证领了。当晚或许是一场惊心动魄的狂欢与激情，但两天过后酒醒神智恢复，两人一聊才发现彼此根本水火不容——例如一方极度想要孩子，而另一方根本不打算要孩子，闪电般的婚姻闹剧在三天内迅速瓦解。 --- ### [01:10:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4208s) 婚姻成败的真正规律：并非文化宗教，而是成瘾物质关于恋爱时间的长短或订婚期长短是否决定婚姻长久，詹姆斯表示自己极度痴迷于“模式识别（Pattern recognition）”，一直在观察并分析各种变量组合：同宗教与跨宗教、有信仰与无信仰、年龄差距（老夫少妻或姐弟恋）、同文化与跨文化、同种族与跨种族，乃至是否为第一代移民。然而，在经手了无数案例后，他发现这些外在的人口统计学特征都构不成绝对的预测模式。真正具有极高预测性、能断定婚姻极可能破裂的单一指标是“成瘾物质的使用”（酗酒或药物滥用）。如果夫妻中有一人或两人存在严重的饮酒或吸毒恶习，这往往是走向离婚的强烈信号。成瘾问题往往会随着时间恶化，导致严重的次生灾害；而在实践中最常见的情形是：随着孩子降生或步入人生的新阶段，其中一人为了家庭和责任开始主动节制、减少甚至戒除烟酒药物，而另一人依然沉溺其中、与成瘾物质保持着不健康的关系。双方生活轨迹由此发生不可逆的分道扬镳，婚姻最终分崩离析。 - **常见的无效预测指标**：恋爱时长、文化差异、种族背景、年龄代差、宗教一致性。 - **高危的确定性指标**：酒精与药物滥用（Substance abuse），尤其是伴侣间应对成瘾的态度出现分歧时。 --- ### [01:12:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4322s) “失去主线”与“忘了给植物浇水” 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）联想到詹姆斯之前提过的“爱是借来的（Love is loaned）”，并分享了身边一对优秀CEO夫妇和平离婚的悲伤案例。两人都是出色的企业高管，性格很好，从不争吵，但在忙于繁重工作和抚养孩子的过程中，他们不知不觉“忘了给这盆名叫爱情的植物浇水”，最终感情枯萎。詹姆斯极其赞同这个比喻，并用“脱轨/丢失主线剧情（Lost the plot）”来定义这种现象。婚姻就像两个人共同执笔写一本书，在漫长的岁月里，因为职场压力或育儿占用了大量心理带宽，夫妻俩读着读着突然发现自己不知道书读到哪儿了，必须往前倒翻几页才能重新接上。问题在于，当一段关系出现疏离，有人试图打破僵局并坦白“我觉得我们把生活的主线弄丢了”时，人性防卫机制往往会让沟通走向灾难。倾听者很少能听出背后的爱意与呼救——即“你对我很重要，尽管工作和孩子很忙，但我们之间的爱情同样至关重要，我想找回我们的主线，这不怪你也不怪我”；相反，人们习惯防御性地反弹成指责：“我们丢了主线？那你想让我怎样？难道要我不管孩子吗？我已经竭尽全力了！”植物每天都摆在必经之路上，每个人天天路过它，没人想杀死它，但仅仅因为疏忽与理所当然，植物最终枯死。所有长久关系最大的陷阱，就是误以为伴侣是永久属于自己的资产，而忘了无论因为死亡还是离婚，伴侣都只是命运暂时借给你的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻中丢失主线的恶性循环 accDescr: 展示夫妻因外部压力忽视关系、试图沟通却引发防御反弹，最终导致关系枯萎的机制过程。 subgraph External["外部消耗"] A["高负荷职场与育儿"] --> B["心理带宽被彻底占满"] end subgraph Slippage["疏离与枯萎"] B --> C["忘记给关系浇水 （忽视伴侣存在）"] C --> D["丢失生活主线剧情 （Lost the plot）"] end subgraph Communication["沟通错位"] D --> E["一方发出呼救： '我们丢失了主线'"] E -->|防卫性解读| F["另一方反弹防御： '难道是我的错？还要我怎样？'"] F --> G["冷漠与隔阂加剧"] end G -.->|恶性循环| C ``` --- ### [01:15:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4518s) 关系的“滑坡效应”：从微小妥协到彻底崩塌针对婚姻如何走向终结，詹姆斯深入拆解了“滑坡（Slippage）”这一概念。没有人会因为吃了一块蛋糕，第二天西装就扣不上；相反，人们总是在漫长的岁月里做出一系列看似微不足道的小妥协和小选择，日积月累，直到某天赫然发现衣服彻底穿不下了，才震惊地问：“这究竟是什么时候发生的？”这完全印证了欧内斯特·海明威在《太阳照常升起》中描述破产的名言：“以两种方式发生：先是极其缓慢，然后突然降临（Very slowly and then all at once）。”婚姻中的滑坡正是由无数微小的雨滴汇聚成最终冲垮一切的洪流。詹姆斯指出，滑坡往往始于最美好的初衷。单身时，找到命中注定的“那个人（The One）”是人生最宏大的首要目标；一旦找到并步入婚姻，两人击掌相庆、如释重负，宣告“首要任务完成”。紧接着，人们便将精力全盘转移到别处：“太好了，大后方稳固了，现在让我们去干大事吧！”大家开始忙着拼搏事业、孕育后代、环游世界，唯独不再精心经营当初那段核心关系。詹姆斯打趣道，他常能在现实中一眼看出谁坠入了爱河，因为深陷热恋的人往往会长胖几磅——比起起大早去健身房流汗，热恋期的人们更愿意蜷缩在沙发里，一边吃着爆米花一边依偎着看电视；这种松弛而甜蜜的惰性，正是人们在安全感中悄悄放松防线、任由细微改变滋生的鲜活写照。 ### [01:17:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4625s) 幸福肥消退与关系的细微滑坡詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）谈到了恋爱初期那种令人愉悦的“幸福肥”（love weight）。他坦言自己非常喜欢看到别人身上的这种变化，因为这种体态展现出的是一种沉浸在幸福中的饱满状态。相比之下，他回忆起自己曾经练出八块腹肌的照片，那反而是他人生中最痛苦、最悲惨的时期，因为当时他只是在健身房里试图靠残酷的训练“把内心的痛苦硬生生打碎排挤出去”。因此，在恋爱初期那种浓情蜜意带来的微胖是极其正常的。然而，当那种最初的狂热逐渐褪去，双方进入一种需要长期维持的相处模式时，注意力开始转移到生活的其他事情上。这时，微小的问题就会悄然出现。很多时候，人们并不想把事情闹大，不愿像裁判一样随时“吹罚犯规”或“掷旗叫停”（throwing a flag on that play），而是选择自我安慰：“算了，这只是件小事，别放在心上。”詹姆斯指出，关系的“滑坡”（slippage）正是这样不知不觉开始的，而这些不断被掩盖的小事，最终会一路将夫妻引向他的离婚律师办公室。 --- ### [01:17:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4677s) 乔丹·彼得森的“每周倾听90分钟”与惩罚区思维史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提到心理学家乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）的一段话，并特意在手机里调出这段经常发给身边陷入情感危机的男性朋友的音频。彼得森在片段中直言不讳地告诫已婚男性：“你必须明白，你每周得花90分钟听你妻子说话，赶紧把这点灌进你那顽固的脑袋里。如果你听得足够多，你们就能达成和解并享受彼此；如果你不听，这些不满就会堆积起来，到时候你只能在离婚法庭上听她说了。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 夫妻沟通方式与走向 accDescr: 对比彼得森的倾听理论与塞克斯顿指出的被动敷衍心态 subgraph Passive["消极敷衍心态"] A["视沟通为惩罚区苦差事 '还要熬多少分钟？'"] --> B["换取性生活或平静的交易心"] B --> C["不满隐性累积，最终对簿公堂"] end subgraph Deliberate["主动建设性沟通"] D["视对方为有趣且有吸引力的伴侣"] --> E["建立定期、有安全感的复盘机制"] E --> F["化解怨恨，维持长期健康婚姻"] end ``` 詹姆斯听后表示自己以前也收到过这个视频，但他对这种表述持有保留态度。他认为彼得森的言论虽然带有修辞上的夸张，但在本质上与他极其反感的俗语“妻子开心，生活舒心”（happy wife, happy life）非常相似。这种逻辑暗含了一种男性必须“硬着头皮忍耐”的假设，把倾听妻子变成了像冰球比赛里坐“惩罚区”（penalty box）一样的折磨：坐在那里数着秒针想“我还得熬多少分钟，熬完了是不是就能有性生活当奖品”。詹姆斯反问道，曾经有一段时间男人是迫不及待想听伴侣说话的，因为那时她既迷人又对自己充满兴趣；如果沟通退化成了一方突然冷冷地说出“我们需要谈谈”（这句话在生活中几乎从未预示过好事，犹如刺耳的警报），那么这种关系早就已经变味了。 --- ### [01:21:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4862s) 主动沟通的更优实践：“立即发送”与散步复盘当史蒂文询问，如果那些走向离婚的夫妻真的每周抽出90分钟坦诚沟通，是否就能避免走进离婚咨询室时，詹姆斯认为，比起机械地执行某种时间硬性指标，沟通的质量和机制要重要得多。他在自己的书《How to Stay in Love》中专门写了一章名为《立即发送》（Hit Send Now），主张当某件事让自己感到不适或困扰时，应该及时、温和地向对方表达，而不是积压到爆发。他建议甚至可以通过写邮件的方式进行交流，因为面对面交流时很多人容易措辞不当或瞬间激发防御心理，而书面文字允许人字斟句酌地修改，同时也给接收方留出反思的空间，无需立刻为了自尊心而回击。此外，詹姆斯分享了一位读过他书的朋友的真实做法： - **每周固定散步复盘**：夫妻俩每周固定散步一次，在散步过程中特意为彼此留出安全沟通的窗口。 - **怀着爱意指出不足**：双方各自提出一到三件对方本周在关系中“做得不够完美”的事情，并且从一开始就明确这是出于维系关系的善意，绝不将其视为人身攻击。 - **宁要痛苦的真话，不要舒服的谎言**：宁可面对不舒服的真相，也绝不让怨恨在沉默中滋生。 - **以积极肯定收尾**：在每次散步结束前，双方必须各自说出三件对方本周让自己感到被爱、被温暖的具体细节，始终以积极温馨的情绪收场。据这位朋友反馈，他们每周散步时从未出现过“无话可说”的情况。 --- ### [01:23:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4995s) “妻子开心，生活舒心”的谬论与男女差异谈到“妻子开心，生活舒心”（Happy wife, happy life）这一广为流传的俗语，詹姆斯直言其荒谬。他指出，这一陈词滥调之所以流行，是因为太多人甘愿妥协于一种极其荒唐的情感模式，而正是这种模式导致了社会上56%的离婚率，以及另外百分之二三十的名存实亡、仅仅为了“不想被分走一半财产”而痛苦凑合的夫妻。痛苦的人往往喜欢拉人作伴（misery loves company），大家便互相安慰说“女人就是这样，哄着就行”，但健康的现实应当是：只有“丈夫开心且妻子开心”，才会有“开心的婚姻”（happy husband and happy wife equals happy marriage）。至于为什么文化中总是单向强调讨好妻子，詹姆斯给出了他的观察： - **男性的需求相对直接简单**：男性在很多方面更容易被满足，往往处于“要么饿了，要么有生理冲动”（hungry or horny）的状态，只要吃饱并在性方面得到满足，大部分时间就能过得挺开心；他们通常不会为挑什么窗帘而纠结，筹备婚礼时关心的也往往只是现场有没有DJ、乐队以及吧台有什么酒，其余细节基本都是“宝贝你喜欢就好”。 - **女性的需求更细腻多维**：女性通常更加敏锐细腻，能觉察到更多层次的细节与情感流动。这并非优劣之分，而是男女带来的不同天赋。 - **从浪漫极性到柴米油盐的挑战**：恋爱时男女之间的反差极性（polarity）是世界上最美妙的吸引力，但一旦进入婚姻，伴侣不仅是情人和性伴侣，还是室友、育儿合伙人、旅行搭档，甚至还要共享卫生间。法国有句俗话恰如其分地道出了这种转变——婚姻让原本的情人变成了不得不共同处理生活碎屑的合伙人。 ### [01:25:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5145s) 出轨的诱惑力与“好心办坏事”的性生活常规 James Sexton 探讨了伴侣关系演变中的一个残酷现实：情人之所以令人迷醉，是因为你只接触到对方最好、最迷人的特质。偷情时，你不需要帮对方捡臭袜子，不需要耐着性子听他们抱怨和表亲吵架的琐事，也不用勉强自己“必须和对方共度90分钟”；你享受到的是纯粹的激情、欢愉与性。相比之下，传统的婚姻观念（例如所谓“老婆高兴，日子舒坦 / Happy wife, happy life”）往往走向了妥协与放弃——丈夫为了让妻子闭嘴好让自己看橄榄球比赛，索性选择做最轻松的事而非正确的事。但 James 指出，比这种“彻底摆烂”更有趣的现象是：许多人恰恰是因为“极其纯良的动机”，反而一步步把亲密关系推向了乏味与僵局，其中最典型的例子就是性。在长期关系中，伴侣们几乎都会发现性生活变得可预测、失去了新鲜感。James 解释，这完全源于双方最初为了取悦彼此而付出的善意：刚开始约会时，每个人都会使出浑身解数，把所有招式都试一遍，细心观察对方喜欢什么、对什么声音有反应。一旦发现对方喜欢某种特定的方式，人们就会变得极度讲究“效率”——避开对方不喜欢的，反复使用对方最受用的技巧，这就好比去看布鲁斯·斯普林斯汀（Bruce Springsteen）的演唱会，大家只想听名曲《Born to Run》。双方都在互相奉献自己的“精选金曲”（greatest hits）。然而，其代价是无意间亲手打造出了一套僵化的常规（routine）。一旦有人试图跳出框架（比如突然提议去洗衣房做爱，或者尝试新体位），反而会引发内心的疑神疑鬼：“他/她从哪学来的？是不是看色情片了？还是出轨了？难道我过去做的一切他/她都不满意？”这种因好心而筑起的防线，最终让性探索变成了雷区。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 性生活陷入僵化套路的循环图 accDescr: 解释伴侣如何从最初以善意取悦对方，逐步走向模式化并引发怀疑的过程。 subgraph S1["善意探索阶段"] A["初入恋爱：尝试各种技巧探索喜好"] --> B["发现对方偏好：剔除无效手段"] end subgraph S2["高效与模式化"] B --> C["反复演奏'精选金曲'（Greatest Hits）"] C --> D["形成固定、可预测的性生活常规"] end subgraph S3["打破常规的猜忌"] D --> E["一旦有人尝试新鲜花样"] E --> F["引发不安全感：是否出轨/看色情片/对我不满？"] F --> D end ``` ### [01:30:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5408s) 沟通性偏好的糟糕方式与巧妙的“春梦试探法” 要想打破性生活的死板循环，唯一的途径就是敞开沟通，但多数人却选择了破坏力最强的开场白。最糟糕的沟通方式莫过于充满指责与抱怨：“你怎么再也不做那个了？”“你以前总做的，现在为什么从来不让我试试？”这种措辞会立刻激发对方的防御机制，演变成“还不是因为你……”的互相翻旧账。James 调侃自己作为一名离婚律师，职业生涯就是在合法且精巧地操控情绪——让对手恐惧、让委托人安心、让法官产生好感。因此，他建议将这种情商策略用在善意的亲密沟通上。与其在床上毫无征兆地临场变阵让对方错愕，不如巧妙运用“虚构春梦法”来进行无压力的安全试探： - **制造好奇心**：挑一个日常时刻，对伴侣说：“天哪，我昨晚做了一个关于你的梦，简直……你绝对不会想知道的。” - **欲擒故纵**：当伴侣追问时，先推脱是睡前吃了奶酪胡思乱想，故意吊足胃口：“我做了一个关于你最下流、最狂野的梦。” - **无压力抛出想法**：任何人面对这种诱导都会忍不住追问细节，此时你顺理成章地讲出自己想尝试的花样。 - **进退自如的安全阀**：如果伴侣表现出兴趣，就可以顺水推舟：“可能我潜意识里真的想试试，改天咱们玩一次？”如果伴侣露出为难或抗拒的神情，你可以立刻轻松抽身：“我也觉得挺离谱的，就是脑子里闪过的怪梦罢了。”这种策略既不会伤及自尊，也不会给伴侣施加压力。 ### [01:32:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5543s) 卧室熄灯与出轨：离婚诉讼中的性冷淡真相当 Steven 问及有多少人是因为“卧室熄灯”（性生活停滞）而最终走向离婚法庭时，James 直言，无论当事人是否愿意在法庭上公开承认，走进他办公室的案件中，至少有 80% 的个案都夹杂着不忠（出轨）的因素。这一高比例直接印证了性在婚姻维系中的核心地位——如果一个人在与配偶的性关系中得到了真正的满足，他们通常不会冒着风险去向外索求。针对这个话题，Steven 也提出了另一种观察：除却情感冷淡外，现实中确实存在一小部分对性或对“追逐猎物过程”极度上瘾的人。无论伴侣有多完美，他们由于内心的创伤，注定会陷入不断偷腥的恶性循环；与此同时，天平的另一端则存在完全不需要性的人。围绕性欲不匹配与卧室冷淡对婚姻破裂的深远影响，James 正准备结合 Steven 此前与进化心理学学者加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）的访谈观点，进一步展开深入剖析。 ### [01:33:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5616s) 性、进化动力与被性高度饱和的现代社会人类最根本的驱动力很大程度上根植于进化生物学。正如访谈中所探讨的，人类的核心动力基本可以归结为三件事：“性、获取食物，以及避免成为食物（Sex, food, and not becoming food）”。在现代社会中，性不仅是强大的内在驱力，而且无休止地充斥在人们的视野之中。只要打开 Instagram 或其他社交媒体，迎面而来的性暗示内容数量惊人。James Sexton 形象地打了个比方：老一辈的祖父辈穷尽一生所见过的女性乳房数量，恐怕还比不上如今一个年轻人单次浏览 Instagram 时所看到的景象。广告和互联网让所有人生活在一个被“性彻底饱和”的环境里，持续对人们的注意力和两性关系造成冲击。 ### [01:34:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5672s) 科技改变的出轨方式与“史蒂夫·乔布斯送给离婚律师的礼物” 作为执业长达 25 年的资深离婚律师，James Sexton 见证了科技对婚姻瓦解方式的深刻重构。在他职业生涯初期，色情内容（Pornography）极少作为离婚案件的理由被提及，而如今 OnlyFans、复仇式色情（revenge porn）以及对私密照片与音视频流出的担忧在诉讼中已随处可见。不仅如此，智能手机让出轨变得前所未有的容易和隐秘：过去如果一位已婚父亲在足球训练场上想搭讪另一位已婚母亲，公开交谈或打电话到对方家里都显得唐突且显眼；然而现在，借助足球家长群或 Facebook 好友等看似完全中立且合法的切入点，两个人从一句“你们去牙买加度假住哪家酒店”开始闲聊，便能悄无声息地在没有旁人的私密数字空间里建立联系并越界。与此同时，技术的跨设备无缝同步也留下了无法抹除的“铁证”，成为婚姻破裂的导火索。James 调侃道，虽然史蒂夫·乔布斯已经离世，但全美离婚律师都欠他一份巨大的感谢。苹果生态系统的设备互联（如共用 Apple ID 和 iMessage 同步），让无数偷腥者的婚外情彻底曝光——情人发来的露骨信息或赞叹前一天性爱体验的短信，冷不防弹在孩子正在玩的 iPad 屏幕上，直接被配偶抓个正着。这种场景在离婚律师事务所几乎“每周都在上演”。尽管平台和载体翻新，但 James 强调，技术只是外壳，“就像一千家餐馆却只有同一份菜单”，50 年前的离婚律师所面对的与今天别无二致，底色始终是人类最根本的心碎，以及男女试图携手维系关系却最终分崩离析的悲剧。 - **科技重塑的出轨路径**：社交软件提供了大量天然且看似无害的“中立切入点”（如家长群、日常动态点赞评论），让婚外沟通轻而易举地由公开转向绝对私密。 - **不可磨灭的数字证据**：设备云端互联（如共用 Apple ID、iMessage、智能家庭终端）导致婚外情线索意外曝光的频率极高，成为现代离婚案中极其常见的一道诱因。 ### [01:38:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=5884s) 婚姻与婚礼的悖论：不要登记结婚，但请办一场婚礼对于“婚姻与爱情”的关系，Steven Bartlett 与 James Sexton 持有截然相反却又奇妙互补的观点。Steven 坦言自己不排斥结婚，却极度抗拒传统的婚礼：繁文缛节、长达数小时的等待、为了等一顿饭熬上三小时，以及筹备婚礼带给新人和朋友们长达一两年的焦虑、争吵和精神内耗。而作为离婚律师的 James 则完全相反——他根本不相信法律意义上的婚姻制度，认为它在很大程度上只是一种表演性的法律程序，两人的爱意并不会因为签了一纸婚书就发生任何质变；但他极其热爱“婚礼”本身。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻制度与婚礼仪式的观念对比 accDescr: 对比法律婚姻的契约本质与婚礼派对所承载的情感价值 subgraph Legal["法律意义的婚姻 (Marriage)"] direction TB L1["法律契约与财产绑定"] L2["对真爱本身几乎无实质改变"] L3["常伴随沉重制度束缚"] end subgraph Celebration["仪式意义的婚礼 (Wedding)"] direction TB C1["在80亿茫茫人海中相遇的庆典"] C2["亲友聚齐并给予最真挚的祝福"] C3["为一生留下不可替代的珍贵家庭记忆"] end Legal -->|James 的建议| R["提倡举行婚礼庆典，而非盲目签署法律契约"] Celebration -->|James 的建议| R ``` 在 James 看来，在地球 80 亿茫茫人海中，两个人能够找到彼此并决定相伴，这是无比崇高而浪漫的奇迹，值得所有人聚在一起痛痛快快地办一场狂欢派对。他感叹道：“如果你爱的人第一次全部齐聚在同一个房间里是因为你的葬礼，那你可太蠢了。”婚礼正是让人生命中所有重要之人共同见证爱、分享美食与祝福的稀缺时刻。这段感悟源于 James 极为私人的生命体验。尽管他与前妻多年前已宣告离婚，但他至今依然视当年的婚礼照片为无价之宝。他的母亲生前饱受癌症折磨，因常年化疗而多次掉光头发、形容枯槁；在母亲去世前，James 曾深深恐惧自己脑海中母亲的模样会永远定格在病榻上受苦的惨白面容。然而，婚礼上的照片留下了母亲最光鲜亮丽的瞬间——精心盘好的头发、华丽的礼服，以及无比灿烂由衷的笑容。James 动情地回忆，当年 22 岁的他曾特意严厉警告 DJ 绝不准在婚宴上放极其土气的“小鸡舞（Chicken Dance）”，但母亲后来悄悄找到 DJ 强硬要求播放。如今，母亲在婚礼上欢快跳着小鸡舞的身影，成了他心中永不褪色、将伴随他一生的温暖记忆。因此，James 给出的深刻建议是：如果你深爱一个人，尽情去办一场属于你们自己的派对，别被传统流程绑架，甚至“去办婚礼，但别去登记领证”——因为在现实中，从没有任何宾客会在吃完酒席后要求查看你们的结婚证书是否经过了公证。 ### [01:41:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6100s) 摆脱标准模式：婚姻与婚礼的“自定义”法则 James Sexton 猛烈抨击了传统婚礼上让宾客苦等三个小时的固定流程，直言：“见鬼去吧，为什么非要搞正襟危坐的晚宴环节？餐前小点心才是最棒的部分，只吃那个不就行了！”他强调，如果他的书以及他对亲密关系的核心理念要浓缩成一句话，那就是：“你想怎么过就怎么过。” 他指出，走进他律师事务所的当事人几乎都有一个惊人的共同点：他们都在照搬一套别人告诉他们的“正确模板”去经营生活，而这套模式已经被证明记录极差——大多数人遵循的常规婚姻模式失败率高达 56%。在地球 80 亿人中好不容易选定了彼此，唯有这两个人最有资格决定如何相处与庆祝。哪怕只办一场奇奇怪怪的聚会，只要朋友真的爱你，就会欣然接受，哪怕不完全喜欢，也会感叹“这真的很像他们的风格”。 Steven Bartlett 对此深表赞同，并分享了他与伴侣讨论婚礼时的感悟。看到身边许多朋友筹备婚礼的过程异常痛苦，为了两年后的某一天必须省吃俭用，不得不砍掉周五晚上的娱乐和日常的约会之夜，这在婚姻尚未开始前就奠定了压抑的基调。Steven 曾提出：与其为了婚礼砸下 1 万或 10 万英镑，为什么不把这笔钱拆成 10 份，办 10 场轻松愉快的小聚会来创造更多美好的真实回忆？ - 大多数人照搬的传统婚姻与关系模式，其失败率高达 56%。 - 筹备传统婚礼的财务与社交重压，常常迫使伴侣牺牲当下的幸福（如取消约会之夜），形成了糟糕的开局。 --- ### [01:43:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6200s) 婚礼究竟是办给谁看的：白牙与烂牙龈的文化隐喻针对 Steven 的疑问，James Sexton 一针见血地指出：“那场昂贵且繁复的婚礼根本不是为了新人自己办的，而是演给观众看的。”现代文化正以时速 100 英里的速度撞向砖墙，根源就在于人们做一切事情都是为了表演给看客，而不是忠于自己的真实生活。 James 提出了一个极其尖锐的隐喻：当代社会已经演变成一种“牙齿锃白、牙龈全烂”的虚伪文化。人们不再在乎内里到底是什么，只在乎外表看起来光不光鲜。正因如此，他的办公室里充斥着前三周还在社交媒体上打着 `#Blessed`（何其有幸）、`#BestWifeEver`（史上最棒妻子）标签，下一秒就跑来找他咨询离婚、深陷婚外情的夫妻。更有甚者，名人圈中更是将这种虚伪推向了极致。许多名人在新闻通稿和公关采访中大谈特谈彼此有多相爱，私下却早已坐在 James 的办公室里，紧锣密鼓地协商解除婚姻关系。他们甚至分居在东西两岸各自的豪宅里长达一年半，私下互不往来，唯独在红毯走秀时准时合体秀恩爱，演完立刻分道扬镳。James 叹息，大众被兜售了一场虚幻的梦境，但现实本该比这场假梦更加美丽。用一场虚假和符合他人期待的仪式来开启婚姻，远不如用真实的情感表达来得可贵。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 虚假表演型关系与现实反差的演变路径 accDescr: 展示了从迎合外界期待到最终导致关系崩溃并走向离婚律师办公室的循环过程。 subgraph Perception["表面表演（演给看客）"] A["社交媒体秀恩爱 (#Blessed / 完美婚礼)"] --> B["公众维系恩爱人设 (红毯合体 / 牙齿锃白)"] end subgraph Reality["内部实质（真实生活）"] C["内在沟通彻底断裂 (情感冷漠 / 烂牙龈)"] --> D["分居与隐瞒背叛 (异地分居 / 婚外情)"] end B -.-> D D --> E["走进离婚律师办公室 (协商解除婚姻)"] ``` --- ### [01:45:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6311s) 名人假面夫妻与全社会的“煤气灯效应” 当 Steven 询问是否有客户身处“纯粹名义上的假关系”中时，James 斩钉截铁地证实：100% 存在，甚至包括纯粹为了财务利益而结成的契约式假关系。 Steven 谈到，自己近期翻看几对刚爆出分手的顶级名人的 Instagram，其表现永远是“上一秒还在展现完美无瑕的爱情，下一秒突然宣布玩完”。James 戏称这种公关策略为“罗西·欧唐内（Rosie O'Donnell）模式”——多年来外界盛传她是同性恋，她便在公开场合大肆宣称自己暗恋汤姆·克鲁斯（Tom Cruise）来转移视线，最后某一天突然反转称“我当然是同性恋，这事大家不早知道了吗”。在 James 看来，名人名流就是在对整个社会进行“集体煤气灯操纵（Gaslighting）”。他们对外极力宣称“我们深爱彼此，婚变传闻全是不怀好意的黑粉造谣”，而私底下感情早已烂透。名人之所以能长久瞒天过海，是因为巨额财富为他们提供了天然的屏障：他们分别在迈阿密、洛杉矶、纽约购置房产，在欧洲或意大利还有度假别墅，物理上的极度宽敞让他们可以各过各的生活而互不碰面，唯一需要注意的仅仅是别被狗仔拍到与新欢同框。 - 名人夫妻常常借助横跨东西海岸的多处豪宅物理隔离，以空间掩盖感情破裂。 - 公关团队利用信息操纵和否认策略，让大众对名人的婚姻状况产生认知偏差。 --- ### [01:46:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6405s) 摆拍的玫瑰花瓣与关系的“色情片化” Steven 进而探讨了一个现象：越是在公开平台卖力展示完美关系的人，其私下生活是否往往越糟糕？比如在情人节精心撒满玫瑰花瓣、抱着小狗和丈夫连拍二三十张照片才选出一张发网上的行为，是否本质上是一种掩饰内心极度不安全感的“伪装斗篷”？ James 极其认同这一观点。他分享了自己日常观察到的荒诞一幕：他的律所位于曼哈顿西切尔西区（West Chelsea）的哈德逊园区（Hudson Yards），办公室正对着著名地标建筑“容器”（The Vessel）。每天上下班路过时，他总能看到上百名游客在拍照，其中最滑稽的就是那些“假装自己没在被拍”的做作姿态——侧过头望向远方，由同伴在另一侧抓拍，营造出一种仿佛狗仔队在偷拍的虚假随意感。 James 总结道，那些满地的玫瑰花瓣和演给别人看的“我们爱得发狂”，本质上就像是“淋浴中做爱（Shower Sex）”——看起来画面极具美感，实则极度别扭且反人性。越是沉迷于这种表演，就越是加速走向离婚律师的办公室。对此，Steven 剖析了看客的心理机制：大众之所以沉迷于看这些恩爱戏码，是因为渴望相信童话。在面对居高不下的离婚率、自身原生家庭的心碎和生活苦难时，名人的完美爱情成了对抗残酷现实的解药，仿佛只要他们还在一起，迪士尼童话就依然存在。James 对此表示理解，但发出警示：这就像是关系层面的“色情片（Pornography）”——它是一种高度风格化、脱离现实的表演产物；一旦你因为自己的真实性生活不像色情片那样而自惭形秽，你就是在拿一种虚假的模板来折磨自己。 ### [01:50:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6624s) 逃避现实的社会通病：从性、死亡到虚伪的社交展示詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）指出，当今社会在性观念上普遍接受着错误且不切实际的教育，人们看到的很多内容既不自然也脱离现实，根本无法反映真实性生活的样貌、感受以及身体的实际运作机制。他将这一现象与自己当年写硕士论文时的核心观察联系起来：人类总是习惯性地逃避核心现实，竭力向公众遮掩死亡。比如，如果有人提出想带孩子去探望临终的祖母，或者经常在墓地散步，周围人往往会投来异样的眼光，斥责这“不可理喻”。然而，死亡与性一样，是生命中不可回避的里程碑式课题，对它们避而不谈绝不可能阻止它们的发生，与其自欺欺人，不如坦诚面对生活本来的面貌。面对社交网络上铺天盖地的摆拍与虚假形象，塞克斯顿提倡一种直言不讳的解毒剂思维：看到那些看似“不经意”抓拍的照片时，不妨直接质问“到底是谁拍的？这也太假了吧”。主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深有共鸣，并分享了自己多年前的一段亲身经历。某年情人节，他因身处纽约与前女友存在时差，清晨六点还没睡醒，就收到对方发来的愤怒质问。原来前女友在 Instagram 上看到其他情侣铺满玫瑰花瓣的浪漫动态，便以此为标准对自己横加指责，哪怕当时巴特利特根本还没醒来。这种无处不在的比较，正让无数人陷入自我折磨。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 社交媒体比较陷阱的形成机制 accDescr: 展示社交媒体上的虚假展示如何引发不切实际的比较并导致现实关系破裂。 subgraph 虚假投射 A["精心摆拍的精选集 （晨练、浪漫惊喜、育儿）"] --> B["屏幕上的完美虚构形象"] end subgraph 现实对照 B --> C["对比真实的日常生活 （琐碎、瑕疵、失误花絮）"] C --> D["对自我与伴侣产生不满"] D --> E["亲密关系产生裂痕与内耗"] end ``` ### [01:52:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6738s) 社交媒体的“精选集”与现实“穿帮镜头”的落差塞克斯顿证实，这种比较病在他的离婚诉讼办公室和日常生活中屡见不鲜。如今的比较早已超越了伴侣关系本身，蔓延到了生活的方方面面。社交平台上充斥着各种被高度风格化、理想化的生活片段：有人炫耀极致的健身打卡、桑拿冷水浸泡（cold plunge）和饮食配方，打上“野兽模式”（#beastmode）标签；有人展示无微不至的育儿技巧，为孩子准备无比精致复杂的美食点心；还有人发布清晨起床的唯美视频。塞克斯顿忍不住吐槽：“到底是谁在清晨架设摄像机的？” 这种将别人的“高光精选集”（greatest hits）拿来对比自己充满缺陷与琐碎的“穿帮花絮”（gag reel）的行为，正是现代人痛苦的根源。屏幕模糊了虚构与现实的界限，人们误以为手机里的精心策划就是真实，进而产生严重的落差感——嫌弃自己的身材，抱怨伴侣的平庸，挑剔亲密关系的枯燥。塞克斯顿常常觉得自己像个在荒原中呐喊的局外人，拼命想唤醒大众：“你们难道看不出来这纯粹是虚构的吗？正是这种对比毁掉了你们的幸福。” - **全面入侵的比较文化**：不仅比伴侣是否浪漫，还比个人自律、健身习惯、饮食管理乃至育儿的精细程度。 - **虚假与现实的错位**：人们把电影般的虚构镜头搬上手机屏幕，却误以为那是别人未经雕琢的日常常态。 ### [01:53:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6826s) 主题乐园的牵手：认清婚姻中“魔法”消失的瞬间尽管不健康的比较是有毒的，但巴特利特指出，有时真诚的参照物反而能让人清醒地意识到婚姻中早已缺失的真相。塞克斯顿随后讲述了自己婚姻走向终结的关键转折点。当年，他与前妻带着年幼的孩子们，与大学时期的好友夫妇一同前往主题乐园游玩。两对夫妻都是从大学情侣步入婚姻，婚龄相当。在排队体验一项每排限坐三人的游乐设施时，两家各有两个孩子，为了平衡座位，塞克斯顿和前妻各自负责照看孩子，而好友夫妇则腾出了空隙。那对好友夫妇对视一眼，笑着说：“太好了，那我们正好牵手散散步。”塞克斯顿看着他们手牵手悠然漫步走远的背影，内心受到了极大的震动：“他们是真的很喜欢彼此。”那一刻他猛然意识到，自己虽然深爱妻子，但彼此之间早已失去了那种发自内心的喜欢与浪漫悸动。后来在决定离婚并心平气和地复盘这段婚姻时，塞克斯顿向同为好友的前妻提起了主题乐园的那一幕。令他震惊的是，前妻脱口而出：“天哪，我当时心里的想法和你一模一样！”她坦言，如果是对方夫妇带孩子坐项目，自己和塞克斯顿绝不会牵起手在乐园里漫步。塞克斯顿将这种无法言喻的心灵羁绊称为“魔法”（magic），即一种超越理性计算的浪漫吸引力与深度联结。他借此谈及自己对性取向的包容态度——正因为无法解释为什么异性恋吸引会在自己身上发生，他认为没有任何人有资格去否定他人真挚的情感冲动。 ### [01:56:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7015s) 真正恩爱的模范夫妻：28年不褪色的纯粹与互敬塞克斯顿以这对结婚28年的大学好友为例，描绘了一段真正健康、深厚且毫不造作的婚姻典范。他们虽然携手走过了近三十载春秋，育有两个已成年的优秀儿子，却依然保持着宛如热恋般的相处状态。妻子至今仍会甜蜜地将丈夫称为“我的男朋友”，比如随口提到“我男朋友下周出差就要回家了”；而丈夫也总是一脸骄傲地以“我的女孩”（my girl）来指代妻子。这种亲密毫不具表演性质，他们是塞克斯顿所见过“最不爱作秀的人”，所有专注力全在彼此身上。塞克斯顿感叹，如果能把这种深爱提炼成配方装瓶出售，绝对是无价之宝。处于一段充满内耗的婚姻中时，待在这样的夫妻身旁可能会感到刺痛；但若是心态平和，与他们相处便会感到无与伦比的温暖与美好。当巴特利特问及这对模范夫妻如何处理争吵时，塞克斯顿推测他们从不在外人面前争执，私下沟通必然极其讲究“公平公正”（play fair）。他们之所以能历久弥新，关键在于从未在繁杂的生活中“迷失主线”（never lost the plot）： - **伴侣第一，孩子第二**：他们是极度负责且深爱孩子的父母，但在两人的核心认知中，伴侣始终是生命中无可替代的“首要存在”（the most important thing）。 - **互相成全的良性互动**：妻子时刻留心如何让丈夫快乐，丈夫也始终将妻子的幸福置于心头，彼此形成了坚不可摧的情感同盟。 ### [01:58:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7135s) 模范夫妻的秘诀：对彼此的喜悦充满渴望在谈及身边真正幸福健康的婚姻范例时，詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）分享了一对夫妻朋友的故事。他们的关系展现了一种极致的对等关注：女方全心全意地关注男方、思考如何让他开心；男方也同样全神贯注于女方，思考如何让她快乐。两人都在对方的快乐中体会到巨大的喜悦。这段感情不仅停留在顺境，更经历过极端严峻的考验。女方曾患有转移性乳腺癌（metastatic breast cancer），面对病痛与折磨，他们凭借着体面、幽默感以及更加深厚的情感联结共同渡过了难关。塞克斯顿坦言，他不知道这其中有多少是运气成分——就像在茫茫人海中买彩票中了大奖一样；但他深信，很大一部分原因在于他们始终保持“专注”，因为这段关系对他们而言无比重要。 --- ### [01:59:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7183s) 塞克斯顿还会再婚吗？婚姻是一份把政府扯进来的荒谬契约主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）将话题转到塞克斯顿的个人生活上：他目前处于一段恋爱关系中，此前经历过一段婚姻，但他还会选择再次结婚吗？塞克斯顿明确表示，婚姻对他而言毫无意义，他绝不会再婚。在塞克斯顿看来，婚姻本质上是“一份由政府起草的合同”，旨在以一种宽泛的方式定义两人的关系并设立管辖规则。即便是签署婚前协议（prenup），本质上依然是在说“我们真的需要让政府介入我们当下的私生活”。塞克斯顿直言，自己内心深处完全没有引入公权力的冲动，甚至觉得为了爱情而让政府介入是极其荒谬的。面对主持人关于“既然如此，人们究竟为何还要结婚”的追问，塞克斯顿分析了婚姻背后的社会机制： - **文化压力与表演性质**：人们深陷在一个预设“结婚是件好事”的社会体系中，婚姻成了一种表演性的仪式。 - **历史与宗教遗留**：婚姻制度与中世纪体制紧密相连，深深植根于土地产权归属、宗教规约以及弗洛伊德在《文明及其缺憾》（*Civilization and Its Discontents*）中探讨的社会控制——防止人们为了争夺配偶而互相残杀。 - **生物学与配对**：虽然人类由配对伴侣共同抚养子女非常符合生物进化（与婴儿漫长的妊娠和抚养期相吻合），但这与“领一张政府颁发的结婚证”完全是两码事。大众不过是在机械地运行着一套历史留下的既定程序。 --- ### [02:01:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7317s) 婚姻是一项危险的技术：比跳伞高出百万倍的失败率塞克斯顿进一步阐述，结婚不仅是个荒谬的想法，更是一个“极其危险的主意”。他将婚姻与高空跳伞做对比：危险不等于绝对坏，跳伞固然危险，但人们愿意为了跳伞带来的快感去冒险。然而两者的风险概率却有着天壤之别： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 跳伞与婚姻的风险概率对比 accDescr: 对比跳伞极低的致命事故率与婚姻高昂的失败率及心理代价 subgraph Skydiving["高空跳伞 (Skydiving)"] S1["灾难性事故率: 约 0.00003"] S2["致命死亡率: 约 0.00001"] S1 --> S2 end subgraph Marriage["现代婚姻 (Marriage)"] M1["法定离婚率: 约 56%"] M2["沉没维持: 苦于财产分割/宗教束缚勉强维系"] M3["精神耗损: 失去自我认同与真实生活"] M1 --> M2 --> M3 end ``` 塞克斯顿指出，婚姻是一项“故障率高得不可思议的陈旧技术”： - 跳伞发生灾难事故的几率仅为约 0.00003，致死率仅为约 0.00001； - 婚姻的离婚率高达 56%，如果再算上那些因为舍不得一半财产、宗教教条或孩子而勉强凑合、痛苦度日的情侣，成功率低得可怕； - 婚姻可能不会直接导致肉体死亡，但却会让很多人生不如死——在一段不幸的婚姻中，许多人的自我意识被彻底杀死，无法真实、快乐地活着。当有人宣布自己要结婚时，大家通常只会机械地祝福“天哪太棒了”，若有人敢问一句“为什么”，甚至会被扣上“心理有亲密障碍”的帽子。而人们给出的理由往往经不起推敲： - **“因为我不想孤单”**：不想孤单可以去教会、烘焙小组或垒球队，何必非要用结婚来解决？ - **“想要稳定的性生活”**：婚姻从来无法保证稳定的性生活，结婚绝不是获取性爱的灵丹妙药。 - **“为了孩子好”**：同性伴侣或未婚共同抚养的父母同样能培养出健康成功的孩子，双亲家庭的益处与那一纸政府结婚证没有必然因果关系。 - **“婚姻能给我安全感”**：塞克斯顿驳斥道，把安全感建立在一个失败率高达 56% 的事物上何其荒唐，“这就好比汽车里装了一个 70% 几率打不开的安全气囊，难道你会因此觉得很安全吗？” 塞克斯顿幽默而无奈地表示，正是因为人类在亲密关系上不但没有进步反而越做越糟，才赋予了他巨大的“职业安全感”。即便在不久的将来退休，他也绝不担心离婚律师会失业。 --- ### [02:06:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7572s) 商业中场与如何开启婚前协议（Prenup）的对话节目中插播了由 Shopify 赞助的广告，主持人巴特利特分享了自己利用 Shopify 推出《CEO日记》对话卡片（Conversation Cards）的创业经历，称赞其简化的库存管理与结算流程。回归访谈后，巴特利特提到，如今越来越多人寻找塞克斯顿咨询婚前协议（prenup），但向伴侣开口提出签署协议往往令人极其尴尬与难以启齿。塞克斯顿回应道，作为一名靠说话为生的执业律师，他深知处理敏感议题的核心在于“切入对话的角度”。他分享了自己最推崇的切入思路：**“每一个走入婚姻的人，实际上都拥有一份婚前协议。”** 区别只在于：这份协议究竟是由毫无温度的政府法律替你们默认写好的，还是由彼此相爱、了解对方的两个人亲自制定的。 ### [02:07:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7673s) 制定属于两人的婚姻契约，而非留给政客詹姆斯·塞克斯顿指出，婚姻中的两个人比世界上其他八十亿人都要了解彼此，因此没有任何人比夫妻双方更有资格为这段婚姻制定行事准则。然而现实是，许多人却将这套规则拱手让给了素未谋面的政客。政客的本质是民意争夺战的产物，他们竭力迎合大众、尽可能减少冒犯，而且政策立场时刻在变动。结婚是人一生中除了死亡之外最具法律效力的大事，但绝大多数人却在完全不清楚法律规则、且规则可能随时被政客改写的情况下签字画押。相比之下，在迈入婚姻前通过签署婚前协议（prenup）共同确立规则，并在往后的生活中以此为锚点——一旦某一方出现偏离或拉响红警时，便能坦然依据这套共识进行沟通纠偏，这显然是明智得多的做法。在詹姆斯看来，哪怕只是夫妻之间展开关于婚前协议的对话，本身就是一种极度健康的心理训练。这种探讨正逐渐被大众接受，他提到自从上次参加斯蒂芬的播客节目后，每周他在纽约街头大概都会被两拨路人拦住。这些年轻人兴奋地告诉他：“在看了你和斯蒂芬的对谈后，我和我女朋友就婚前协议和婚姻进行了一次超级棒的深聊！”詹姆斯随即打趣道，这些人竟然在床上看《CEO日记》（Diary of a CEO），虽然节目很受欢迎甚至播放量破了纪录，但他还是忍不住开玩笑吐槽：“我也喜欢斯蒂芬，但在床上看这个未免有点古怪了。” ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 婚姻规则制定路径对比 accDescr: 对比由政客制定的默认法律规则与由夫妻自主协商的婚前协议规则的不同后果。 subgraph Default["默认路径：未签协议"] A["步入婚姻"] --> B["默认套用政客制定的法规"] B --> C["规则未知、被动且随时变动"] C --> D["冲突发生时陷入被动与内耗"] end subgraph Proactive["自主路径：签署婚前协议"] E["步入婚姻"] --> F["双方深度坦诚沟通"] F --> G["量身定制双方认同的规则"] G --> H["出现偏离时依约沟通与校准"] end ``` ### [02:10:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7804s) 冲突之后的“深扎之根”与不完美的完美面对感情中的严肃对话，过程往往充满挣扎。詹姆斯直言，“做艰难的事”与“做正确的事”通常是一回事。当伴侣之间发生艰难且尴尬的对话时，身处其中的人总会陷入绝望，怀疑关系是否再也回不去了；但只要咬牙挺过这一关，第二天醒来虽然可能还有些微妙的别扭，却会涌现出一种共渡难关的自豪感：“看，我们做到了，虽然一度偏离航线，但我们把它拉了回来，而且我们依然在一起。”斯蒂芬对此深表赞同，并坦言自己对感情最骄傲的不是所谓的完美无瑕，而恰恰是它的不完美——无论经历多少冲突，他们都能在不产生内心怨恨的前提下解决问题，彼此由衷自豪。斯蒂芬的女友常引用著名访谈节目《Hot Ones》里那个“看看我们，谁能想到呢？”（"Look at us. Who would have thought?"）的热门梗，并形容每一次化解危机都让彼此感情的“根系扎得更深”。詹姆斯对斯蒂芬使用的措辞深有感触。他认为，斯蒂芬口中那种克服不完美的过程，其实才是真正意义上的完美。世界上根本不存在毫无瑕疵的童话式完美关系，如果把无懈可击视作标准，那么所有人注定都会沦为失败者。人性的真实与脆弱本身就构成了美，所有人都是“完美地不完美着”（perfectly imperfect）。能够直面感情中的裂痕并携手修复，远比粉饰太平要深刻和牢固得多。 ### [02:12:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7945s) 婚礼博览会的拒之门外：戳破虚幻泡沫的现实主义在谈及人们为何普遍逃避婚前协议时，詹姆斯分享了一段令人啼笑皆非的真实经历。在美国，婚礼展会（Wedding Expos / Wedding Bazaars）是庞大的“婚礼工业复合体”（Wedding Industrial Complex）中极具暴利的百亿美元级生意。巨大的展厅内挤满了成百上千家供应商，包括摄影师、翻糖蛋糕店、伴手礼商贩、蜜月旅行代理以及结婚礼单服务商。詹姆斯曾联系了四五家大大小小的婚礼博览会，提出自掏腰包数千美元租用一个展台。他明确向主办方保证，展台只专注于婚前协议的法律科普，海报用语会非常温和正面（如“恭喜订婚！你们聊过婚前协议了吗？”），文案可供主办方全权审核，绝不对婚姻制度有任何冒犯，更不会破坏其他商家的浪漫气氛。出人意料的是，没有任何一家婚礼展会愿意接受他的租金，他的申请全部遭到了断然拒绝。主办方宁愿不赚这笔不菲的展位费，也不肯让一位离婚律师进场，因为哪怕言辞再委婉，“婚前协议”和“离婚”字眼的出现也会瞬间刺破婚礼产业极力编织的浪漫幻象。对此，斯蒂芬指出，尽管有将近60%的婚姻最终走向离婚，分开的概率摆在眼前，但人们在踏入婚姻时依然极度抗拒悲观预期，认为提及婚前协议就等于在咒诅“我们有一天会分手”。 - **现实数据的断层**：每一段婚姻最终只有两种结局——死亡或离婚，且目前大部分婚姻都以离婚告终，但婚礼产业和大众文化仍然拒绝在婚礼筹备期面对这一现实。 - **直面终结的浪漫主义**：詹姆斯反驳了“婚前协议等于悲观”的观点，他认为向伴侣承认“我害怕失去你，无论是死别还是生离；若未来感情走到尽头，我希望我们依然善待彼此、祝愿对方幸福”本身就是一种极具深度的深情与浪漫。 - **清醒的生活态度**：詹姆斯澄清自己绝非整日沉湎于死亡与背叛的虚无主义者，他热爱生活且向往生命的美好，但作为现实主义者，他不相信童话，唯有坦然接受事物可能消逝的客观规律，才能更加真诚、不留遗憾地去经营当下的关系。 ### [02:16:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8196s) 现实主义面对婚姻与美英离婚制度的差异 James Sexton 强调，自己绝不会坐在婚礼现场扫兴地盘算台上有多少百分比的新人最终会走向离婚。他由衷地认为结婚是一件美好的事情，但人必须保持现实。这就像人们并不希望自己生病，但每年依然会做全身体检；出门开车谁也不想发生车祸，但每个人都希望知道安全带和安全气囊处于正常工作状态。如果安全装置失效，驾驶员就必须提前知晓，以便开车时格外小心。诚实的沟通与乐观的态度并不冲突。谈话转入英美两国离婚制度的巨大差异。主持人提到近期在社交媒体上引发热议的一名黑人男演员，该演员在 Instagram 等平台控诉前妻雇了一整支律师团队紧咬不放，索要高额子女抚养费（child support）。起因是这位男演员近期事业起飞、接连拍了几部新片，而前妻本身没有正职工作，仅靠一些社交平台接单赚钱；前妻的律师团队便据此发函要求调阅他的银行流水，以便按他暴涨的身价提高抚养费。主持人对此深感震惊，询问美国的制度是否真的如此。 ### [02:17:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8262s) 子女抚养费的计算规则与天价案例 James 证实了这一点，并解释称子女抚养费是“可调整的”（modifiable）。通常而言，每隔三年或者当一方收入发生 30% 以上的浮动（无论上升还是下降）时，均可向法院申请重新评估抚养费。以纽约州为例，法定的抚养费比例是根据扣除联邦社会保障与医疗保险税（FICA 扣除额）后的税前总收入（gross income）计算的： - **1 个孩子**：毛收入扣除 FICA 后的 17% - **2 个孩子**：25% - **3 个孩子**：29% - **4 个孩子**：31% 尽管法律对父母合并收入计算设有理论上的上限，但法官拥有极大的自由裁量权，通常会考量孩子在婚姻存续期间的生活水准、实际合理需求等。在名流（celebrity）的离婚案中，法官往往会把诸如安保团队（security detail）等特殊开销算作合理开支。关于抚养费的数额，James 提到知名音乐制作人吹牛老爹（Diddy）曾被公开报道每月需支付约 20,000 美元的抚养费。而 James 经手过的个案中，最高一笔每月抚养费高达 65,000 美元，这笔费用涵盖了顶尖私立学校学费、全天候私人安保等高净值名流家庭的日常开支。当主持人质问“哪个孩子一个月需要花 6.5 万美元”时，James 指出法律现实往往令人咋舌：这笔钱不是直接给孩子的，而是直接打给拥有主要实际抚养权（primary physical custody）的家长，由其全权支配，哪怕家长拿去拉斯维加斯挥霍，现行制度也没有强制要求提供报销小票。法庭系统已经极为臃肿，要求逐笔审查收据在实操上根本不可行。 ### [02:20:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8436s) 共同育儿是亲密关系中最大的财务与情感风险 James 严肃指出，不签婚前协议（prenup）结婚确实有风险，但与某人“生孩子”才是亲密关系中风险最高的事情——它能给一个人带来的情感撕裂与财务毁灭远远超过婚姻本身。一旦有了孩子，对方就可以将孩子彻底武器化（weaponize）、对孩子进行心理疏离（alienate），甚至打着孩子的需求旗号来满足个人财务私欲。在诉讼成本上，涉及金钱的争端往往带有自我克制机制：如果为了争夺一个 50,000 美元的银行账户需要花费 30,000 美元的律师费，当事人自然会权衡利弊，因为赢了也只剩 20,000 美元，输了则损失惨重，账面数字迫使当事人保持理性。但当争端变成“陪伴孩子的时长”时，理性便荡然无存： - James 曾有一位身家 7 到 8 亿美元的富豪客户，仅仅为了争论感恩节假期究竟该“从周三开始到周日结束”还是“从周四早晨开始到周四傍晚结束”，就耗费了约 100,000 美元的律师诉讼费。 - 绝大多数普通人会觉得大不了改天再吃火鸡大餐，但在情绪与抚养权的争夺下，当事人会赋予这些极小的时间细节无限的情感价值，从而深陷旷日持久的法庭恶斗。 ### [02:22:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8549s) 财务崩溃诱发的离婚与隐秘资产追查谈到除了不忠（infidelity）之外的另一大离婚杀手——金钱问题，James 说明导致婚姻破裂的金钱危机主要来自：意外亏损、嗜赌成瘾，以及盲目的投资与商业决策。例如： - 曾有一段时间，许多客户跟风做日内交易（day trading），甚至抵押退休金账户去炒股借贷，直到做空股票（shorting stocks）出现无底洞式的巨额亏损，导致婚姻瞬间瓦解。 - 加密货币（cryptocurrency）的兴起也催生了大量离婚诉讼。早年比特币仅值几美元时，大多数法官和离婚律师对其一无所知；向一位还在使用 AOL 邮箱的 75 岁老法官解释什么是比特币、以太坊，以及如何通过硬件冷钱包（hard wallet）隐匿财产，过程极其吃力。作为离婚律师，处理复杂财务也是不断学习的过程：代理外科医生时，需要摸清其收入管道、隐形报酬与开销结构；代理对冲基金合伙人时，则必须穿透资本账户（capital accounts）的底层逻辑。对于公众人物是否真的像外界认为的那样富有，James 指出名流圈常有两种极端乱象：一种是通过极其复杂的架构将全部财产挂在他人名下假装破产；另一种则是表面光鲜的超级富豪在现实中“高杠杆拉满”（leveraged to the hilt），实际上早已负债累累。很多明星在取得一两张大热唱片或几部热门电影的成功后，产生了一切都会持续红下去的错觉，肆无忌惮地借贷挥霍、购置豪宅豪车，同时身边还簇拥着一整群依附其生存的随从（entourage），最终迅速走向财务崩溃。 ### [02:25:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8708s) 伪富豪与隐匿资产：法庭上的财富假象对话延续了关于金钱与离婚的讨论。詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）指出，现实中有大量表面上光鲜亮丽、极其富有的人，实则“穷得叮当响（dead broke）”，全靠吸食他人的资金或高杠杆维持体面。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）好奇，当配偶在法庭上发现伴侣根本没钱时，会是什么反应。塞克斯顿直言：“他们非常不高兴。”配偶往往以为自己掌握了确凿的财富证据，情绪激动地拿出对方与法拉利的合照抗辩，但塞克斯顿拿出财务文件即可轻易戳破幻想——那台法拉利纯粹是租赁（lease）来的，每月背负着高额车贷。他曾经手过一个案例，男方出门开着三辆宾利（Bentley）以及迈凯伦（McLaren）等疯狂豪车，实际上全是通过极限杠杆借贷弄来的，本人名下一无所有。另一种更为复杂的情况则是“隐匿资产”。塞克斯顿表示，这类人往往具备极端的反社会人格倾向、恶性自恋（malignant narcissist），或是极其精于算计。超高净值人群为了家族财富传承和合理避税，往往在婚姻早期就设计了极其精密的法律架构，但这些安排在离婚时会产生剧烈的次生效应（second-order effects）： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 超高净值人群的资产避税架构与离婚隔离 accDescr: 展示富豪如何通过多层信托与控股公司将个人资产与婚内财产剥离的结构流程。 subgraph Structure["资产隔离架构"] A["离岸/家族信托 (为曾孙辈等后代设立)"] --> B["控股公司 / 实体企业"] B --> C["多套核心不动产与资产"] C -.->|"提供质押与借贷额度"| D["当事人个人 (仅持少数权益，无直接所有权)"] end subgraph Impact["离婚诉讼中的法律现实"] D --> E["个人账面无直接资产"] E --> F["法理上不再属于婚内财产 (Marital Money)"] end ``` 许多富豪名下几乎没有直接资产，他们通过信托间接持有公司，再由公司购买多处房产，甚至反向向这些资产抵押借款套现。他们花费数以十万计的费用聘请顶级信托财产律师和会计师，实现近乎零缴税与代际传承，而一旦进入离婚程序，这笔钱在法律层面上已不再属于“夫妻共同财产（marital money）”。塞克斯顿强调，这正是他工作中最迷人的部分：他需要与顶尖的法证会计师（forensic accountants）合作，抽丝剥茧地调查这些资金流动究竟是面临离婚时的“欺诈性转让（fraudulent transfer in contemplation of divorce）”，还是为了婚姻和家族利益所做的善意合法规划。 --- ### [02:28:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=8880s) 女性付赡养费与明星离婚分产的现实巴特利特提到，常有人误以为离婚能大赚一笔，结果反而发现自己才是资产更多、必须倒贴出巨资的一方。塞克斯顿对此深有体会，他曾在女性杂志上发表过一篇题为《最后遗留的女权禁忌》（The Last Remaining Feminist Taboo）的文章，专门剖析女性客户被迫向丈夫支付配偶赡养费（alimony）时的心理崩塌。哪怕是崇拜贝拉·阿布扎格（Bella Abzug）或格洛丽亚·斯泰纳姆（Gloria Steinem）的资深女权主义者，听到判决时也会震惊抗拒：“凭什么？他是个大男人，他有手有脚，让他去工作！”塞克斯顿则必须向她们普及冷酷的法律事实：社会学上性别是建构出来的，但法律在性别面前是盲目的，它只是一道无情的数学算术题。当一位年收入是伴侣 4,000 倍的企业女 CFO，嫁给了一位图好玩而结合的留长发帅气音乐人时，依据公式就必须向男方支付赡养费。不过塞克斯顿也补充，现实中确有不少男性出于自尊心作祟，当场回绝并表示绝不接受前妻的赡养费。塞克斯顿进一步厘清了配偶赡养费（Spousal Support）的法理内核：它不是抚养孩子的费用，而是为了维持婚姻存续期间的生活水准，或是让配偶恢复其原有的赚钱能力（rehabilitate earnings）。例如一名英国女医生为了爱情结婚移居美国，因两地执业执照不同而放弃了行医资格；几年后两人离婚，由于女方做出了职业牺牲，收入更高的一方就必须提供补偿性支持，帮她恢复原有的职业创收水准。巴特利特随即开玩笑发问，如果自己娶了泰勒·斯威夫特（Taylor Swift）并结婚 20 年，离婚时是否能拿走她一半的身家。塞克斯顿笑称： - 斯威夫特的律师团极其强大，普通人很难轻易分走一半。 - 资产分割的核心在于财产是**婚前取得**还是**婚后积累**：如果这一笔十亿美元现金完全是在长达 20 年的婚姻关系存续期间挣来的，那么男方依法确实能拿到一半。 - 流行巨星阿黛尔（Adele）和凯莉·克拉克森（Kelly Clarkson）的前夫都在离婚协议中获益匪浅，原因正是女方在婚姻期间迎来了生涯最火爆的巡演和最卖座的专辑。 - 杰夫·贝佐斯（Jeff Bezos）的前妻麦肯齐达成了人类历史上数额最庞大的离婚和解协议之一，因为亚马逊从零到一的完整轨迹都是在他们的婚姻存续期内完成的；若贝佐斯如今再婚后离婚，新任妻子绝对无法分走半数，因为巨额财富的大部分属于婚前财产。针对巴特利特询问塞克斯顿若帮忙分到 5 亿美元是否会抽取佣金提成，塞克斯顿严正否认：离婚诉讼律师被法律明令禁止收取胜诉提成或佣金，只能像麦当劳员工一样按小时计费（hourly rate）。这一行规的设计初衷是为了防范道德风险——如果律师能按比例分成，就会产生激进追求最大化现金和解的利益冲突，而忽视客户的实际长远福祉（例如为了拿现金提成而牺牲客户急需的房产所有权或长期赡养费支持）。 --- ### [02:32:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9175s) 维系婚姻的唯一秘诀：“你、我与我们” 在访谈尾声，巴特利特抛出自己的切身问题：他和伴侣绝不希望未来某天出现在塞克斯顿的咨询室里，除了“别结婚”这种消极话之外，究竟有没有一条最核心的建议能彻底避免离婚？塞克斯顿给出的终极建议是简单的四个字：“保持关注（Pay attention）”。在热恋期，双方对彼此充满好奇，彼此既是有趣的人，也对对方感兴趣。但长久维系关系的关键，在于有意识地持续审视三样截然独立的事物： - **你（You / 伴侣）**：记住她最初是谁，给她充足的时间和空间做她自己，不要阻止她成为她想成为的人，因为这正是你当初爱上她的原因；同时允许对方随着时间推移自然改变。 - **我（Me / 自己）**：坚守自我内核，做真实的自己，不要为了迎合伴侣、外界或“我们”这个集体而迷失或离岸太远，因为对方最初爱上的也是那个纯粹的你。 - **我们（We / 关系）**：作为两人的结合体，关系本身需要被悉心照料与经营，但绝不能彻底吞噬掉作为独立个体的“你”与“我”。塞克斯顿强调，当人和关系不可避免地发生变化时，不需要去一味强行抵抗变化，但必须敏锐地“观察到并注意到（note it）”这种变迁，时刻保持清醒的觉察。 ### [02:33:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9238s) 经营关系的终极建议：浇灌“我们”，勇于直面艰难沟通詹姆斯·塞克斯顿（James Sexton）给出了他会给所有人的唯一建议——这不仅关乎婚姻，更关乎人与人之间的深度联结与爱。他指出，任何一段亲密关系都由三个维度构成：“你”（You）、“我”（Me）以及“我们”（We）。伴侣双方原本都可以独立生活，但之所以走到一起创造出“我们”，是因为两个人共同审视彼此的盲区、相互扶持具有不可替代的价值。既然这是一件极其珍贵的事物，就必须像精心浇灌植物一样，时刻留心它的状态：“我们要留心观察，大声说出来：‘嘿，最近发生了这件事，这是好事还是坏事？’”绝不能让世俗的喧嚣或个人的优缺点将注意力从“我们”身上剥离。他进一步强调，在感情与生活中，“最艰难的事情往往就是最正确的事情”（"The hard thing to do and the right thing to do are usually the same thing"）。如果主动挑明问题让你感到难堪，如果当面询问对方“我们之间还好吗？一切都正常吗？”让你感到忐忑，那么越是感到艰难，就越应该迎难而上、主动直面。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Relationship Triad accDescr: Diagram illustrating the balance between You, Me, and We in a healthy relationship. subgraph Core["亲密关系的三重维度"] A["你 (You)"] --- C["我们 (We) 共同呵护与浇灌"] B["我 (Me)"] --- C end C --> D["保持敏锐观察与沟通"] D --> E["勇于面对艰难对话 (Hard = Right)"] ``` --- ### [02:35:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9304s) 临别问答：最具争议的观点——孩子不应是人生最大的成就节目迎来了《CEO日记》（The Diary of a CEO）的收尾传统：由上一位未公开身份的嘉宾留下一个问题，交由下一位嘉宾作答。留给詹姆斯的问题是：“你最具争议的观点是什么？”（What is your most controversial opinion?）斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）打趣道：“天哪，你可能要被‘取消’（cancelled）了。” 詹姆斯毫不避讳地给出了自己的答案：一个人生命中最重要的事情、人生最大的成就，绝不应该是生养孩子。他剖析了背后的荒谬逻辑：如果一个人认定自己此生最伟大的成就就是生了孩子，那是否意味着他的孩子人生最大的成就也只是再生孩子，下一代亦复如是？詹姆斯尖锐地指出，这种“为了增长而增长”（growth for the sake of growth）的繁殖逻辑，在本质上是病毒或癌细胞的意识形态。人类生命应当有比单纯生物繁殖更高阶、更崇高的追求。斯蒂芬提出进化论与达尔文主义的视角，认为从生物演化来看繁衍本就是生命的核心目的，人也不过是猴子演化而来的产物。詹姆斯反驳道： - 细胞层面、松鼠或鸽子或许确实如此，但人类与灵长类动物有着本质不同，肩负着更高维度的精神召唤。 - 詹姆斯澄清自己绝非“反出生主义者”（antinatalist），他深爱自己的两个儿子，在为人父的过程中学会了反思与成长，也非常期待未来成为祖父；但若将孩子视为自己人生的“最高成就”，那绝对算不上。 - 每当他向他人表达这个观点时，人们往往目瞪口呆，“看着我就像看着我鼻孔里钻出了龙虾一样”。 --- ### [02:37:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9457s) 育儿与婚姻的失衡：过度痴迷孩子如何毁掉婚姻围绕对子女的态度，斯蒂芬梳理了两种常见流派：一种是因有了孩子而彻底丧失自我身份、陷入心理内耗；另一种则是全身心投入其中，把父母身份当成全部自我。詹姆斯用生动的比喻指出：“我们不能为了治疗头皮屑而选择斩首”（"we don't have to treat dandruff with decapitation"）。一个人完全可以在深爱孩子、重视孩子的同时，保留自己作为独立个体的其他面貌与人际关系，而不是把生活的一切都献祭在“孩子”的祭坛上。当斯蒂芬问及哪种人更常出现在离婚律师办公室时，詹姆斯斩截地回答：“那些对孩子极度痴迷的人。”这些人一旦陷入对子女的狂热，就会彻底停止关注自身与伴侣： - **童年只是暂时状态**：从长远看，若养育得当，孩子在十八九岁后理应离开家庭、独立生活并组建自己的家庭；而伴侣才是那个理论上应当陪伴你终身的人。如果只滋养亲子关系而任由夫妻关系枯萎，无异于本末倒置。 - **给孩子最好的礼物是相爱的父母**：做好父母的前提之一，往往是做好称职的共同抚养者（co-parent）与深情的伴侣。真诚地爱护与尊重另一半，不仅为孩子树立了健康的人际关系典范，也是对孩子最宝贵的馈赠。 - **离婚办公室的常客画像**：在家庭顺位中将孩子列为绝对第一位，而将配偶排在极其边缘位置的人，最终走向离婚法庭的概率极高。 --- ### [02:40:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9630s) 尾声致谢与《CEO日记》对话卡牌对谈进入尾声，斯蒂芬由衷地感谢了詹姆斯的到来，并给予极高的评价。他称赞詹姆斯虽然身为处理一地鸡毛的离婚律师，却拥有无比广博的智慧与穿透力，能够将复杂的现实以优美、通透且极具启发性的方式融会贯通。更可贵的是，詹姆斯从不迎合政治正确，勇于讲出大实话，道出了许多“看似是常识、实则极罕见的真理”（common sense that's completely uncommon）。斯蒂芬借此强烈推荐詹姆斯的畅销著作《如何保持相爱》（*How to Stay in Love: Practical Wisdom from an Unexpected Source*），盛赞其为自己读过关于爱、关系乃至人生最好的一本书。在节目的最后附白中，斯蒂芬介绍了《CEO日记》推出的全新第二版对话卡牌（Conversation Cards v2）： - 卡牌汇集了过往每一位到访节目的重磅嘉宾亲笔写在日记本中的私密提问。 - 扫描卡牌背面的专属 QR 码，即可直接解锁观看对应嘉宾回答该问题的精彩视频片段。 - 该卡牌在官方网站（theconversationcards.com）限量发售，此前两度上线均迅速售罄。 ## Notable quotes > [03:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=236s) 在生活中，最艰难的选择（the hard thing to do）往往正是最正确的选择（the right thing to do）。 — James Sexton > [06:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=383s) 无论你逃去哪里，所有的麻烦都会跟你买同一张机票飞过去。无论你走向何方，你依然带着那个原本的自己。 — Steven Bartlett > [15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=900s) 你知道吗，一个好律师胜过二十个持枪抢劫犯（A good lawyer is better than 20 stickup men）。 — James Sexton > [27:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1625s) 每一个新的开端，都孕育自另一个开端的终结。 — James Sexton > [32:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=1939s) 人生是一场你注定赢不了的游戏，所以你必须全力以赴去玩；去爱任何事物都是疯狂的，因为这意味着你从一开始就接受了终将失去它。 — James Sexton > [46:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=2799s) 死神的战绩不可战胜，死神总是赢家（Death's record is amazing, death always wins）。 — James Sexton > [58:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=3514s) 如果你学不会在雪中寻找快乐，你的生活中就会少一份快乐，而雪依然下得一样多。 — James Sexton > [01:15:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=4518s) 以两种方式发生：先是极其缓慢，然后突然降临（Very slowly and then all at once）。 — James Sexton > [01:41:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=6064s) 如果你爱的人第一次全部齐聚在同一个房间里是因为你的葬礼，那你可太蠢了。 — James Sexton > [02:06:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=7572s) 每一个走入婚姻的人，实际上都拥有一份婚前协议。 — James Sexton > [02:37:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ&t=9457s) 我们不能为了治疗头皮屑而选择斩首（we don't have to treat dandruff with decapitation）。 — James Sexton ## Mentioned James Sexton, Steven Bartlett, How to Stay in Love: Practical Wisdom from an Unexpected Source, Batman Begins, Epictetus, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Neil Postman, ETC: A Review of General Semantics, Pete Holmes, Uber, Uber Labs, Jordan Peterson, Bruce Springsteen, OnlyFans, Apple, Steve Jobs, Instagram, The Vessel, Rosie O'Donnell, Tom Cruise, Civilization and Its Discontents, Shopify, Hot Ones, Diddy, Bella Abzug, Gloria Steinem, Taylor Swift, Adele, Kelly Clarkson, Jeff Bezos, MacKenzie Scott ## Video description James Sexton is America’s top divorce lawyer and author of the bestselling marriage and relationship advice book, 'How to Stay in Love: Practical Wisdom from an Unexpected Source'. 00:00 Intro 02:05 What Do People Say When They Reach Out To You? 03:56 James' One Message To The World 06:23 Why You Can't Hide From Your Problems 11:11 The Case That Broke James' Heart 18:37 What Type Of Cases Would You Refuse? 21:24 Is It Better To Be The One Hurt In A Breakup? 23:45 Why People Want Control In A Breakup 27:21 Understanding Heartbreak 32:37 Is Life Winnable? 37:45 James' Thesis On Death And His Mum's Cancer 49:27 Lessons Learned From People On Their Deathbeds 53:28 Are We Just Products Of Our Imagination? 57:27 Can Acceptance Heal Suffering? 01:03:59 Why Humans Struggle With Uncertainty 01:06:57 Have You Met Anyone Who Planned To Divorce? 01:10:24 How Dating Length Impacts Marriage Success 01:12:18 Why Do People Fall Out Of Love? 01:20:00 Do Men Struggle To Open Up? 01:21:00 Can 90 Minutes A Week Save A Relationship? 01:23:32 Happy Wife, Happy Life – Is It True? 01:30:23 Why Do Conversations About Sex Go Wrong? 01:32:40 Is Lack Of Intimacy A Major Cause Of Divorce? 01:34:51 Is Porn Causing More Relationship Issues? 01:38:20 Does Marriage Equal Love? 01:42:57 Who Is The Wedding Really For? 01:45:27 Do Celebrities Fake Their Relationships? 01:47:01 Are Perfect Relationships Just A Facade? 01:54:52 The Moment I Realised The "Magic" Was Gone 01:58:24 How Do Happy Couples Argue? 02:00:00 Will James Remarry? 02:02:13 Is Getting Married A Mistake? 02:04:59 Is Marriage Good For Kids? 02:06:29 Ad Break 02:07:23 How To Bring Up A Prenup 02:11:05 Embracing Imperfections In Relationships 02:17:42 Divorce And Child Support Explained 02:22:46 Why Do People Divorce Over Money? 02:24:31 Have You Helped Wealthy People Who Went Broke? 02:32:55 One Tip To Avoid Divorce 02:35:21 Final Question 🌟 Get access to exclusive Diary of a CEO content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGq-a57w-aPwyi3pW7XLiHw/join Follow James: Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/gcpJaa00YNb Twitter - https://g2ul0.app.link/Sq0gV910YNb You can purchase James’ book, ‘How to Stay in Love: Practical Wisdom from an Unexpected Source’, here: https://amzn.to/4fgfCt7 Get your hands on the brand new Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards here: https://appurl.io/iUUJeYn25v Shopify - http://shopify.com/bartlett [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgGirY-GUQ)

Source quotes

[3:56] James Sexton: 在生活中，最艰难的选择（the hard thing to do）往往正是最正确的选择（the right thing to do）。 [6:23] Steven Bartlett: 无论你逃去哪里，所有的麻烦都会跟你买同一张机票飞过去。无论你走向何方，你依然带着那个原本的自己。 [15:00] James Sexton: 你知道吗，一个好律师胜过二十个持枪抢劫犯（A good lawyer is better than 20 stickup men）。 [27:05] James Sexton: 每一个新的开端，都孕育自另一个开端的终结。 [32:19] James Sexton: 人生是一场你注定赢不了的游戏，所以你必须全力以赴去玩；去爱任何事物都是疯狂的，因为这意味着你从一开始就接受了终将失去它。 [46:39] James Sexton: 死神的战绩不可战胜，死神总是赢家（Death's record is amazing, death always wins）。 [58:34] James Sexton: 如果你学不会在雪中寻找快乐，你的生活中就会少一份快乐，而雪依然下得一样多。 [75:18] James Sexton: 以两种方式发生：先是极其缓慢，然后突然降临（Very slowly and then all at once）。 [101:04] James Sexton: 如果你爱的人第一次全部齐聚在同一个房间里是因为你的葬礼，那你可太蠢了。 [126:12] James Sexton: 每一个走入婚姻的人，实际上都拥有一份婚前协议。 [157:37] James Sexton: 我们不能为了治疗头皮屑而选择斩首（we don't have to treat dandruff with decapitation）。

Source quotes

[3:56] James Sexton: the hard thing to do and the right thing to do are usually the same thing [11:11] James Sexton's client: a good lawyer is better than a good witness. [32:19] James Sexton: To love anything is insane because you are accepting that you're going to lose it. [44:23] James Sexton: Death's record is amazing. Death always wins. So if you're setting it up for that battle... that's a bad battle. [48:50] James Sexton: All people really want to talk about is their grandkids, their kids, their wife, their husband, what they did for a living and what they liked about it. [53:12] James Sexton: I like to think that we are drops of water and that when we die we return to the sea that we just merge with our creator again. [57:10] James Sexton: If you don't learn to find joy in the snow, you will have less joy in your life and precisely the same amount of snow. [93:38] James Sexton: There's a thousand restaurants and there's only one menu... It's all the same stuff just in different permutations. [105:27] James Sexton: We have become a culture with white teeth and rotting gums because we don't actually care what it is, we care what it looks like. [107:20] James Sexton: All those performative, 'we're madly in love... look guys, quick, look at how in love we are'—it looks good, but all you're really doing is putting on a show. And that show leads you right to my office. [107:20] James Sexton: You're unhappy with yourself, you're unhappy with your partner... because you're comparing it to fiction. And because it's on your phone instead of on the movie screen, you think it's real. [119:43] James Sexton: Marriage from where I'm sitting is a contract that was written by the state... I have no part of me that in my relationship goes, 'We really need to get the government involved in this situation.' [207:03] James Sexton: Every single person who gets married has a prenup. It's either written by the government or it's written by the two people who love each other more than the other 8 billion people in the world.

Original transcript

[0:00] Every single marriage ends in death or [0:01] divorce, but it ends. But the majority [0:04] of them end because of slippage. And [0:06] what does slippage mean? [0:07] Slippage is [0:08] James Ston is back. [0:10] The world's leading divorce lawyer [0:12] with over two decades of experience. He [0:14] offers practical nononsense advice for [0:16] maintaining healthy relationships. [0:17] We live in a society that presumes [0:20] marriage is a good idea. You're about to [0:22] do something incredibly dangerous that [0:25] fails so much of the time. And I think [0:27] it has almost nothing to do with love. [0:29] But if you get married, here's what I [0:31] will tell you. Have you talked about a [0:32] prenup? Getting married without one is a [0:35] fairly risky activity. But the truth is [0:37] is having a child with someone is the [0:40] most risky activity in relationships. [0:42] There's so much stuff a person can do to [0:44] torture you if they have a kid with you. [0:46] And what I'll tell you is the people who [0:48] are obsessed with their children stop [0:50] paying attention to their partner. Which [0:51] leads you right to my office. [0:53] Okay. So, if you were to give me one [0:55] piece of advice to prevent me and my [0:56] partner ever ending up in your [0:57] consultation room, [0:58] if there's a core message to my approach [1:00] to relationships, it is that'd be the [1:03] only advice I'd ever give to anybody. [1:05] James, if you think about the divorces [1:07] you've seen in court, was there ever a [1:08] case that broke your heart? [1:10] Yeah. It was a case that I won that I [1:12] should have lost. I remember looking at [1:15] the judge and thinking like, you're [1:16] letting this happen. [1:18] She's going to lose because she's poor [1:20] and she can't afford a lawyer. And he's [1:22] going to win because he can afford a [1:23] lawyer that knows how to put a document [1:25] into evidence. And there's something [1:26] really wrong about that. [1:30] [Music] [1:33] This has always blown my mind a little [1:35] bit. 53% of you that listen to the show [1:38] regularly haven't yet subscribe to the [1:40] show. So, could I ask you for a favor [1:42] before we start? If you like the show [1:43] and you like what we do here and you [1:44] want to support us, the free simple way [1:46] that you can do just that is by hitting [1:47] the subscribe button. And my commitment [1:49] to you is if you do that, then I'll do [1:51] everything in my power, me and my team, [1:53] to make sure that this show is better [1:54] for you every single week. We'll listen [1:56] to your feedback. We'll find the guests [1:58] that you want me to speak to and we'll [2:00] continue to do what we do. Thank you so [2:01] much. [2:05] James, [2:07] our last conversation, I think, did [2:09] almost 10 million downloads and views [2:11] across platforms. And I can't imagine [2:13] the amount of messages you get on a [2:16] daily, weekly, monthly basis from people [2:18] that are interested in the subject of [2:20] divorce, but also the sort of [2:21] interconnected subjects of love and and [2:23] marriage and all of these things. [2:26] When people contact you, what do they [2:28] typically say? [2:30] You're absolutely right. Right. I mean, [2:31] the number of people that contacted me [2:33] after our conversation exponentially [2:36] increased. It also very much broadened [2:38] the pallet of things people contacted me [2:40] about. So, a lot of a lot of my prior [2:42] work, a lot of my writing prior to our [2:44] first conversation was very much tied to [2:47] just relationship issues, divorce [2:50] related issues. So, I would get a lot of [2:51] messages from people saying, "I'm going [2:53] through a terrible divorce. I'm dealing [2:54] with this situation. you know, even [2:56] though you can't represent me because [2:58] I'm in a different state or a different [2:59] country, could you give me some general [3:01] advice? Um, so people would reach out [3:03] with very specific to my career topics. [3:07] I got a lot of people talking to me [3:10] about the conversation we had about our [3:13] dogs and about loss and about the nature [3:17] of um you know aging and endings and [3:22] whether it's the ending of a marriage or [3:24] the ending of a dog's life or our own [3:26] lives and how the loss of our pets you [3:29] know brings us more sharply into focus [3:32] about the mortality of everything around [3:34] us. So, um yeah, I mostly get people [3:37] saying, "Oh, you you gave voice to [3:42] something that I'd felt and um it it was [3:46] meaningful to me to do that." And I I [3:48] try to write people back and just say, [3:50] you know, very briefly like, "I'm so [3:51] glad that something in my perspective [3:53] resonated with you." [3:56] If there was one message that you could [3:58] give to everyone that messages you. So, [4:01] one singular message. It was a broadcast [4:03] message and you had to send it to [4:04] everybody that's messaged you about all [4:06] of these interconnected subjects. But [4:07] you could only say a couple of [4:08] sentences. And you think it's the couple [4:10] of sentences that would most serve all [4:12] of them in one go regardless of what [4:14] their issues are because it's a [4:15] fundamental message about love and [4:17] marriage and divorce and all these [4:18] things. What would that message be? [4:21] I mean, I've always said that I think [4:22] the core truth I've learned in my life [4:24] is that the hard thing to do and the [4:26] right thing to do are usually the same [4:28] thing. So, I would I would often [4:30] challenge anybody who reaches out to me [4:32] about anything that that they're [4:33] struggling with, I would say to them [4:35] that what is the hard thing to do in [4:37] this situation because that's probably [4:38] the right thing to do. [4:40] The the other thing I would say is that [4:42] although I really appreciate that [4:45] someone would reach out to me in the [4:47] hopes that I could give them some [4:48] answer, I I pretty strongly believe that [4:52] the only zen you find on mountain tops [4:55] is the zen you brought up there. And and [4:58] so I think a lot of a lot of the truth [5:01] we know when we hear someone say it out [5:05] loud, it's it resonates in a way, but [5:09] it's because we knew it was true. We [5:10] already knew it was true. Maybe that [5:12] person gave voice to it. [5:13] When you said the thing about Zen and [5:15] Mountaintops. [5:16] Yeah. [5:16] Can you say that again? And what did you [5:18] mean? [5:18] Yeah. I I mean, you know, you can also [5:20] parse it as the only wisdom we find on [5:22] mountain tops is the wisdom that we [5:24] brought up there. You know, there's [5:25] this, you know, there's all of these [5:27] sort of Zen parables of the of the monk [5:29] who like in Batman Begins, you know, [5:31] sort of in his in his flip-flops and [5:33] robes sort of wanders up the mountain [5:35] through the cold trying to find the Zen [5:37] master at the top of the mountain who [5:38] has the wisdom that he can then share [5:40] with him. And and very often like that [5:43] wisdom is inside of all of us. that [5:44] wisdom is something that whether we want [5:47] to call it our gut, whether you want to [5:49] call it your soul, what whatever you [5:51] want to call it, that that the wisdom is [5:53] inside of you and that um we we we want [5:57] I think sometimes to have other people [6:00] validate it for us or say it out loud [6:02] because perhaps we're not as articulate [6:03] about it, but to have someone give voice [6:05] to it gives us the ability to go, okay, [6:08] okay, so it's not just me. And I think [6:10] that's that's what I mean when I say the [6:11] wisdom we find on mountain tops. I I [6:13] think we travel very very far to find a [6:18] joy and a wisdom that's inside all of [6:21] us. [6:23] On that point, I as you were talking [6:25] about it and the reason I was so peeked [6:26] by it is I've got so many friends over [6:28] the years who have been struggling in [6:31] relationships and in their life and in [6:33] their marriages who have thought that [6:35] the answer to all of those problems was [6:37] to basically get on a plane and move [6:39] country or city to go somewhere else. [6:41] Yeah. [6:42] And so when you were saying that I was [6:43] thinking I was thinking back to a [6:45] conversation I had with my friend many [6:46] years ago where he said you know I'm [6:47] going to move to Spain [6:49] and you know his life was in ruins [6:50] really at the time. His relation his [6:51] partner had just cheated on him and was [6:53] pregnant. Um and he thought moving to [6:56] Spain would solve the problems. And I [6:58] remember the conversation with him where [6:59] I said like by the way all the problems [7:00] of buying a plane ticket with you [7:02] like they're going to Spain with you. [7:04] Wherever you go you know there you are. [7:06] And so I had a friend who was a uh a [7:09] hairdresser [7:10] and I remember once talking to him. It [7:13] was while he was cutting my hair and uh [7:16] we got on the topic of you know because [7:18] both of us are are someone that people [7:20] talk to. You know people talk to me [7:22] about their problems in their [7:23] relationship as a function of my work as [7:25] a divorce lawyer. And people sit with [7:27] their hair stylist and they'll talk [7:29] particularly women will talk for a long [7:31] period of time about the things that are [7:32] stressing them out and upsetting them. [7:34] And what he said to me is, you know, um, [7:37] a lot of women in particular come in and [7:40] they say, I I want to cut I want to cut [7:42] it all off. I want to cut it all off. I [7:44] want to cut it very short. I want to cut [7:45] it very different. Like, I want just a [7:47] whole. And he said, you know, there was [7:49] a time early in his career where he [7:51] would give them what they were asking [7:52] for. So, if they came in with super long [7:54] hair and they said, "I want a little [7:55] short, very bob cut, you know, he would [7:57] do it." And then he would get a call [7:59] from them a few days or weeks later [8:01] going, "Oh my god, when can you fix it? [8:03] like what do we do? And he said what he [8:05] started to figure out is what they what [8:06] they're really saying is a very human [8:08] thing which is I don't want to be me [8:10] anymore. Like I don't want to be me [8:12] anymore. Like I can't do it. Like it's [8:14] all too heavy right now. Like can I stop [8:17] being me? Can I look different than me? [8:19] Can I because maybe if I look different [8:20] than me I'll feel different than me and [8:22] maybe I'll do things differently than [8:24] the way I've been doing them. And I [8:26] think that's so human, you know, to to [8:29] say and that's the same thing about okay [8:30] that's I'm just going to move. I'm going [8:31] to move. I'm going to like I'm I'm just [8:33] as guilty of this as anyone. When I've [8:36] had a really stressful, difficult week [8:38] carrying all of my clients chaos and [8:40] stress and there's just bombs falling [8:42] from the sky constantly in my line of [8:43] work. I go, "That's it. I quit. I'm [8:45] done. I'm done. I'm just going to do [8:46] media stuff. I'm just going to write [8:48] books. I'm not practicing law anymore. [8:50] I'm never setting foot in a courtroom [8:51] again. Mic drop. I'm out." And the [8:54] reality is I'm tired. I'm just tired. [8:56] like or okay if it's true that I'm at a [9:00] place where transitioning it then just [9:02] cut back it's you don't have to cut all [9:04] your hair off like you and I said to my [9:06] my friend who's the hairdresser so now [9:08] what do you do you try to talk them out [9:10] of it and he said no he said I I kind of [9:13] play a trick he's like I I do something [9:15] a little different but not so different [9:19] and then I play up in my reaction to it [9:21] like oh I love it like this look at how [9:24] it's so nice I didn't take as much as [9:26] you But I think this is really and he [9:28] said and very often they're thrilled [9:30] like they just go oh yeah this is great [9:32] because it was symbolic like it was a [9:35] symbolic thing for them that no I'm [9:37] going to do something different and I'm [9:39] going to look a little different when I [9:40] look in the mirror and when I look in [9:42] the mirror it's going to remind me to be [9:44] different but that's inside of you like [9:47] I I I mean for me [9:51] we wake up every single day and decide [9:53] to be who we are or to continue being [9:56] who we are. Like and and and one of the [9:59] reason why this is always so present in [10:01] my mind is because as a divorce lawyer, [10:03] people have this very clear image of who [10:06] they are and what their life's going to [10:08] be. And very intentionally, they went [10:09] and put on the white dress and the [10:11] tuxedo and they took the vows and they [10:12] were like, "This is the path. This is [10:14] the path. I'm taking this path and this [10:17] is who I am. I'm Bob's wife or I'm Jen's [10:20] husband and I'm going to be a mom or I'm [10:23] going to be a dad and I'm going to this [10:24] is what I'm going to And then it blows [10:25] up whether it's 5 years later, 10 years [10:28] later, 20 years later, when the kids go [10:29] off to college, whatever it might be. [10:32] And then they're what they're really [10:34] struggling with is wait, who am I? [10:36] Who am I now? Like the barn's burn down. [10:39] What? Like what do I do? Like what? I'm [10:41] not Bob's wife. Then what am I? You [10:43] know, I'm Bob's ex-wife. That's a [10:45] terrible thing to be. I don't want to be [10:47] defined by what I'm not anymore and used [10:49] to be, you know? So what do I who am I [10:51] now? And you know, watching people [10:55] over the course of their divorce [10:58] navigate that is one of the most [11:01] inspirational things in the world [11:03] because people are so much stronger and [11:06] more resilient than they give themselves [11:08] credit for when they're in the crisis of [11:10] it. [11:11] Was there ever a a particular case that [11:15] you think about that broke your heart? [11:18] You're going to try to make me cry [11:19] again, Stephen. This feels unfair. No, [11:21] it's interesting because I I didn't I [11:23] was our conversation last time was so [11:25] interesting because we spoke so matterof [11:27] fact about the the subject of love and [11:29] marriage and then for me to also learn [11:32] at the same time that you are a deeply [11:34] emotional person. [11:35] What is the one case? [11:41] I I've had a few. I mean, one of them I [11:43] wrote about in my book, which was I [11:46] represented I it was a case that I won [11:49] that I should have lost. I was I [11:51] represented a pimp. That's what he did [11:54] for a living. And uh he owned a variety [11:57] of of illegal businesses. Uh he's in [12:00] prison um for a long long time now. But [12:03] uh at the time he had uh very brutally [12:07] abused uh a woman who he had children [12:09] with. And we went to uh fam there was a [12:12] family court proceeding and the lawyer [12:14] on the other side of the of the case, [12:16] the lawyer who represented his um his [12:19] co-parent, his victim if you will, um [12:23] was very inexperienced. She was an [12:25] assigned lawyer, so I was privately paid [12:27] as I am and she was assigned by the [12:30] state. So she was getting, I think at [12:31] the time, $25 an hour, something like [12:33] that versus my 750 an hour. And she was [12:37] quite new as a lawyer. She was right out [12:40] of school. She wasn't quite sure, you [12:41] know, of of what to do and how to do it. [12:43] And I was fairly experienced. And a [12:47] judge who was very impatient, who just [12:49] was in a bad mood that day. I don't know [12:51] what he had for breakfast or what it [12:53] was, but he was an older judge. He'd [12:54] been on the bench for probably too long. [12:56] He retired a few years later. The key [12:58] piece of evidence they had was a [13:00] photograph of the way that my client of [13:02] this woman's face after my client had [13:05] allegedly beat her up quite badly. And [13:08] getting a photograph into evidence is [13:10] very easy, but it requires a very [13:13] specific phrasing. So what you say is, [13:16] "I'd like this to be marked for [13:18] identification." You mark the photo and [13:20] then you hand it to the witness or you [13:22] hand it to the court officer who hands [13:23] it to the witness and you say, "I'm [13:25] showing you what's been marked as [13:27] petitioners one for identification." Do [13:29] you recognize that? Yes. What do you [13:32] recognize it to be? It's a photograph. [13:35] Does that photograph fairly and [13:36] accurately depict your face after he [13:40] beat you up? Or does it accurately [13:42] reflect your face on the date you've [13:44] been discussing? Yes, your honor. I'd [13:46] like it put into evidence. That's it. [13:48] It's easy. Does it fairly and accurately [13:51] depict? [13:53] For whatever reason, most likely lack of [13:55] experience, opposing council, [13:58] I guess, didn't know how to get a [13:59] photograph into evidence. Now normally [14:02] in that situation a judge will be [14:05] helpful like they will just jump in and [14:08] say ma'am is this fairly but this judge [14:11] was just not in the mood and posing [14:14] councel said um I'd like this to be [14:16] marked and then she said could you hand [14:18] to the witness and she said what is that [14:20] a photo of so I did my job I said [14:22] objection she's asking about the [14:24] contents of a document not an evidence [14:27] which is my job [14:29] judge said sustain [14:32] which means [14:33] which means my objection is correct. So [14:35] she said, "Uh, okay. Uh, I'm sorry. Uh, [14:38] who took this photo?" And she said, "I I [14:40] I don't I don't know who took it." She [14:43] says, "Okay, well, what what is it a [14:45] photo of?" Stood up again. Objection, [14:49] asking about the contents of a document, [14:50] not an evidence. And I could see [14:53] opposing council getting flustered [14:55] because she didn't know the words. And [14:58] my internal dialogue [15:00] at that moment was [15:03] just say it like just get it right. Like [15:05] just say just say fair does it fairly [15:07] inaccurately depict is it just say it [15:10] like and and and I I remember looking at [15:12] the judge and thinking like you're [15:14] letting this happen. [15:16] You're letting this happen. Don't let [15:18] this happen. Like she's poor. [15:22] She's poor. That's that's why she's [15:25] going to lose. [15:27] She's going to lose because she's poor [15:28] and she can't afford a lawyer. And he's [15:30] going to win because he can't afford a [15:32] lawyer that knows how to put a document [15:33] into evidence. And there's something [15:35] really wrong about that. [15:37] And the judge didn't the judge just let [15:40] her drown. And she she asked three or [15:42] four more questions that were the wrong [15:44] questions. And then she just said, "Um, [15:47] I I don't I don't know. I don't know [15:49] what to say. I'm sorry." And then she [15:50] just sat down and the case got [15:53] dismissed. [15:55] And we walked out. And as we walked out, [15:59] my client patted me on the back and he [16:03] said, "You know, a good lawyer is better [16:05] than 20 stickup men." [16:08] And I remember thinking, [16:11] "This is this is not a good day. It's [16:14] not a good day." And [16:18] that case that was a long time ago and [16:20] it's it still stayed with me because it [16:23] it was I did my job and I I you know I [16:27] represent my client but I also represent [16:29] the system and I don't always believe in [16:31] my client but I have to believe in the [16:33] system and I have to believe that I am [16:35] not it's not my right to judge people's [16:39] case. It's the judge's right like like I [16:40] believe in this system. I believe in the [16:42] adversarial system, but watching [16:46] someone lose who shouldn't lose [16:50] and winning when you know you shouldn't [16:52] win does not feel good in this line of [16:55] work. [16:56] Would you take that case again? Exact [16:59] same case, exact same person, exact same [17:01] scenario. You're asked to go and do it [17:03] again tomorrow. Same opposition lawyer. [17:06] I would. Yeah. Well, first of all, it's [17:08] many years later and I still know that [17:10] lawyer and she's actually become a [17:11] really good one and I'm really proud of [17:12] that. [17:13] If she was equally inexperienced, the [17:15] same woman, the same circumstances, the [17:17] same victim, [17:20] you know, if I knew it was going to go [17:22] that way, I probably I would turn it [17:24] down. I mean, I turned down a lot of [17:26] cases. I don't actually know if today I [17:29] would represent him anymore. It's a hard [17:31] question for me to answer. I see. I [17:34] think you don't always you don't know in [17:37] the consultation [17:39] and like it's not like this guy came [17:41] into my office and said, "Yeah, I beat [17:43] this woman terribly. [17:45] Will you retain will you represent me?" [17:47] Like that's very different. No one's [17:49] ever done that in my in my office. Like [17:52] he came in and he said, "Yeah, she's [17:53] accusing me of all these horrible [17:55] things. I didn't do any of it." [17:56] But you knew he did. [17:58] In my gut, I think I knew he did. Yeah. [18:00] the more I got to know him. I mean, in a [18:01] consultation, you don't know. Like, in a [18:03] job interview, you don't know what kind [18:04] of employee somebody's going to be. You [18:06] know, sitting across from someone in a [18:08] 1-hour consultation, most of the time, [18:10] I'm talking telling them about their [18:12] rights and obligations and how the legal [18:13] process works. Like, I don't really get [18:15] to know them. But throughout the [18:17] process, I started to figure out like, [18:19] yeah, there's this guy did this. [18:20] You said you turned down a lot of cases, [18:23] you know, these days. Yeah. [18:24] What are the kind of cases that you [18:25] would absolutely turn down irrespective [18:27] of remuneration? [18:29] I turn down cases where I feel like the [18:31] person I mean a lot of times I turn down [18:34] cases that I don't think they need me. [18:36] Like I don't think you need to bring a [18:37] gun to a knife fight. Like I think if [18:39] you can do it with a scalpel, don't use [18:41] a chainsaw. And I'm a chainsaw. So like [18:44] don't you don't need me. And so I I I [18:48] I'm very honest with people about you [18:51] don't need me. I'm not the right tool [18:53] for the task. But there are a lot of [18:55] cases I turn down that I think people [18:57] are using. They want to weaponize the [18:59] legal system to punish their ex for [19:02] their transgressions, real and [19:03] perceived. Like they want to their [19:05] spouse was cheating on them and they [19:07] want to just litigate them into [19:09] submission. They want them force them to [19:10] spend a million dollars in council fees [19:12] by making ridiculous motions and by [19:15] minimizing, you know, their access to [19:17] the kids and making them fight for every [19:19] single hour of visitation they get with [19:21] the kids. Like I I'm not interested in [19:23] being a weapon that's used for [19:25] Yeah. [19:26] for that purpose. [19:26] Presumably sometimes your job is to get [19:28] custody of kids essentially all the [19:31] time, [19:31] which means that you're you're basically [19:32] taking children away from [19:34] a parent. [19:36] You can look at it that way. [19:37] It's a harsh way to say it, but [19:39] I've jokingly said that before cuz when [19:40] my kids were little and they would have [19:43] those like, you know, bring your dad to [19:44] school day [19:46] and you know, it was like, "Oh, this is [19:48] my dad. He's a firefighter. And this is [19:50] my dad. that he's a doctor. And I always [19:52] felt like my sons were like, "This is my [19:53] dad. He's the reason why your [19:54] firefighter dad only sees you on [19:56] alternate weekends, you know, and that [19:58] felt a little strange, you know, and [20:00] there were times where actually I my [20:01] kids were in school with people whose [20:03] divorces I had I had handled um you [20:05] know, their their parents. But yeah, I I [20:07] I think um I do have a tremendous impact [20:11] on on people's access to their children, [20:13] both positive and negative. Like I help [20:15] I help people get access to children [20:17] that's being withheld from them. I help [20:19] people um address parental alienation [20:23] and negative gatekeeping, the kinds of [20:25] things that are really becoming much [20:27] more insidious and prevalent in our [20:29] culture where where people are using [20:32] children essentially as weapons against [20:34] their ex who they're mad at. I mean, [20:36] look, breakups on any level are [20:38] difficult, you know, and and there's [20:40] usually hurt feelings and anger in a [20:42] breakup. And I don't think that's [20:43] abnormal. Like I think you lose someone [20:45] whether it's to death or whether it's to [20:47] divorce or just to split up. There's [20:48] some anger, you know, there's [20:50] resentment. Why don't you love me? Why [20:51] don't you love me the way I love you? [20:52] Why don't you want to be with me [20:53] anymore? What does this say about me? [20:55] Does this mean I'm a bad person because [20:56] you don't want to be with me anymore? [20:57] Like this these are really universal [20:59] themes. Like there's almost no one in [21:01] the world in any culture that if you go [21:03] to them breakups that they don't go, you [21:06] know, they get it. Like they get it. [21:08] My friend's going through a breakup at [21:09] the moment. Um he's been with his [21:11] partner for many, many years. And I when [21:13] he sent me the voice note explaining [21:14] like we've been together eight years, [21:16] we've kind of broken up four times, but [21:18] um my the he's being broken up with. So [21:22] he's the he's the sort of victim, per [21:24] se. And [21:25] which is the better one to be [21:26] really? Oh yeah. [21:27] You want someone to break up with you? [21:28] Oh, I mean well here's what I'll say cuz [21:31] I' I'm have something of a PhD in this [21:33] one. I I have to tell you when someone [21:36] has been broken up with there's a [21:38] tremendous amount unless it was by some [21:40] patently awful behavior. you know, like [21:42] they got caught with the girlfriend or [21:44] the boyfriend red-handed, like then it's [21:46] no one's going to give you much [21:47] sympathy. But if someone dumps you, [21:51] like it's not it's not me, it's you. [21:53] Like they just dump you. [21:55] There's a tremendous amount of sympathy. [21:57] Like if somebody call if I called you [21:59] and I said, "Dude, I just got broken up [22:00] with." You'd be like, "Oh me, come on, [22:02] man. Let's let's go out. Let's tough, [22:05] man. We've all been there. Like don't [22:06] tell you know what happened." But when [22:09] you break up with someone, [22:12] there's only so much sympathy people [22:14] will give you because, you know, well, [22:15] we broke up. If you're so upset about [22:18] it, get back. What did you do it for [22:20] then? Like you whereas sometimes, you [22:22] know, you're just the one who called it [22:24] like it's not it wasn't a happy [22:27] relationship. It wasn't like you're sad [22:29] that it had to end, you know, like I [22:31] didn't want to break up. I wanted the [22:33] relationship to stay good and it didn't. [22:37] So, one of us has to be the grown-up and [22:39] say, "Okay, this thing's over now." But [22:42] I think that person actually sometimes [22:43] deserves, you know, just as much [22:45] sympathy as someone who got dumped [22:46] because they're both someone who's [22:49] experiencing a loss of sorts, even if [22:51] it's a loss that it's, you know, I mean, [22:53] it's a terrible metaphor. But if someone [22:55] said to you, "I have lung cancer." You [22:57] would go, "Oh my god, that's horrible." [22:58] Like, "Are you okay?" If someone said, [23:00] "Well, I was a smoker for 50 years and I [23:02] got lung cancer." It's not like YOU GO, [23:03] WELL, WHAT DID YOU THINK? I MEAN now [23:05] it's of course you're still going to go [23:07] oh my god that's terri it's not like you [23:08] deserve it. It's I mean yes is it [23:11] SHOCKING IT'S NOT AS SHOCKING if you've [23:13] been smoking for 50 years but it's still [23:15] quite sad and it's still a journey this [23:17] person's going to have to go through. So [23:18] it's the same thing. It's like I I just [23:20] went through a breakup. Well who's who [23:22] picked who decided to break up with who [23:24] before I tell you if I feel bad for you [23:26] or not. Like I don't think that's a fair [23:27] way to approach a breakup. [23:29] A lot of people want to own the they [23:30] want to own it. They want to say that [23:31] they broke up with them, right? As well [23:32] because that [23:33] it's very popular. [23:34] Well, there's something empowering about [23:35] that. [23:36] Yeah. It was my decision. [23:37] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Or or the like, well, [23:39] I'm glad they did because I I'll tell [23:41] you the truth, I was about to I was [23:42] about to break up with that person, you [23:43] know. Yeah. That's very common. I think [23:45] that's a pride thing, though, because, [23:47] you know, there's something about the [23:50] rejection [23:52] of it's over, you know, a great example [23:54] of this for me, which is is very um it's [23:58] always vexed me professionally. So, a [24:00] lot of people um I've handled a lot of [24:03] divorces where someone [24:05] uh breaks up with in a heterosexual [24:08] marriage because they are coming out as [24:11] gay or lesbian. Okay? So, they end the [24:14] relationship. So, in in the heterosexual [24:16] example, man and a woman are married to [24:18] each other for a period of time and the [24:20] man says, "I'm ending things with you [24:22] because I'm gay. I've realized that I'm [24:25] gay and I'd like to live my life as a [24:26] gay man. [24:30] my thinking as someone who's never had [24:32] that happen to me. My thinking, and [24:35] perhaps it's naive, like my experience [24:37] has taught me that maybe I'm just [24:38] strange, which I kind of knew, but this [24:40] is another example of it. If if a woman [24:44] broke up with me [24:47] and said, "I'm breaking up with you [24:50] because I'd like another man better than [24:53] you." That's very hard to swallow. It's [24:56] like I want one like you but better than [24:58] you. Whereas if she said I'm leaving you [25:01] cuz I'd like to go be with a woman now. [25:03] It's like well I mean I don't I don't [25:06] have that. Like I can't give you that. [25:08] It's not like I want someone who's a [25:10] better dancer. I want someone who's [25:11] funnier. I want someone who has [25:13] different parts than you. And okay. I [25:16] mean that feels a little less like a [25:18] reject. You're not rejecting me [25:20] necessarily. You're rejecting my entire [25:22] sort of gender. you're you're basically [25:24] saying this isn't who I want. The [25:26] opposite actually happens. It it it [25:29] those are some of the most brutal and [25:31] vitriolic awful divorces you could [25:34] possibly imagine. And they've actually [25:36] gotten worse over the span of my career [25:38] because over the 25 years span of my [25:40] career, when I started, [25:43] when someone said, "Okay, my husband is [25:45] leaving because he's gay and now he's [25:47] going to live as a gay man." it was [25:50] actually okay to then say, "Yeah, and [25:52] he's a pervert and a horrible human [25:54] being." And because there was just such [25:57] a widespread homophobia at the time. I [25:59] mean, you know, Will and Grace, like [26:00] Will couldn't even kiss his boyfriend on [26:02] TV. He couldn't really even have a [26:03] boyfriend. It was like so, you know, [26:05] young young people today have no idea [26:08] how in my lifetime that that has changed [26:11] so much. Not to say there isn't still [26:12] homophobia, not that there's still not [26:14] heteronormativity, but the reality has [26:17] changed tremendously. the boots on the [26:19] ground reality. Now, if your spouse [26:22] leaves you for a if if I was married and [26:26] my spouse left me for a woman and I'm [26:30] upset about it, I'm opening myself to an [26:33] accusation of being homophobic. [26:36] And and the truth is like, no, whoever [26:39] she's leaving me for, it's really [26:41] upsetting. or whoever she's been [26:42] sleeping with, male, female, anything. [26:44] It's upsetting because they're with [26:46] another person. So, I I think there is [26:49] in that phenomenon of people's breakups, [26:52] the sense of like, well, I was going to [26:53] break up with them anyway, is like a [26:56] pride thing. I think I think there is a [26:58] tremendous amount of um of stuff that we [27:02] carry around when it comes to those [27:04] breakups. I've always wondered what [27:05] heartbreak actually is because I I I [27:08] flip between thinking okay it's like you [27:10] mentioned the word rejection is it a [27:11] blow to our self-esteem is it the loss [27:14] of a future that we had like built in [27:16] our head [27:17] because yes [27:18] if you can understand what it is I was [27:19] thinking about how do I give my friend [27:20] advice on it then I then I know what the [27:22] advice should be or the support should [27:24] be because if it's a loss of this future [27:26] then okay I you know I know I'll say [27:28] this if it's his self-esteem okay I'll [27:30] boost his self-esteem. [27:31] Yeah. So, I think it's all of those [27:33] things, but I I think it's it's it's an [27:36] ending. And I think that endings are [27:37] hard. I think that saying to [27:41] what I always try to do when I have [27:42] friends going through a breakup and even [27:44] with clients is that, you know, every [27:47] beginning is born of some other [27:50] beginning's end. [27:52] So, we talked about this the last time [27:53] we sat down together where I said that, [27:55] you know, I only got Cabba because [27:58] Buster died, [27:59] which is your dog's. [28:00] Yeah. my my dog that passed away 13 14 [28:03] years ago and my dog that's now 13 years [28:05] old and and one one I only got one [28:09] because the other died and I love both [28:11] of those dogs so much but if I'm being [28:14] honest I guess I have to say I'm glad [28:17] that I lost Buster so that I could have [28:20] Cabba that that sounds terrible because [28:23] I don't mean it like oh I'm glad that he [28:25] but death like that ending was part of [28:27] life just and it made room for the [28:29] beginning of the next thing and what I [28:31] always try to focus my clients on is [28:34] that this relationship is ending and [28:38] that's there's there has to be honoring [28:41] that, mourning that, feeling that, [28:44] seeing it as the transition that it is, [28:47] grieving the loss of it, but also [28:49] realizing that every ending is the [28:52] beginning of the next thing. And and [28:53] there has to be an ending for the next [28:56] thing to come and for the next beginning [28:58] to happen. And I have now watched that [29:01] cycle for so thousands of clients over a [29:05] span of 25 years where where their life [29:08] is ending. Who they I was this person's [29:11] husband. I was this person's wife. I was [29:14] a dad who lived with his kids full-time [29:17] that had them every Thanksgiving. Not [29:18] every other Thanksgiving. That I had [29:20] them every Christmas Eve, not alternate [29:23] years. On in even years they're with me. [29:25] In odd years they're with her. Like what [29:26] are you talking about? like this is who [29:28] I am. Who I'm dying, like who I am is [29:32] dying. And I don't know who I'll be [29:35] next. And [29:38] when you're in that, right? And when [29:40] it's your first divorce, it's not mine, [29:42] but it's yours. You know, it's very hard [29:45] to see like just just like when [29:48] someone dies, you know, when when Buster [29:51] died, I I said it last time. I I said, [29:54] "I will never do this again. I will [29:57] never love anything like this ever [29:58] again. I'll never let my heart be broken [30:00] like this again. I'll never open myself [30:02] up like this again. Ever. Never. This is [30:05] the worst pain. Why would I ever do [30:07] this? Loving anything is stupid. It's [30:10] insane. You're opening yourself up to [30:12] the inevitability of loss. And yet [30:18] Cabba was the such a joy. And now [30:22] I'm near the end of that. And and what [30:25] do you do? [30:26] Well, I I like to believe that now I'm [30:30] not saying that's not going to be as [30:31] painful when it happens. It will be. But [30:35] I no longer believe the world is ending. [30:37] Like I understand that like the beauty [30:40] of who he is was born of the emptiness [30:44] that had to be created by the loss of [30:46] Buster. Like I I understand that now. [30:49] And so I like I said, will I do it [30:53] again? There's going to be a period of [30:54] time where I'll say, "No way." And same [30:56] thing with love. Like people get [30:57] divorced. I had a client last week say [31:00] to me, they're they're right kind of in [31:02] the middle of their divorce. And I said, [31:05] you know, 86% of people are remarried [31:07] within 5 years of their divorce. And [31:10] they said, "Uh, oh, I am never doing [31:12] that. Are you kidding? I am never doing [31:14] this again." And every time they say [31:16] that, I laugh cuz I think to myself, I'm [31:18] like, "You're so wrong." And I get it. [31:21] Like, you don't see it right now. Like [31:22] right now I know you think that's true [31:25] like but you will love again and you [31:27] will when you love again like you will [31:30] feel it and you will be in it and you [31:32] will go a and this one's perfect and [31:36] this is great. Like I've done divorces [31:37] for people that spent a million dollars [31:39] in council fees and went through [31:41] absolute hell and and when they're about [31:43] to get remarried I go you know we should [31:45] do your prenup so you don't ever have to [31:47] do that again. Like I'll do it for free [31:49] if you want. like let's just do and they [31:51] go no no no no this this is real this is [31:55] real and I sit there and I think like oh [31:57] my god you've just you've learned [31:59] nothing at all like you that was real [32:01] too until it wasn't like but but this is [32:04] you know perhaps you know love is a [32:06] delusion brought on by an adequate [32:08] lighting I don't know but there's [32:09] there's something in us that you know [32:13] feels that pain and then there's [32:14] something in us that forgets that pain [32:16] and I think that that you know that's a [32:18] good thing that's a good cycle [32:19] I think life is a game you can't win and [32:22] so you play it to the utmost. To love [32:25] anything is insane because you are [32:27] accepting that you're going to lose it. [32:29] It's a quote you said. You think life is [32:32] a game you can't win. [32:34] Yeah. I don't think there's any winning. [32:36] You die. [32:38] Like that's the only truth. The only the [32:41] you know it [32:43] every story you know starts the same. [32:47] You were born. Like every Wikipedia page [32:50] starts the same. They were born. And [32:53] every Wikipedia page will end exactly [32:55] the same. They died. That's it. [32:58] Everything that happens in between is [33:00] your life. But those are the only two [33:02] inevitabilities. Those are the only two [33:04] real things for certain. So I I look at [33:07] it as it's a game you can't win. [33:10] Meaning [33:12] if you pursue money like your money will [33:15] eventually be useless. The things you [33:17] accumulate with it will be useless. [33:18] Every car you own, someone else will [33:20] either own it someday or it'll get to [33:22] the scrap junkyard someday or it'll [33:24] you'll give it to somebody. Like it's [33:26] all your material possessions will be [33:27] utterly meaningless. Like we all went [33:28] through this when the COVID lockdowns [33:30] first started. Everybody was like, you [33:31] know, I've got all this money and I've [33:33] got all these travel vouchers. And [33:34] they're like, yeah, you can't go [33:35] anywhere now. And it's like, oh, okay. [33:36] Well, what do I the, you know, you [33:38] started to see the limitations of [33:39] things. Have the power go out in your [33:41] house sometime. And it'll remind you [33:43] that like, oh, wait, yeah, like [33:45] everything I have, I just have like this [33:47] much of a grip on it. All you got to do [33:49] is just take that away and it's gone. [33:50] And that's that's it, you know? And it's [33:52] the same thing with our health. It's the [33:54] same thing with, you know, everything [33:56] like everything is totally fine and [33:59] wonderful and then you have a terrible [34:00] splitting headache and then the only [34:02] thing that matters is that headache, you [34:04] know, and then that headache goes away [34:07] and for like a day you go, I don't have [34:10] that headache anymore. But did you wake [34:12] up today and go, I don't have a [34:14] headache. Oh, and the power's on. Isn't [34:16] that great? You know, and I don't have [34:18] cancer. Isn't that good? You know, no, [34:20] you don't. you walk around going like, [34:22] "Ah, you know, I really why aren't why [34:23] aren't my page views where they're at or [34:25] what happened with this and why did that [34:27] person be so nasty to me?" Like we get [34:29] caught up in all this stuff when in fact [34:31] the only thing that you know again if [34:33] you keep you know uh uh Epictatis the [34:35] stoic philosopher said like keep death [34:38] and everything horrible in your line of [34:40] sight sort of momento mori because [34:43] nothing will bother you that much if you [34:45] have that there. So I think life is a [34:47] game that look we're playing it. We're [34:50] doing our thing. Love is but all love [34:51] all relationships end. Every single [34:54] marriage ends in death or divorce but it [34:55] ends. Every relationship ends. Your [34:58] child you will hopefully predesce your [35:00] child but your child will die someday. [35:02] That's the nature of it. So we have [35:05] created a culture where we really try [35:08] not to talk about that. We really try to [35:10] just keep that out of our gaze. Let's [35:12] not talk about it. Our only depictions [35:14] of death are preposterous. [35:18] They're like the person in the deathbed [35:20] being like I loved you all [35:23] and then just beautiful, you know, [35:25] beautifully die. Death doesn't look like [35:27] that. If you ever spent time with people [35:30] on their deathbed, I I I was a hospice [35:32] volunteer for many many years and I [35:34] spent a lot of time with people who were [35:36] dying, actively dying. And I have to [35:38] tell you, like you hang out with someone [35:40] who's it's it's it's not pretty. It [35:44] doesn't smell good. It doesn't sound [35:46] good. But it's real. It's natural. It's [35:48] okay. It's where it's all going. And and [35:50] the reason why I say this is not to be [35:52] morbid. It's that we're doing ourselves [35:54] a tremendous disservice by not [35:56] acknowledging this. Because I can tell [35:58] you how many families when I was a [36:00] hospice volunteer when their family [36:03] member, their loved one would die would [36:06] say to me, "It's not that they died, [36:07] it's that they died terribly. They died [36:10] without dignity." And I would say to [36:12] them, "No, they they died like everyone [36:13] dies." Like it's okay. Like they just [36:16] because it wasn't like on TV where you, [36:19] you know, like sort of fade out and say [36:21] a few final words and then fade out. [36:22] LIKE NO ONE VERY FEW IF anyone dies that [36:25] way. It's not how it works. So, we're [36:28] not doing anyone like this is the part I [36:31] don't understand is that we don't want [36:34] to talk about divorce, you know, we [36:37] don't want to talk about death. We don't [36:39] want to talk about endings cuz I think [36:41] there's something in our brain that says [36:43] if we talk about it, we're going to make [36:44] it happen. And if we don't talk about [36:46] it, we'll prevent it from happening. And [36:48] that seems to me insane because this [36:52] these are things that are absolutely [36:55] inevitable when it comes to death and [36:58] highly likely when it comes to divorce. [37:01] So why not bring them back into the [37:04] discourse? And I'll tell you the truth. [37:05] I think one of the reasons why [37:09] my conversations have become something [37:11] people are interested in is because I [37:14] think we're all fascinated by this but [37:15] we don't want to talk about it over [37:17] dinner conversation and we don't want to [37:19] you know but but we know it's important [37:21] something in us knows this is important [37:24] like this is something that needs to be [37:25] talked about and thought about. [37:28] You did your thesis, [37:30] your master's thesis on the subject of [37:32] death titled [37:33] Well, you do your research [37:34] on metaphor and mortality, the semantics [37:35] of death and dying. [37:36] Yeah. [37:37] Why would you write your thesis on the [37:38] subject of death? [37:39] Well, it was a different life. So, I [37:41] this is before I went to law school. I I [37:44] had gotten out of I got out of college [37:45] with a degree in psychology and I [37:48] decided I wanted to um I was a hospice [37:51] volunteer. I I um [37:53] why [37:56] I have to ask my therapist that [37:57] question. I I I can give you the answer. [38:00] So I when I was quite young uh I think I [38:05] was about six or seven years old, my [38:08] mother was diagnosed with a very rare [38:10] form of cancer called leoyio saroma. [38:13] It's a soft tissue saroma [38:16] and it's it's very rare. I was way too [38:19] young to understand what was going on. I [38:21] I just I remember my mother crying, the [38:23] sound of my mother crying in the [38:25] bathroom and running the sink so I [38:27] wouldn't hear her crying, but I I knew [38:30] she was crying. I didn't really [38:32] understand what death was. Like I [38:33] understood that my gerbil had died, but [38:36] I I grew up Catholic, so I remember like [38:39] you got to go to heaven and that sounded [38:41] pretty good because it was like a really [38:42] nice place apparently. [38:44] And I remember hearing my mother talking [38:47] on the phone to her sister and talking [38:50] about the fact that she had six months. [38:53] And I remember my sister who's six years [38:55] older than me explaining to me that mom [38:58] was sick and she wasn't going to get [39:00] better. And I remember being so young [39:03] that I didn't really understand what [39:04] that meant, but it was scary and [39:06] everyone was very upset. [39:09] And then my mom didn't die. What had [39:12] happened is depending on how you looked [39:14] at it either it was a miracle or it was [39:17] science and that is that the tumors had [39:20] encapsulated itself meaning that the the [39:22] immune system had essentially closed up [39:24] around it so it didn't metastasize or [39:26] spread in any way they went in they did [39:28] surgery memorial slunketing cancer [39:30] center and uh she was fine she was well [39:34] and then five or six years later it came [39:36] back and again I got told your mom has [39:40] six months to live At that point, I was [39:42] like old enough to understand what that [39:44] meant. And I was terrified by it. I was [39:47] saddened by it. And once again, she had [39:50] surgery. She had all kinds of procedures [39:53] and things that had to happen to deal [39:55] with it. But once again, she just [39:57] miraculously sort of ducked a bullet and [39:59] she made it. And three years later, it [40:02] came back again. [40:04] And then they said, "Your, you know, [40:05] your mom has six months to live." And I [40:07] remember by that point thinking, "Yeah, [40:10] you you don't know how many times we've [40:12] had this conversation. Like, I don't [40:13] believe you anymore." Like, and and it's [40:15] okay. Like, I'm not afraid because I'm [40:17] not like it's not going to happen. I [40:19] know that something's going to happen [40:20] and it'll work out. And it did. Once [40:22] again, she had surgery again. She had [40:24] seven surgeries over the course of my [40:27] into my 20s. And every single time the [40:30] prognosis was bad and every single time [40:33] they kind of took more pieces of her [40:35] unfortunately because the type of cancer [40:37] this is sometimes gets into other [40:38] organs. And so they had to take you know [40:42] they had to take her ovaries forced her [40:43] into menopause in her 30s. Then they had [40:45] to take they had to change the way her [40:47] they had to do a bowel resection. They [40:48] had to do all kinds of awful things. And [40:51] uh and it changed her. It was a painful [40:53] life for my mom. It was very hard. And I [40:57] remember [40:58] though from a very young age being [41:00] forced to think about death, being [41:02] forced to sort of see death as something [41:04] that was just there and that it was part [41:06] of things and that there was no way [41:08] around it. And it it just became [41:11] familiar. It became sort of this [41:15] person in our home, you know, this [41:17] possibility that was always there. [41:20] And I remember every time I would get [41:23] the call that my mom's cancer had come [41:26] back, there would be some part of me [41:29] that thought, "Oh, is this the phone [41:31] call?" Like, "Is this the one where this [41:33] time she's going to die? Like, is this [41:35] the one?" And most of the time it [41:37] wasn't. [41:39] And 10 Yeah. 10 years ago, [41:44] um, once again, she had a recurrence. [41:48] She was supposed to have a very complex [41:49] surgery. My dad and I sat in the waiting [41:52] room. My parents were married for 50 [41:54] years. And uh we sat in the waiting [41:57] room. It was supposed to be an 8-hour [41:58] surgery because it was very complicated. [42:00] And the doctor came into the waiting [42:02] room a half an hour into the surgery and [42:05] said, you know, we opened her up. It's [42:07] like a bomb went off. There's nothing we [42:10] can do. We're going to close her up and [42:12] put her on hospice. [42:14] And um she passed away eight years ago [42:18] after you know she was on hospice for [42:20] over a year. Um and she died with us all [42:22] around her. [42:24] And there was something [42:27] about the reality that we had been able [42:30] to talk about death for so long that [42:33] there was a tremendous peace there. Like [42:36] there was a tremendous sense of well [42:38] this was going to happen. You know this [42:40] was part of our life. you know that this [42:43] was what was going to happen and she had [42:44] a tremendous piece about her because it [42:47] had been part of her life for so long. [42:50] So when I was in my late teens, I think [42:52] my mom had had three or four rounds of [42:53] this this cancer thing. I just remember [42:57] thinking [42:58] I I have to confront this. I have to [43:01] spend time around death. You know, I [43:03] again I'm strange. You know, I was [43:05] always afraid of spiders. I didn't like [43:07] spiders when I was a kid. So when I went [43:09] off to college, I bought a tarantula and [43:12] I put it in a glass terrarium next to my [43:14] bed so that every morning I would wake [43:16] up and there was just this giant spider [43:18] sitting there next to me and I'm not [43:19] afraid of spiders anymore. And it it got [43:22] rid of that very quickly. And so I [43:24] thought, you know, this is something [43:25] that's been around me all the time and [43:27] it's something I'm not quite at peace [43:29] with, so I'm going to confront it. And I [43:31] went and did a hospice volunteer [43:33] training. And I remember I, you know, it [43:35] was a weird thing for like a 20-year-old [43:36] to do. I had just gotten out of college. [43:39] I was 21. And uh I think I was the only [43:42] person under 60 who was in this [43:43] volunteer training. And hospice [43:45] training. Hospice volunteer training I [43:47] would recommend to anyone [43:49] because they do things like they make [43:51] you write your eulogy. [43:52] Your own eulogy. [43:53] Your own eulogy. Yeah. Yeah. They make [43:55] you write your own eulogy. Like and it [43:57] can either be if you died right now, [43:59] what would the eulogy be? Um or if you [44:03] died in your idealized future, what [44:04] would it be? Um, they make you write [44:06] your own obituary. Like they make you [44:09] confront the reality of thinking about [44:11] death and and thinking about your own [44:13] death and death of the people around [44:15] you. And then after you've been through [44:19] the training, they assign you families. [44:23] And [44:25] I intended initially just to do it as [44:27] sort of a part-time thing in the summer [44:29] after I'd graduated college. I was [44:31] working as a waiter and I had a lot of [44:32] time during the day because at night I [44:34] was I was waiting tables and um I got [44:38] assigned to a bunch of families one at a [44:40] time and and I I loved it. It was the [44:43] most [44:45] it was the most it was the most [44:47] life-changing thing I've ever done. Like [44:49] it it it uh there is something about [44:52] when you're a hospice volunteer and [44:54] you're just brought into a home and [44:56] you're just there to be of service. like [44:58] you're just if they want to talk, we'll [45:00] talk. If you want me to help do the [45:03] dishes so that you can hang out with [45:04] your loved one, that's great. I'll do [45:06] that. Like I I did yard work. And a lot [45:09] of times like people cuz caring for [45:11] someone who's terminally ill in your [45:13] home is hard. And and like things like I [45:15] want to run out to the store and get a [45:16] few things myself. Like that's hard [45:18] because you don't want to leave this [45:19] person alone. So a lot of times I was [45:22] just there to sort of be relief just to [45:24] sit with someone. And um and and every [45:28] time I would walk out of a hospice [45:32] home, I felt like [45:36] I don't know. I felt like a Zen monk. I [45:38] felt like like I could hear the rain. [45:41] Like I just felt like [45:43] I'm alive. [45:45] Like I'm like that that's not happening [45:48] to me yet. Like I'm not there yet. Like [45:50] that's not that's not someone I love in [45:52] that bed. Like I I have love for this [45:54] person. and I want to be there for them. [45:55] I'm here of service, but that's not my [45:57] father. That's not my brother. That's [45:58] not me. It will be someday. And one day [46:01] it was. One day it was my mother. But it [46:04] wasn't me. And I have to tell you, [46:06] there's something about going through [46:07] that experience when you're in your 20s, [46:10] when you're so self-centered, and you're [46:11] supposed to be. You're kind of supposed [46:13] to be self-centered in your 20s. You're [46:14] supposed to say like, "All right, what [46:15] am I going to do with this life? What am [46:17] I going to do with these hands? What am [46:18] I?" But there is something about at that [46:20] stage in life to be told whatever you do [46:23] with these hands, whatever you do with [46:25] all this, that's where it's going to [46:26] end. That's where it's going to end. [46:28] Best case scenario, best case scenario, [46:31] it's going to be in your own home with [46:32] your family around you. Worst case [46:34] scenario, it's going to be on the street [46:36] somewhere prematurely, you know. So, I [46:39] was fascinated with death. And I I [46:42] decided I was going to go to graduate [46:44] school and I was going to study than I [46:47] was going to study death and dying. But [46:48] there really aren't any programs in [46:50] that. So I went to New York University's [46:51] Department of Culture and Communication [46:54] and I found um uh Neil Postman, Dr. Neil [46:57] Postman, who was going to be my because [47:00] NYU of back then and still gives you a [47:04] lot of opportunities to kind of create [47:05] your own curriculum. As long as it's [47:06] something serious, you know, [47:08] academically serious, and as long as you [47:09] can put together like an amalgam of [47:11] classes from different disciplines, [47:13] they'll let you put together something [47:15] very individualized. And so I put [47:17] together a a study about our the [47:21] cultural approaches we have to death and [47:23] dying. And my master's degree thesis was [47:26] called the semantics of mortality or or [47:29] I'm sorry metaphor and mortality the [47:31] semantics of death and dying. And it was [47:33] published in a journal called etc um [47:36] which is the journal of general [47:37] semantics. And it what I did is I [47:40] studied the words we use to talk about [47:42] death and what they reflect on how we [47:45] think about death. So like you know I [47:49] remember when I was a kid and our our [47:51] dog when I was a child had to be um had [47:54] to be euthanized. I remember the doctor [47:56] saying we're going to put him to sleep. [47:57] And I remember thinking no you're not. [47:59] He's going to die. He's not going to [48:01] sleep. Like I'm going to go to sleep [48:03] later. Like he's not going to go to [48:05] sleep. He's going to go to death. like [48:07] why are you calling it that? And I [48:09] understood why obviously as an adult [48:10] like it's a in a primitive culture [48:13] someone it's an eternal sleep. It looks [48:15] like I mean you're asleep you look like [48:16] your dad you know I've held a mirror [48:18] under something be like all right and I [48:21] will I understand where these med like [48:23] doctors I I explored doctors talking [48:26] about we lost the patient like what what [48:29] you don't know where he is like no you [48:31] you know what room he's in no we lost [48:33] the battle the battle against death [48:35] you're definitely going to lose that [48:36] battle like that's they death's record [48:39] is amazing death always wins like so if [48:43] you're setting it up for that battle. [48:45] Like that's a that's a bad battle. [48:48] We just don't want to confront it [48:49] though, do we? That's the essence of why [48:50] we use the words like pass on, pass, [48:52] which is fascinating to me because it is [48:54] the only certainty we have and we act as [48:59] if we are certain it's something bad [49:03] when in fact absolutely no one can say [49:06] with certainty what it is and what [49:08] happens except that it's inevitable. [49:10] Having spoke to so many people in their [49:12] final days, weeks and months and final [49:14] minutes, I'm really compelled to [49:16] understand what I can learn from them [49:18] about how I should be living my life [49:20] based on the types of things they then [49:22] say to you, focus on prioritize. [49:25] Yeah, that's it's that is true. Like you [49:28] can learn a tremendous amount from that. [49:30] And here's what I will tell you. I [49:31] learned they don't talk about death. [49:35] Like you go through this hospice [49:36] training where they're they're they're [49:38] very much preparing you to talk with [49:40] people about their fear about their [49:41] death or their imminence of their death [49:43] and all people really want to talk about [49:46] is their grandkids, their kids, their [49:49] wife, their husband, what they did for a [49:52] living and what they liked about it. [49:53] Like most of the time people talk about [49:55] like the things that made them happy. [49:58] Like I I spent a lot of time just [50:00] listening to people tell me about tell [50:02] me happy stories about their life. [50:05] telling me moments that and it made a [50:07] lot of sense to me. Like it made a lot [50:09] of sense to me. Like if I said to you [50:11] right now like what are five moments in [50:14] your life where you just felt loved and [50:17] happy like you could stop and close your [50:20] eyes and and and there'd be like and and [50:23] what a comfort it would be like to have [50:24] those. And every once in a while like [50:27] when you're in that moment you go I'm in [50:30] one of those right now. like I'm gonna [50:32] remember this moment, you know, and but [50:35] most of the time you don't like most of [50:37] the time it just happens and then you [50:39] look back and you go, "God, I remember [50:40] that kiss, you know, or remember that, [50:43] you know, that meal or remember that and [50:46] and you don't see it when it's [50:47] happening." And that for me is is what I [50:50] really learned from doing hospice work [50:52] was that like all these people wanted to [50:55] tell me about was, you know, when they [50:58] were alive, like really alive, not [51:01] laying in a bed dying. Like they want to [51:03] talk about like, yeah, I did this or I [51:05] saw that. And, you know, I I learned it [51:08] in my mom's passing. I remember my last [51:10] day with my mom before she became so ill [51:13] that she was not mobile and and not not [51:15] really functional to have a discussion [51:16] with. I just remember we just sat there [51:19] and I told her about like how great my [51:21] sons were doing, her grandchildren, how [51:23] great they were doing and and I talked [51:25] about how happy I was and like just how [51:28] great life is and how great I feel. And [51:31] I just remember like she just was I [51:34] remember thinking like, "Oh, that's what [51:36] I would want." Like I would want to know [51:37] that like, "Yeah, you did it. Like you [51:40] did great. Like look at look at all this [51:42] stuff that's here because of you, you [51:44] know?" And to me, like that that's what [51:47] hospice work very much taught me was it [51:49] it it taught me that that um no one's [51:53] really going to care that much about you [51:55] know some of this stuff that seems so [51:58] important. Like it's just not [52:01] that important. like like the people [52:04] talked about their kids, they talked [52:06] about their grandkids, they talked [52:07] about, you know, the love of their life [52:10] or if they if they had survived that [52:13] love and and they, you know, they talked [52:15] about how like, oh, maybe, you know, [52:17] maybe I'm going to get to see them [52:18] again, you know, and and it's very funny [52:21] because I I remember [52:24] I remember talking to someone a few [52:26] years ago and saying something about, [52:28] "Oh, you know, I wish my mom had been [52:30] alive to see me do you know this thing [52:33] and they said oh I I you know I I bet [52:36] she's seeing it like I bet she's seeing [52:38] it from you know cuz this person was [52:39] religious and I remember thinking you [52:41] know I don't believe that but I really [52:43] hope I'm wrong [52:45] like I really hope I'm wrong that would [52:47] be amazing like that'd be wonderful it'd [52:48] be beautiful you know so I I think [52:51] hospice for me the reason why I I got [52:53] into the hospice work the reason why my [52:55] research interests became death related [52:59] um was that that Uh, I just think life [53:02] is better when you have those things in [53:06] front of you. When you when you remind [53:08] yourself of the inevitability of [53:09] endings. [53:11] We're just the imagination of ourselves. [53:13] Those are words that you said. You said [53:16] we're just the imagination of ourselves. [53:17] There's nothing to be afraid of. [53:18] Everything's connected. We're just in [53:20] one state of being now and then we'll be [53:22] in a different state of being. There's [53:24] probably a benevolent force out there. [53:25] That was something that came to me as a [53:28] function of of of um of my my [53:31] experiences with psychedelics very early [53:33] in my life is um was that realization [53:36] was the realization that everything is [53:38] connected and that there is some [53:40] benevolent something underneath all of [53:42] it and that there's nothing to be afraid [53:44] of. And I think some of that was a [53:46] function of course of of growing up in [53:48] an environment where you couldn't deny [53:50] death where it was sort of always [53:51] present. And perhaps that was on my mind [53:54] at that stage in my life when when I had [53:57] those profound experiences. But um [54:00] that's stayed with me. That's never gone [54:01] away. That's been very um very much a [54:04] part of my view of things that that um [54:09] that perhaps we are just one [54:11] consciousness experience itself [54:13] subjectively and that we we are just you [54:16] know I heard what was it Pete Holmes the [54:18] comedian recently talking about how you [54:20] know people say that like oh we came [54:22] from nothing I don't believe in God I [54:24] believe in nothing and you know he has [54:26] this whole bit about him he's like [54:27] really so like instead of believing in [54:30] God which is something that you can't [54:31] touch can't prove, can't photograph, and [54:33] science can't prove or disprove. You [54:35] believe in nothing, which is something [54:36] you can't see, touch, feel, science [54:38] can't prove or disprove. Like, so if [54:40] you're nothing just spontaneously, you [54:42] know, creates everything, that's pretty [54:44] impressive. Nothing in the scheme of [54:45] things. So I think I think that I am [54:48] very much a believer in the fact I like [54:50] to believe whatever the name of it is [54:53] whatever we want to call it having spent [54:56] a lot of time with hospice patients and [54:57] having thought a lot about death [55:00] I I'd like to think that we you know we [55:04] are drops of water and that when we die [55:06] we return to the sea that we just merge [55:08] with our creator again. And I'm not I'm [55:12] not really worried that Jim stops [55:14] existing like cuz I don't remember what [55:19] I was before Jim. So I have no reason to [55:22] think it was something terrible and I [55:25] don't know what I'll be after I'm Jim. [55:27] But I have no reason to think it's going [55:28] to be something terrible. It could just [55:30] as easily be it's going to be something [55:32] fantastic and that I'm going to get [55:34] there and go, "What? What? Why didn't I [55:36] get here sooner?" you know, and if there [55:38] was a god, then he might greet me and be [55:39] like, "Yeah, why are you guys so fixated [55:41] on not getting here? It's awesome." You [55:43] know, like that temporary thing, like [55:45] there's a reason why as an organism [55:47] you're supposed to just there's all [55:49] these things that'll kill you. Like it's [55:51] supposed to be that that happens sooner [55:52] rather than later. But like that's it's [55:54] a very uncomfortable thought. Like it's [55:58] an uncomfortable thought that like this [56:00] might be hell or this might be the part [56:04] that we should be afraid of. Like this [56:07] might be the part that's really hard. [56:10] Like maybe what's before it and what's [56:11] after it's really the easy part and [56:14] what's happening here is what's [56:16] challenging. Like when someone dies. [56:20] I've always thought to myself like when [56:22] someone dies like the people who suffer [56:24] are the living. Like the person who's [56:27] passed they're gone now. That's why I [56:29] never believed in the death penalty [56:31] because they were like we're going to [56:32] punish this person by they're going to [56:34] die. I'm like, well, my grandmother [56:36] died. I I didn't like to think that it [56:37] was a punishment. Like, put them in a [56:40] box, feed them terrible food. That that [56:43] sounds like a punishment, you know, [56:44] like, you know, make them watch bad TV. [56:46] I don't know, something. But death, [56:49] like, death to me doesn't I don't like [56:50] to think of death as a punishment. I I I [56:53] I'm enjoying this ride and I'm enjoying [56:56] this body and I'm enjoying all of this, [56:58] but I'm not terrified of that. I'm [57:00] genuinely curious. I'm genuinely [57:03] curious. And when the time comes, I want [57:06] to face it with open with, you know, [57:08] clean hands and an open heart. [57:10] Where does acceptance play in dealing [57:14] with an ending? Like how important is it [57:16] to accept? And when you when you meet [57:18] your clients as a divorce lawyer now, is [57:22] part of the suffering the resistance to [57:25] accept the situation? [57:26] Yes. even if it you it wasn't your fault [57:28] because you know this is sometimes [57:30] people conflate this idea of acceptance [57:32] with like you know justification I'm not [57:35] saying justification I'm saying accept [57:36] this is the situation you find yourself [57:38] in [57:38] yeah I I think that's very very astute [57:41] and very real I think there's a step [57:44] before acceptance there's a number of [57:46] steps before acceptance but but the [57:47] first one is acknowledgement like I [57:50] think you have to acknowledge that [57:51] something is happening before you can [57:54] start because acceptance has to do with [57:55] adjusting your emotional state and [57:57] reaction to it. Changing the level of [57:59] tension in your body about it. You know, [58:01] like every time I've ever gone to the [58:03] dentist, you know, there's this part of [58:05] me it's like, "Oh, here it comes. Oh [58:06] god, here it comes. This is going to [58:07] hurt. Here it comes." You know, and it's [58:08] like I'm ready. I'm bracing. I'm [58:10] bracing. And And I have to remind myself [58:12] like, "Wait, stop. Don't do that." [58:15] Yeah. Stop. Soften. Soften. Soften over [58:18] and over. Soften. It's one of the [58:20] reasons I love Brazilian jiu-jitsu [58:22] because when you're a white belt in [58:23] Brazilian jiu-jitsu, everything is like [58:26] resisting everything, you know, trying [58:27] to stop everything and and then you you [58:30] start to learn like, oh, no, no, no, [58:32] like soften, like yield, like just, you [58:34] know, protect the neck, move the hand. [58:36] Okay, go ahead. Try and choke me. Like, [58:38] you're not going to do it. Like, and and [58:40] there's something about that like not [58:43] trying to resist the thing, but [58:45] trust what you were saying there about [58:47] trust. trust in how natural something [58:49] is. But it's acknowledging first, okay, [58:52] here is the reality of my situation. [58:54] This marriage is ending. Like there [58:56] there's a there's a a a [58:59] Zen parable or saying I heard many years [59:03] ago, which is [59:05] if you don't learn to find joy in the [59:07] snow, you will have less joy in your [59:11] life and precisely the same amount of [59:13] snow. [59:17] reality is reality. Like I I broke my [59:21] favorite teacup. I can be happy about [59:24] that. I can be angry about that. I can [59:27] be sad about that. Either way, my teacup [59:29] is gone. It's gone. That's it. Like, and [59:32] so I think that the acceptance piece [59:37] first requires, okay, my life is finite. [59:41] My life is finite. My marriage [59:44] is not permanently gifted to me. Love is [59:47] not permanently gifted. It is loaned. [59:50] Whether it's the life of my my life, the [59:53] love of my dog, the love of my romantic [59:56] partner, the love of my children, it is [59:58] on loan to me. It is not permanently [60:00] gifted. So that's just acknowledgment [60:02] first. then it's not pulling from that [60:07] yielding from like it's it's about [60:08] softening softening and realizing that [60:11] okay so now what do I do with this like [60:13] what do I do you know there's something [60:15] about [60:18] my my therapist once said to me we were [60:20] talking about um [60:23] we were talking about like resisting [60:25] change in life I was going through a [60:27] transition in life and and I was having [60:29] a hard time with it and he said you know [60:33] Uh he said you're very curious. He said [60:35] you [60:37] you try to like swim against the current [60:41] and it's not going to work [60:44] or you just let go and let yourself go [60:46] with the current and that's not going to [60:48] work. So you try to like I'm going to be [60:51] the ocean and that doesn't work. He's [60:54] like surf. [60:56] He's like surf. He's like surfing is [60:58] kind of the perfect balance. like you're [61:01] not trying to fight the wave. You're [61:04] trying to take it where it's going to [61:05] take you, but you're going to impose [61:08] yourself on the process a little. You're [61:10] going to use technique, patience, you're [61:12] going to use your body, and you're going [61:14] to try to just see because there's an [61:16] element in surfing, just like in [61:18] jiu-jitsu, just like in so many things [61:20] in life, of like yielding, but also [61:23] maintaining an active role, right? And I [61:25] think that is in the demise of a [61:29] relationship or the loss of someone [61:32] because of death or again any transition [61:36] any ending. First it's about [61:38] acknowledging the reality of what we had [61:41] what we were you know what our health [61:43] was whatever it might be and then saying [61:46] okay and now this has changed and I can [61:49] resist it or I can yield to it. I can [61:52] accept that this is what's happened. It [61:53] is snowing. My teacup is broken. [61:55] Whatever it is. And then [61:59] you can see what's next because again, [62:01] we don't know what's next. We don't know [62:03] what that will lead to. Like some of the [62:05] worst things, some of the moments in my [62:07] life where I went, "Oh my god, I'm never [62:09] getting through this gave way to some of [62:11] the greatest moments in my life." Like [62:13] just when the just when the caterpillar [62:15] thought its life was ending, it became a [62:17] butterfly. You know, but it had the [62:20] world had to end. Like imagine being the [62:23] bird in the egg. You know, you've been [62:26] warm and happy. Imagine being in the [62:29] womb. Like you're warm, you're happy, [62:31] everything's being fed to you. It's like [62:33] lovely. You're just buoyant and floating [62:35] around. And now if you're that bird, you [62:38] got to break through a shell and get [62:40] into this cold weird world. You don't [62:42] know how your wings work yet. Or if [62:43] you're a baby, it's like all blood and [62:45] screaming. But you got to do that to get [62:48] to the next thing. And the next thing is [62:50] beautiful. Like the bird only gets to [62:52] fly because it broke through the egg. [62:54] And it only broke through the egg [62:55] because it was brave enough to destroy [62:58] the only world it's ever known. And [63:00] that's how I look at divorce in some [63:02] ways is that divorce is like this whole [63:05] whether I'm the one ending it or my [63:07] partner is the one ending it. Like [63:10] something is ending that I never thought [63:12] was going to end and it's done. And now [63:14] what? I don't know. I don't know what. [63:16] But I have no reason to think it's going [63:18] to be horrifying. It might be incredibly [63:20] beautiful, but it's it's the road ahead [63:22] of me now. And and that to me, there's [63:25] something very beautiful about that [63:27] level of acceptance, [63:28] but the lights are off. [63:30] The lights are off on that road. It's a [63:32] it's a road with no street lamps. And [63:34] that's what the uncertainty of [63:36] Yeah, it's scary. [63:37] It's scary, right? We humans are [63:39] particularly bad with dealing with [63:40] uncertainty. I learned this when I when [63:41] I studied um Uber Labs, which is this [63:43] laboratory they had at Uber to figure [63:45] out how to build the perfect taxi app. [63:46] And they discovered that much of the [63:48] reason why we love Uber is it cuz it [63:49] kills the uncertainty that we used to [63:51] have when we called the taxi on the [63:52] phone and then we had to stand there for [63:54] seven or maybe 17 minutes [63:56] hoping that it was coming. And it's the [63:58] same analogy you might find if you know [64:00] you go to an airport and it says flight [64:01] is delayed. Now flight delayed is much [64:04] worse than flight delayed 2 hours [64:05] because I can work with that. [64:07] But flight delayed [64:09] Yeah. [64:09] with no certainty around how long I'm [64:11] going to be stood in this airport for is [64:13] like mental torture. And it's the same. [64:15] And the truth is there is something I'm [64:17] I'm not look I'm not polyiana about it [64:19] like there is something terribly [64:22] frustrating upsetting difficult about [64:24] your flight being delayed or your flight [64:26] being cancelled for example but I in [64:30] Frankfurt Germany [64:33] I had the I think it's the best meal of [64:36] my entire life at a little tiny [64:38] restaurant. [64:40] I only had that meal because I was [64:43] flying back from Poland and had a stop [64:47] in Frankfurt that was supposed to be for [64:50] one hour and because of snow they [64:52] canceled all the flights to essentially [64:54] to the United States and I was stuck in [64:56] Frankfurt for the night. Now I I [65:00] certainly had a few moments of like are [65:02] you kidding me? Like I have work, I have [65:04] this, I have that. But then something in [65:06] me went, okay, like you can be upset [65:09] about this all you want, man, but it [65:10] ain't gonna make the flights happen and [65:12] you can't walk home from Frankfurt, so [65:15] what are you gonna do? You've not been [65:16] in Frankfurt before. See what happens. [65:20] And I walked around Frankfurt and I [65:22] found this amazing little restaurant and [65:25] it was I think still to this day the [65:27] best meal I've ever had in my life. And [65:29] I've gone back to Frankfurt three times [65:31] just to eat at that restaurant. And I [65:33] the hotel that I found because I was [65:36] like, "All right, I need a room. I need [65:38] to get a room somewhere." Turned out [65:39] became one of my favorite hotels and I [65:41] stayed there several times. So, you [65:43] know, again, if you'd said to me in [65:44] advance, Jim, would it be awful if you [65:48] got stuck in Frankfurt? I would be like, [65:49] "Oh my god, that would be so bad. I have [65:51] a quarter appearance tomorrow and I have [65:53] this to do and I have that to do." My [65:55] life would have been so much poorer if I [65:57] hadn't gotten stuck in Frankfurt. I had [65:59] like four amazing trips and a bunch of [66:02] amazing meals and all these incredible [66:04] experiences because one time my flight [66:07] got cancelled because of snow. And I [66:10] tell you something, I I'm really really [66:12] glad that flight got cancelled. I wasn't [66:14] at the time. At the time it was very [66:15] frustrating. I'd call my assistant in [66:17] the middle of night and be like, "All [66:18] right, you got to cancel all my stuff. [66:19] You got to reset." But the truth is like [66:21] you just don't know. You just don't [66:22] know. You won't know. You won't know [66:24] until you're sitting ideally in a bed [66:27] and there's a hospice volunteer sitting [66:29] next to you and you're telling them all [66:31] about the amazing meal that you had in [66:33] Frankfurt that one time, not you know my [66:36] flight got delayed once. [66:40] You said earlier at the start of this [66:42] conversation, no one intends to end up [66:44] in the consultation room um with a [66:46] divorce lawyer. But I wondered when you [66:48] said that, I thought, do you know what? [66:49] I bet you've met someone in your life [66:51] that did intend to end up there. I [66:54] someone that got married because they [66:57] wanted the divorce. [66:58] Yeah. Yeah. I'm sure I I I have met So, [67:02] I've met people because I'm in in the [67:04] high net worth and ultra high net worth [67:06] space. High net worth we define as like [67:08] 10 to a few hundred million and ultra [67:11] high net worth is like 500 million and [67:13] up [67:16] in in those spaces. Yeah. There's a [67:19] there's there certainly are people that [67:21] get married [67:23] to a wealthy person for what will be [67:27] great financial benefit, [67:29] but a lot of them are not planning on [67:32] cashing the chips out necessarily. They [67:34] see it as a possibility, [67:36] but they more often are like, "Oh, no. [67:39] I'd like to ride this ride as long as [67:40] possible because the amount of money I'm [67:43] going to have access to with this person [67:46] is much greater than even if I divorce [67:48] and take some of their things. So, um [67:51] that that is certainly I I would the [67:54] overwhelming majority of people like [67:57] 99.999% [67:59] of my of clients I have met in a 25-y [68:02] year career did not mean to get [68:04] divorced. They they they move towards [68:07] divorce and eventually many of them go, [68:09] "Oh yeah, this I saw early on we were [68:12] doomed." But you know, love is so [68:15] intoxicating. We fall in love so fast, [68:17] you know, and we really do like have a [68:20] tendency to in the early days like we we [68:23] tend to just be so forgiving of a [68:24] person. I mean, thank God that passes to [68:26] some degree. Could you imagine like [68:28] that? You know when you first are with [68:30] your romantic partner like they brush up [68:32] against you and it's like electric that [68:34] feeling you know because you we couldn't [68:36] what would we as a world get stuff done [68:38] if we felt like that forever about our [68:40] romantic partner if 10 years into the [68:42] relationship when your partner brushed [68:43] up next to you at the sink you went like [68:45] oh god YOU WOULDN'T GET ANYTHING DONE [68:47] like you wouldn't get anything done you [68:48] we would be a very unproductive world so [68:51] thankfully that fades and changes I I [68:54] hope it never goes completely away for [68:56] for any couple but It becomes [68:59] manageable. You start to see this person [69:01] a little more clearly. Hopefully still [69:03] with tremendous optimism. [69:04] What's the quickest marriage you've ever [69:06] represented? [69:06] Quickest marriage and divorce. Marriage [69:08] 72 hours. [69:09] From marriage to divorce. [69:10] From marriage to divorce. [69:12] Yes. Marriage to marriage to anulment in [69:14] that situation. But I've I've seen [69:17] divorces that were 72 hours. [69:19] Were they drunk? What was the [69:20] Yeah, it was in one it was that they [69:22] were drunk. In one it was um I don't [69:27] know how to put it. It was almost like a [69:29] It was almost like a game of chicken [69:31] that went too far. Like they were they [69:33] had just sort of started dating and one [69:36] of them was like, "I bet you wouldn't [69:38] get my name tattooed on you." And [69:39] they're like, "Oh, yeah." And then they [69:40] went and got their name tattooed on each [69:42] other. And then they were like, "Well, I [69:44] bet we I wouldn't I like you, so I'd get [69:46] an engagement ring." And then they went [69:47] and got an engagement ring, and they [69:48] were like, "Oh, yeah. Well, I would I [69:49] you know, would you marry me?" And then [69:50] they got married. And then I think like [69:52] they probably had a great night. Like [69:54] that night was probably that might have [69:56] been some mindbending sex, but then two [69:59] days later they were like, "Wait, you [70:01] know, do you you don't actually want to [70:02] have kids?" Oh, because I do. And like, [70:04] oh, you're you know, like and they [70:05] realize they were just fundamentally [70:06] incompatible people. [70:08] Have you seen any patterns there with [70:09] compatibility then? If if a couple walks [70:11] in and they've been together for I guess [70:14] when you look back at the types of [70:15] people you've represented [70:18] um is there a certain length of [70:21] engagement and boyfriend girlfriend [70:23] phase that is typically conducive with [70:25] it working or not working? [70:26] No, I don't see that pattern. I I'm [70:28] constantly I'm very fixated on pattern [70:31] recognition. So I'm constantly thinking [70:33] I'm always looking at same religion [70:35] different religions or religious versus [70:37] non-religious or older and younger older [70:40] man younger woman younger man older [70:42] woman like what what permutation same [70:44] culture different culture same races [70:46] different races like first generation to [70:49] the US or you know both first generation [70:52] or neither [70:54] um I I don't I don't see those patterns [70:57] I really I I if I did I'd be the first [71:00] to say it you know I don't hesitate hate [71:01] to say stuff, but I I've not seen those [71:04] patterns. I I have found if I was to say [71:08] there was any any pattern, it it it [71:14] really is um [71:16] I I think substance use is probably the [71:19] main thing like that if if one or both [71:21] people are big drinkers or drug users, [71:27] that's usually a good indication that [71:29] the marriage is going to lead to divorce [71:31] because substance use issues tend to get [71:36] worse in either both people, which [71:38] causes all kinds of second order [71:40] effects, or more commonly, one person [71:44] when they have kids or when they reach a [71:47] slightly different stage in life [71:50] scales back on alcohol or drug use and [71:54] the other person has an unhealthy [71:56] relationship with the substances and it [71:59] gets further down and that's the [72:01] direction that it goes in. I had um you [72:02] said something earlier which really piqu [72:04] my interest as well which kind of [72:04] relates to this is you said love is [72:06] loaned and I I immediately thought of a [72:09] friend who who brought me to a [72:10] restaurant one day to basically tell me [72:12] that him and his um wife were being [72:15] divorced and the way they described it [72:17] was quite heartbreaking because [72:20] it seemed like they had a good [72:21] relationship. It's kind of like they got [72:23] busy with their jobs and the kid and [72:26] they forgot to water the plant. [72:28] Yeah. [72:28] It's like the only way I can describe it [72:29] because they were like good people. They [72:31] didn't really appear to argue at all. [72:33] They had this kid. They're both CEOs. [72:35] She's a CEO. He's a CEO. [72:36] And it's like they like raised the kid [72:38] and forgot to water the relationship. [72:40] Yeah. Yeah. I I've I've always phrased [72:43] that as they lost the plot. Like that [72:46] they were because when you get married, [72:48] you're trying to write a story together [72:50] and sometimes I think you lose the plot. [72:52] Like you know when you're reading [72:54] and like all of a sudden you stop and [72:55] you go, I don't really remember where I [72:58] am in this. like and you got to go back [72:59] a few pages, you know, to like, oh, [73:01] okay, I remember this part. Let me start [73:03] there. [73:04] I think sometimes we lose the plot. And [73:06] I and when we I think that happens in [73:08] every relationship, every long-term [73:09] relationship, I think sometimes you lose [73:10] the plot. Like other things are going on [73:12] at work or you have kids and and kids [73:14] require a tremendous amount of your [73:15] bandwidth. So, I I get it. But I think [73:18] if you lose the plot, that's where it [73:22] it's like hard to it's a it's again [73:25] acknowledgment of it, like awareness, [73:28] truth, being honest, and saying, "Hey, I [73:30] feel like we lost the plot." Like I feel [73:32] like there's, you know, we lost the [73:33] plot. How do we get it back? Like how [73:35] But but the problem is [73:38] when you say to your partner, "Hey, I I [73:41] feel like we kind of lost the plot." [73:44] rather than hearing that as, "Hey, this [73:47] is really important to me. You're really [73:50] important to me. Yeah, work's important. [73:52] Kids important, but you and me, you and [73:55] me, that's really important." Like, it's [73:56] equally, if not more important. So, I [74:00] feel a certain way. I I feel like we've [74:02] lost the plot. And And I'm not saying [74:04] that's your fault. I'm not saying it's [74:05] my fault. I'm saying it's the kids' [74:06] fault. I don't know whose fault it is. I [74:07] don't really care. But I don't want to [74:09] lose the plot because I care about you [74:10] and I and this plot, this story is [74:12] important to me. People don't hear it [74:14] that way. People hear it as we lost the [74:15] plot. Well, what do you want me to do [74:17] about it? Like I, you know, oh, okay, so [74:19] I'll just ignore the kid. What do you [74:20] What What do you want? I'm sorry. I'm [74:22] doing the best I can. And that's like [74:26] that's not the way to hear that. I I [74:28] understand. I think it's very human to [74:29] hear it that way. But I genuinely [74:33] believe that that, you know, yeah, it's [74:35] like you forgot to water the plant. [74:36] Like, and nobody meant to kill the [74:38] plant, but you kill the plant because [74:39] you weren't thinking about the plant. [74:40] And by the way, plant's right there. YOU [74:43] WALK PAST it every single day. You just [74:46] not once thought, "Oh yeah, I got to [74:48] remember to water the plant." And so I [74:50] think it's very easy in marriage, in [74:52] long-term relationships, it's very easy [74:54] to just forget that this is you're [74:58] borrowing this, you know, this is not [75:00] yours. Like this person's not yours. [75:03] This person is loaned to you. And it's, [75:06] by the way, it's the same with death. [75:09] Like this person is loaned to you. They [75:10] could be taken away. [75:12] By divorce or by death, they could be [75:14] taken away. Every marriage will end in [75:16] one of those two things. Death or [75:17] divorce. For sure. [75:18] You've used this word slippage before. [75:20] Yeah. [75:20] When does it happen and what does [75:22] slippage mean? [75:24] I mean, slippage is everyone understands [75:26] slippage, I think. Like it's not like [75:28] you eat cake and then the next day your [75:30] suit doesn't fit. Like you just make [75:32] lots of little choices and those little [75:35] choices add up and all of a sudden your [75:36] suit doesn't fit and you go, "Wait, when [75:38] did that happen?" You know? And I think [75:39] it's the same thing in relationships. [75:40] Like we You know, Ernest Hemingway said [75:43] in um The Sun Also Rises, [75:46] um I I went bankrupt the same way [75:48] anybody does. Very slowly and then all [75:50] at once. And I think that's how that's [75:53] slippage. Like it's just little [75:55] raindrops that eventually become the [75:57] flood. And and I think that's what [75:59] happens in relationships is you you [76:02] start to with good intentions, [76:05] you're focused on other things. Maybe [76:07] you start to go, "Hey, I got this." Like [76:09] cuz you know when you were single, [76:11] finding the one was big. That was big. [76:15] That was a big priority in your life. [76:18] And then you found them. And then [76:19] there's like a whole bunch of just [76:21] high-fiving and celebration. And it's [76:22] like, oh, this is so great. I FOUND THE [76:24] ONE. YOU FOUND YOU WANTED THE ONE, TOO. [76:25] AND YOU FOUND IT. IT'S ME. IS this [76:26] great? And then you go, "All right, we [76:29] got that. Now what other stuff, you [76:31] know, what other stuff can we do?" [76:32] Because now like I'm supercharged. I got [76:34] you. You got me. We're gonna do this [76:36] thing. And you go and what do you do? [76:37] make new life or you make careers or you [76:40] go amazing places LIKE YOU'RE DO IT'S [76:42] NOT ENOUGH IT'S NOT enough to just go we [76:44] got each other and it's so fun and let's [76:45] just tuck in here and just stay together [76:48] you know and I I always laugh with [76:50] friends by the way because I can always [76:52] tell when someone's like in love because [76:54] they put on a couple of pounds you know [76:56] cuz they really do because they're just [76:58] they just go like do I want to like get [77:00] up and go to the gym or do you go want [77:01] like sit on the couch and eat popcorn [77:02] and watch something yeah let's do that [77:04] you know and it's just sort of like you [77:05] know you're just so it's love weight [77:06] it's happy love weight. And I I love [77:09] when I see it on somebody. Like it looks [77:10] good on everybody, you know? Much better [77:14] than like if you believe me, like if you [77:15] look at photos of me from when I had an [77:17] eight pack, it was the most miserable [77:18] time in my life cuz I'm at the gym just [77:20] trying to beat the pain out of me, you [77:22] know? So I I I think it's very very [77:26] normal that people in that heaviness of [77:30] that. Okay. So when that fades and now [77:32] we're like in a sustainable pattern of a [77:34] relationship and you're focusing on [77:36] other things, little tiny things start [77:39] to, you know, and you don't want to make [77:41] a thing of it. You don't want to say [77:43] like, "Oh, by the way, calling a foul [77:44] here, throwing a flag on that play." No, [77:46] you just sort of go like, "Oh, no. It's [77:47] it's just a little thing. It's not a big [77:49] thing. Don't worry about it." And I [77:50] think that's the that is how the process [77:53] begins and it leads right to my office [77:56] someday. [77:57] Jordan Peterson said something to me. [77:58] Jack, have you got my phone? Yeah, [78:00] I just wanted to play you this um 30 [78:03] seconds of something he said. [78:05] Everybody keeps telling me I have to [78:06] have a conversation with Jordan [78:07] Peterson. This [78:07] it would be fascinating. [78:08] I imagine two people are telling him the [78:10] same thing, which is [78:11] my friend is um going through some [78:14] difficulties in his relationship and I [78:15] sent him this little clip which I [78:17] honestly I keep this clip saved in my [78:19] phone. I have to send it to so many of [78:20] my male friends. [78:22] But this is what Jordan says and it [78:23] relates to slippage. [78:25] Here's something to understand about [78:27] your marriage. Okay, you are going to [78:29] have to listen to your wife 90 minutes a [78:30] week. Okay, and you might as well just [78:33] get that through your thick skull. Now, [78:36] why? If you listen to her enough, you [78:38] can make peace and you can play. So, [78:40] there's a huge benefit. If you don't [78:43] listen to her, that will accumulate [78:47] and you'll listen to her in divorce [78:48] court. [78:49] Someone sent me that. I don't think it [78:52] was you. Someone sent me that. So, yeah. [78:55] Yeah, I mean I think that's a piece of [78:56] what I'm talking about for sure. It [78:59] feels a little like the advice last time [79:01] I was on I was saying I I found [79:03] offensive which is happy wife, happy [79:04] life. Like I think there's this sense of [79:06] like well what a man has to do is just [79:08] sort of tolerate the like listen I I [79:12] don't think most men like don't want to [79:16] listen to their wife for 90 because that [79:18] impo that seems to me and I know he's [79:20] being hyperblock and I love Jordan's [79:21] work and I I I find him fascinating and [79:23] I really enjoy him but when when someone [79:27] says to me like oh you have to listen to [79:29] your wife for 90 minutes a week like [79:30] that feels like you're going to sit [79:32] there and be like how many more minutes [79:34] do I have to do was for, you know, there [79:36] was a time where you couldn't wait to [79:38] hear her. Like she was interesting and [79:41] she was interested. But do you think the [79:44] women that are listening to this right [79:45] now that have husbands and boyfriends [79:47] Yeah. [79:48] think they their husband and boyfriend [79:50] likes it when they said, "Hey, hey, hey, [79:51] we need to talk about something." [79:53] But see who when in your life has [79:56] someone saying that to you been a [79:58] precursor to something good? Hey, we [80:00] need to talk about something THAT THAT [80:01] NEVER THAT'S LIKE, you know, is this [80:03] siren A GOOD SIREN? WHEN is this siren [80:05] ever good? Like there's certain phrases [80:08] we really need to have a conversation. [80:10] That is not a good entry point. And [80:13] that's not because it means there's [80:14] something wrong. But before you get to [80:17] that, like how many women, [80:20] you know, would say that that, you know, [80:22] in the interaction with their spouse, [80:25] like they don't want like a let's have a [80:27] 90 minutes in the penalty box where you [80:29] have to listen to me talk to you. Like [80:30] that seems terrible. You know, the the [80:32] thought of of of having to do that as [80:36] like a practice sounds sort of like, all [80:38] right, well, if I endure that for 90 [80:40] minutes, the the bonus is I get sex or [80:42] something like, and that seems crazy to [80:44] me. [80:44] As a divorce lawyer, [80:45] if you think about the divorces you've [80:47] um seen in court and you've sort of [80:49] consult consulted on, etc., Do you [80:52] believe that if that couple had spent 90 [80:54] minutes a week, sat down openly being [80:57] honest with each other, they would have [80:58] ended up in your consultation room? [81:02] I think if they'd made a practice like [81:04] that as something deliberate, I I mean, [81:06] maybe it would make a difference. I I [81:08] think what's more important than the the [81:11] structure of a ritual and the the time I [81:14] I have a better practice than that. I [81:17] have um so I have a chapter in the book [81:20] called hit send now where I talk about [81:24] sharing with your partner kind of [81:26] promptly when something has rattled you [81:29] the wrong way without saying we need to [81:31] talk like just giving like and I I [81:33] suggest people do it via email so that [81:35] it's like you can say to your partner [81:38] like hey listen like I want you to [81:39] reflect on this like you don't have to [81:41] answer right away you don't have to be [81:42] defensive and also you can be careful [81:44] about how you parse it because not [81:46] everybody's is very sure-footed in their [81:47] speech, right? So, sometimes people if [81:49] you just try to do it face to face, [81:50] sometimes it's not going to come out [81:51] clearly. So, if you're writing, you can [81:53] edit it. You can be careful with it. But [81:55] I I genuinely think sometimes people [81:59] just need to check in in a relationship. [82:03] And by the way, you have to if you want [82:05] that, you also have to be willing to [82:07] accept that in your direction, right? So [82:11] I have a friend I have a a friend who [82:13] read my book and he was a friend who [82:15] actually then read my book and he said [82:17] that he and his wife go for a walk once [82:20] a week and they make a deliberate [82:24] practice during that walk of sharing [82:26] with each other one or two or three [82:29] things that the person [82:32] didn't do perfectly in the relationship [82:35] that week. and they hear it with love. [82:38] Like they deliberately from the [82:39] beginning go, we're hearing this with [82:40] love. We're hearing this as a practice. [82:42] It's a deliberate practice because our [82:44] goal is to have a great relationship and [82:47] keep it great. So, we're going to hear [82:49] it that way. We're not going to hear it [82:50] as a criticism. We're going to hear it [82:51] as I love this relationship enough to be [82:53] honest with you. I want you to have, you [82:55] know, I'd rather you have an [82:57] uncomfortable truth than a comfortable [82:58] lie. I'd rather not have resentment [83:00] buildup. And then they always finish [83:03] that walk with three things that the [83:06] person did that made them feel loved or [83:08] feel good or what. And that's so you're [83:10] ending on that positive note. And they [83:12] said they've never had a week where they [83:14] didn't come up with something. [83:15] That happy wife, happy life phrase. [83:18] There must be a reason why it became [83:20] cliche, why it became popular. Well, it [83:23] became popular because I think so many [83:24] people were willing to accept the [83:26] unbelievably ridiculous model of [83:28] relationships that's led us to a 56% [83:30] divorce rate and probably another 20 or [83:32] 30% staying together unbelievably [83:35] miserable but not wanting to give up [83:36] half their stuff. So yeah, like every [83:39] misery loves company. Like everybody is [83:41] sitting around going like, "Well, [83:42] listen, women are like that. You got to [83:45] spend 90 minutes with them. Happy wife, [83:47] happy life." Like and I I just I just [83:49] don't accept that. I don't accept that [83:51] it has to be awful. [83:54] Why is it not happy husband, happy wife, [83:56] though? [83:57] Well, in reality, it is. I think in [84:00] reality, it's happy husband and happy [84:03] wife equals happy marriage. Like, [84:05] but why did it come into culture that [84:07] that way rounded? [84:08] Because I think there's there's a [84:11] Well, I mean, my personal opinion on [84:12] this is I think men are probably easier [84:14] to please in some ways. Like, [84:16] okay, [84:17] you know, I think men are either hungry [84:18] or horny. So, like either feed us or [84:21] have sex with us. And that's kind of [84:22] we're most of the time pretty happy. [84:24] Like I don't I don't we're not you know [84:27] like which curtains should we pick out [84:28] for the house? Like we're not that [84:30] caught up in I don't know a lot of guys [84:31] caught up in that. Like when it came to [84:33] weddings like most of the guys I know [84:35] weren't when they were young men going [84:36] like what is my wedding going to be [84:38] like? I can't here's what I'm going to [84:39] do. Like it was very like is there a DJ [84:41] or a band and what will the bar have and [84:43] that's kind of what they were into. And [84:45] everything else was like cool babe [84:46] whatever you like. Like I'm excited to [84:48] see you excited. That's what matters to [84:50] me. [84:50] So men are simple. [84:51] I think men are quite simple. Yeah. And [84:53] I think women, and by the way, this is [84:54] not a criticism of men and it's not a [84:57] criticism of women. And again, it's a [84:58] generalization. I understand that. But [85:00] like women, I think, thank God, women [85:04] are much more nuanced in my experience. [85:07] It's like they they notice more [85:09] sometimes or different things like [85:11] they're like I I think men and women [85:13] bring different things to and again not [85:14] every man not every woman but like I [85:16] genuinely believe that we bring [85:18] different gifts to relationships and and [85:20] when we embrace that and by the way that [85:22] polarity when we're dating is the [85:26] greatest thing in the world. But of [85:28] course it gets challenging because this [85:31] person's not just your sexual partner [85:33] and romantic partner. They're your [85:35] roommate. They're your co-parent. [85:36] They're your travel partner. Share a [85:38] bathroom with them. Like you got like [85:40] this is a whole another thing when you [85:42] get married. The French have a saying [85:43] that you know marriage turns a lover [85:45] into a relative. [85:48] And and the truth is like not any of [85:50] like your you know your lover you have [85:53] this sort of you know it's why affairs [85:55] are so intoxicating and wonderful [85:57] because you just get the best parts. [85:59] You don't have to you don't have to you [86:01] know pick up this person's socks. You [86:03] don't have to listen to the fight they [86:04] got in with their cousin, you know. You [86:06] don't have to be like, I got to spend 90 [86:08] minutes with them, you know. You can [86:09] actually, you're just getting the good [86:11] stuff, the passion, the sex, the, you [86:14] know, which again, you you can have you [86:17] we can do relationships however we [86:19] decide we want to do them. That's what's [86:20] cool about it is the two people in it is [86:23] what matters. And I think even before [86:25] social media, we were very much about, [86:28] well, how is everybody else doing it? [86:30] Because I I guess that's the right way [86:31] to do it. And so, yeah, happy wife, [86:34] happy life. It was like, listen, just [86:37] here, you know, like just just make her [86:39] happy because then she'll shut up and [86:40] you can just watch football. Like, and [86:42] it I I I mean, look, that never appealed [86:44] to me. That was never interesting to me. [86:47] I I think a lot of people absolutely buy [86:50] into that model of relationships. [86:53] What's more interesting to me than [86:56] people who've just given up, right? [86:58] people who've just said like, "Yeah, I [87:00] know the hard thing to do and the right [87:01] thing to do are the same thing, but I'm [87:02] just going to do the easy thing." [87:03] Because it's like, h what's more [87:05] interesting to me is that I think [87:07] sometimes people screw up their [87:08] relationships with completely good [87:11] intentions. And the the example I I I [87:14] give in my book about this is sex. [87:18] I think most people who've been in a [87:20] long-term relationship will say, "Yeah, [87:24] you know, the sex has become kind of [87:25] predictable." like it's become kind of [87:27] it's not as novel, you know, [87:30] and I think that happens for the [87:33] absolute best of intentions. And it [87:36] would be really lovely if we just [87:37] acknowledged that because here's why it [87:40] happens, right? You get with a person, [87:42] you're first dating, first time you, you [87:45] know, you get sexual with the person, [87:47] you throw every trick you've got at that [87:49] person, right? You do all the things [87:51] that you think they're going to like to [87:52] see what are they going to like, right? [87:54] Do they like the same stuff that other [87:56] people liked or do they like something [87:57] different or they you know what do they [87:58] do they like the same things you like [87:59] and you throw everything at it and and [88:01] and you start okay they don't like that [88:03] okay this they really like oh they make [88:04] really nice noises when I do that okay [88:06] and you start to and then what do you do [88:09] you start to get more efficient like oh [88:11] I know she doesn't like that so I'm not [88:12] going to do that but I know she likes [88:13] this so I'm going to do that a whole lot [88:15] right and she does I hope the same thing [88:17] she does the he loves it when I do this [88:18] and the sound that comes out of him when [88:20] I do that I say what do you do you play [88:22] the greatest hits you play the greatest [88:24] hits cuz why not? And by the way, [88:25] there's only so many hours in the day [88:26] and we got some stuff we got to get to. [88:28] So, let's really throw the greatest hits [88:30] at each other and we're going to have a [88:31] great time. Well, what did you just do? [88:34] You were trying to make each other [88:35] really happy and be a really good lover [88:36] to each other. But what did you just do? [88:38] You just created a routine. You just [88:40] created a routine. And here's the other [88:42] thing about humans, which we all know if [88:43] you've ever had a sexual partner for [88:44] more than six months. [88:46] Then you've noticed the patterns. And by [88:49] the way, you're thrilled with them [88:51] because you're doing the greatest hits. [88:52] Like I went to see spring scene to hear [88:53] Born to Run. That's what I'm there to [88:55] see. Like I I love it. Do the greatest [88:57] hits. [88:59] But then if they do something different, [89:01] there is some part of you that goes, [89:02] "What was that? Where did that come [89:03] from? That was we don't usually do that [89:05] or we don't do it in that order." And by [89:06] the way, sometimes that's exciting, [89:07] right? Sometimes it's like, "Yeah, let's [89:09] have sex in the laundry room. What? We [89:10] got a bed right over there." Yeah, we [89:11] always do it over there. Let's do it in [89:12] the laundry room. Like I don't know. [89:14] That's fun, right? It's fun to do [89:15] something different. Well, we get to a [89:17] place where now when we do something [89:19] different, we start to feel like we're [89:20] gonna have to have a conversation about [89:21] it because it's like, well, why did you [89:23] do that? That's a strange or sometimes [89:26] people go, why did they do that [89:28] different thing? Are they like, is it [89:29] they're watching porn? Are they cheating [89:31] on me? Where did they get that idea [89:32] from? Is that something that they want [89:34] and they want to start doing that? Is [89:35] that part of the greatest hits and I [89:36] didn't realize it? Do they not like what [89:38] I've been doing? And we start to [89:39] sabotage again with good intentions from [89:43] day one. All you wanted was to make your [89:45] partner happy and they wanted to make [89:47] you happy and look what you did. You [89:49] made a routine. So, the only way out of [89:52] that spiral [89:54] is to call it to talk about it. Call it [89:56] out to say, "Hey, you know, it feels [89:58] like things are kind of in like we're in [90:00] a you know, is there anything I could do [90:01] different or you might want different?" [90:03] And I think there's lots of ways to have [90:05] that conversation. [90:07] How do we not have that conversation? [90:08] Like, what's the worst way to have that [90:09] conversation? [90:10] The worst way to have that conversation [90:11] say, "How come you don't do this [90:12] anymore? or you used to do it all the [90:14] time or you know I've never we why won't [90:15] you ever let me this or why don't you [90:17] ever try that that's the worst way to do [90:20] it [90:20] blame [90:21] blame and also it's on you yeah why did [90:24] you do or also that it's like because [90:26] immediately the person's reaction to [90:28] that is going to be well here's why you [90:30] know because of this well because you [90:32] this you know well how come you never do [90:34] this like and it it turns into that and [90:37] I think there's a million other ways to [90:39] do it all of which are better the The [90:42] best one in my opinion, but I'm a lawyer [90:45] and I'm dishonest a lot of the time is, [90:47] you know, manipulation. I think that [90:49] there's very positive man. I manipulate [90:51] people's emotional state for a living, [90:53] right? Like that's my job is to make the [90:54] other side scared, my client feels safe, [90:56] the judge feel good about my client, bad [90:58] about the other side. So like I I try to [91:00] use my powers for good. And I think [91:02] here's a great way to use that power for [91:04] good. I think if there's something going [91:07] on in bed that you want to try or do and [91:10] you don't want to have the clinical [91:12] convers like you don't want to call an [91:13] audible in the middle of sex and just [91:15] start doing something different and have [91:16] your partner go what the heck was that? [91:18] I think a great one is oh my god the [91:21] dream I had about you last night. It [91:24] just you don't even want to know wait [91:26] what what was the dream? What what was [91:28] the dream that you had? No. No. I don't [91:29] even I don't know. It's cuz I had dairy [91:30] before bed or something. I don't know. I [91:32] I had the dirtiest dream about you. You [91:35] tell me what human being, male, female, [91:37] gay, straight, anybody isn't going to [91:39] go, "No, for real, what? What was I [91:41] doing? What were you doing? What was [91:42] it?" Then you tell them, you tell them [91:44] the thing that you'd be interested in [91:45] doing. And they go, [91:47] "It was you and your brother." And [91:49] okay, [91:51] if that's something you're looking for, [91:52] I don't know how to get I'm very [91:54] persuasive. I couldn't get you. I [91:55] couldn't give you an entry point for [91:56] that one. But if it's something that you [91:58] wanted to do, you say, "Yeah, I had this [92:00] dream and this is what happened." And [92:01] your partner may react as, "Oh, really? [92:04] Like you would like that?" And then you [92:06] can go, "Yeah, no. I mean, I don't know. [92:08] I just it was in my brain, so I don't [92:10] know. Like, it seemed weird to me, too." [92:12] And then you can back out of it without [92:13] it being a thing. Or you can go, "I [92:16] don't know. Maybe." Because if their [92:17] reaction is, "Oh, yeah. Would is that [92:18] something you'd want to do?" Be like, "I [92:20] don't know. Maybe it is subconsciously [92:22] or we tried sometimes." [92:23] How many times do people end up in [92:25] divorce court because the lights went [92:27] out in the bedroom? [92:29] I mean, how many would admit it? Or how [92:31] many is it really the case? Well, [92:32] because here's what I'll tell you. I [92:34] would say a good at least 80% of the [92:37] people that end up at my office, [92:38] infidelity was a piece of it. So, that [92:41] tells me that sex is a big piece, you [92:44] know, because most people who are in [92:45] genuinely satisfying sexual [92:47] relationships with their partner aren't [92:48] looking to have other sexual [92:50] relationships. Some people are just [92:52] addicted to sex, though. And I say this [92:54] because I got some friends who people [92:56] always think I'm like projecting and I'm [92:58] like secretly talking about myself, but [92:59] I'm actually not. I've met a wide [93:02] spectrum of individuals and their [93:03] relationship with sex varies wildly. [93:05] Some people I just think are going to [93:06] cheat forever regardless of who they're [93:08] with because they have some like trauma [93:10] related to the chase in sex. And then [93:13] some people are kind of, you know, don't [93:15] have sex at all. So on the on the end [93:17] where you've got that almost sex [93:18] addiction behavior, um I'm just [93:21] wondering if if uh I guess I guess the [93:24] question there the broader question was [93:26] about how many how much is the lights [93:28] going out in the bedroom? Does it relate [93:30] to people ending up in divorce court? [93:31] Well, I remember listening to your [93:33] conversation with Gad and uh and and him [93:36] you you asking him flat out like, "So [93:38] how much of the motivation is sex?" like [93:40] and and I think his answer was ab like a [93:43] tremendous amount of evolutionary [93:44] biology is tied to sex. Like a [93:46] tremendous amount of our motivation is [93:47] born of sex. It's about sex, food, and [93:50] not becoming food. That's like our three [93:52] primary motivators. So I think sex is [93:55] incredibly important. I also think sex [93:56] is constantly thrown into our line of [93:59] sight. So I think you can't discount [94:01] that. I mean, I think sex is on social [94:03] media on like the the amount of sex that [94:06] is put in our face constantly now is [94:11] shocking. It's shocking. I mean, compare [94:13] it. Do your grandfather has not seen as [94:15] many breasts in one lifetime as you'd [94:19] see in one visit to Instagram. Like, I [94:22] mean, there is just so much cleavage [94:23] going on. It's you just can't even. So, [94:26] I think fundamentally, like, of course, [94:27] it's being thrown in our life, [94:29] advertising everywhere. It's surrounded. [94:30] We live in a sex saturated environment. [94:32] How long have you been a divorce lawyer? [94:33] 25 years. [94:34] So since that time, things like only [94:37] fans have emerged and pornography has [94:39] been become commonplace. I imagine at [94:41] the start of your career, the term [94:42] pornography probably wasn't used much in [94:44] divorce. [94:44] Hardly ever. Hardly ever. [94:46] Is it used now? [94:47] It's everywhere now. It's everywhere. [94:49] There's a lot of unique things that have [94:51] I've watched evolve in my career. um the [94:53] proliferation of revenge porn, the [94:56] number of people that have concerns [94:58] about audio, video, photographs of them, [95:02] you know, because every I mean, the [95:03] proliferation of it is also a function [95:04] of the fact that everyone has a video [95:05] camera and everyone has a has a has a a [95:08] camera, a sophisticated camera in their [95:11] hand, you know. So, there's a tremendous [95:14] amount of concern about, you know, this [95:16] person has images of me, photos of me, [95:18] tremendous amounts of um, you know, [95:21] cheating has gotten much much easier [95:24] than it used to be. I mean, the idea of [95:26] like connecting with a potential sexual [95:28] partner and also having conversations [95:30] with people we have absolutely no [95:31] business having conversations with and [95:32] having neutral entry points to get into. [95:35] So, like, you know, it used to be like [95:36] maybe you see the attractive soccer mom [95:38] at the your kid's soccer practice and [95:40] she's married and you're married, but [95:42] like if you saddled up next to her and [95:43] started talking, you're having a [95:45] conversation with a group full of [95:47] people. And if you called her on the [95:48] phone at the house, that would be weird, [95:49] right? But if you like message her or [95:51] you add her on Facebook, it's not weird [95:53] cuz our kids are on the same soccer [95:54] thing and maybe there's a Facebook group [95:56] for the soccer parents and then she [95:58] posts a picture of herself when she was [95:59] on vacation and you say, "Oh, where did [96:01] you guys stay? We were thinking about [96:02] going to Jamaica." And then she says, [96:03] "Oh, this." and you go, "Oh, you know," [96:05] and suddenly we're having a conversation [96:06] and it's private. Nobody else is there. [96:08] We're alone in a room. So, I think it's [96:11] pretty, you know, it's become very [96:15] conducive to cheating. And it's also [96:18] become a way for there to be a [96:20] tremendous amount of evidence of [96:21] cheating that accidentally lands in the [96:23] hands of your partner. So, like I can't [96:25] tell you how many times like I know he's [96:27] passed now Steve Jobs, but like divorce [96:30] lawyers owe him a tremendous debt of [96:32] gratitude for the amount of business he [96:33] sent our way because Apple's integration [96:35] of its devices makes it incredibly [96:39] common that the text message from your [96:41] lover comes up on your kid's iPad [96:44] because you didn't realize you logged [96:45] into the same Apple ID and it comes up [96:47] on the iMessage and now your spouse is [96:49] looking at the the the text about how [96:50] great the sex was yesterday. And like I [96:53] I I'm not being funny. That's like a [96:56] once a week thing that happens in [96:58] divorce lawyers offices. And and I know [97:00] it wasn't intentional. I know he wasn't [97:02] like I'm going to mess up some [97:03] marriages. But the truth is is it, you [97:05] know, it creates an easier opportunity [97:07] for people to cheat because people can [97:09] clandestinely communicate in ways that [97:11] they used to not. And they have these [97:12] neutral entry points that lead to [97:13] something negative. And it's become [97:16] something where you get caught because [97:19] there's a tremendous evidentary trail [97:20] now. So I I think these are all, you [97:24] know, these are all factors that have [97:25] made it harder. But again, porn only [97:30] fans, like all those kinds of things. [97:32] These are just more sort of outlets for [97:35] the same, you know, it's it's like, you [97:38] know, there's a thousand restaurants and [97:39] there's only one menu, you know, and and [97:42] that's all this is is is it's all the [97:44] same stuff just in different [97:45] permutations. Like a divorce lawyer 50 [97:48] years ago was dealing with some of the [97:50] exact same things. It's different [97:51] technologies. It's different, you know, [97:53] manifestations of the of the issue, but [97:56] it's it's all just heartbreak. It's all [97:58] just males and females that tried to [98:01] make it work and somehow it came apart. [98:04] Do you think marriages are good for [98:07] love? And like what's your view on [98:08] marriages? I I've been thinking [98:09] I think marriage and love have very [98:10] little to do with each other. [98:12] I'm fine with getting married. My issue [98:14] is the wedding. I'm not a big fan of [98:16] weddings. I think I don't know where [98:18] this tradition of weddings came from, [98:19] but getting like hundreds of people in a [98:21] room and doing this whole the big gaps, [98:23] the amount of time you have to wait, the [98:26] waiting three hours to be fed, the the [98:29] length of it, the fact that it's so [98:31] stressful and it causes some of my [98:33] friends I've watched like 12 to 24 [98:35] months of stress and agony and [98:37] arguments, but it's like one day [98:39] and I just go I don't know. [98:41] But have you ever been to a wedding that [98:42] was non-traditional? [98:44] Yeah. I like my [98:45] and that you go, "Oh, that's cool." [98:47] It was like a party. [98:48] Yeah. And it's like them [98:49] and they took all the out. [98:50] Cuz I have to say something like I see [98:52] I'm the opposite, which is I don't [98:54] really believe in the legal institution [98:55] of marriage. I think it has almost [98:57] nothing to do with love. I think it's [98:58] largely performative. I think if people [99:00] were madly in love, they're madly in [99:01] love and they could either marry or not [99:02] get married and it's not going to change [99:03] anything except the legal status of [99:05] things. [99:06] But so I [99:08] I love But I love weddings. Oh, I love [99:10] weddings. I love them. I get mistied at [99:12] every wedding. My son just got engaged. [99:13] I can't wait. Like, it's going to be so [99:15] because I think that I think there's [99:17] something so fun about like a big group [99:20] of people all getting together and [99:22] having a party over something as noble [99:24] as two people finding each other in a [99:26] world of 8 billion people. And like I [99:28] think there's something about like a [99:29] group of people all getting up and going [99:31] like we're going to be cheering for you [99:32] and we're going to be here for you. And [99:34] like I love good food and I love like I [99:37] love being with people. Like I I think [99:39] if I think if the the first time [99:41] everybody you love is in one room as [99:43] your funeral, you're an idiot. Like I [99:45] think there's something really [99:46] beautiful. Like I I have to tell you I [99:48] um you know I got divorced many years [99:49] ago. [99:51] But I have amazing photos of my mom from [99:54] my wedding cuz it's like how many times [99:57] in your life do you put on like a fancy [99:58] dress and have your hair done and all [100:00] that stuff? And my mom lost her hair so [100:02] many times because of chemo and all [100:04] those other things. and when she passed [100:05] like she was so sick for so many years [100:07] and I was so afraid when she died that [100:09] that's how I would remember her is in [100:11] that bed sick and I have to tell you I [100:14] look at those pictures of my mom from [100:15] that wedding smiling so big and you know [100:18] with and it I'm so glad I have those [100:21] photos I'm so glad and I wouldn't have [100:22] had them if we hadn't had this stupid [100:24] party you know and I remember [100:26] deliberately saying to the DJ cuz I was [100:29] what 22 yeah I was 22 I remember saying [100:32] to the DJ do not play that stupid [100:33] chicken dance thing. Do not play that. [100:35] Like, we're not doing that stupid thing. [100:37] We're not happening. And I don't know [100:40] when it happened, but my mom must have [100:42] like gone to him and been like, "Play [100:44] the chicken dance." And he was like, [100:45] "I'm not supposed to play the chicken [100:46] dance." And she was like, "Yeah, but [100:47] you're playing the chicken dance." She [100:48] They played the chicken dance. And I [100:50] tell you something, I I will have that [100:52] memory of my mother with that doing that [100:53] stupid chicken dance in my head until I [100:55] die. And it I'm really glad I have it. [100:58] Like, I'm really glad it's there. So, I [100:59] tell you, like I I think weddings are a [101:03] blast. And I think if you're in love [101:05] with somebody and you love them so much [101:06] that you're like, "All right, we're [101:07] going to do our thing, dude. Go have a [101:09] wedding. Don't get married. Don't get [101:11] married. Have a wedding." Because [101:13] getting married and having a wedding [101:14] that you don't have anything to do with [101:15] the When have you ever gone to a wedding [101:18] and at the end of the wedding said, "Um, [101:19] I just need to see the paperwork. Could [101:21] Could you just show me the marriage [101:22] license now? I just need to make sure [101:24] before I give you the gift and before I [101:25] leave, I just want to make sure [101:26] everything was notorized properly." No. [101:28] No one did you didn't see wedding. You [101:31] don't I've never saw my parents' [101:32] marriage license. They could have made [101:33] the whole thing up. I don't know. But [101:34] have the party. Have the party. Why not [101:37] have the party? And don't have somebody [101:38] else's party. You just described [101:40] somebody else's party where you wait for [101:41] 3 hours. SCREW THAT. WHY would you even [101:44] have the sit down dinner portion? The [101:45] pastor derves is the best part. So just [101:47] do that. You can do it however you want. [101:50] Like if there's a core message to my [101:52] book and to my approach to relationships [101:54] is you get to do it however you want. [101:58] You know what almost all the people in [102:00] my office have in common? They all tried [102:02] to do it a particular way that somebody [102:04] told them that's how they're supposed to [102:06] do it and it didn't work and it's got a [102:09] terrible track record. Like like the way [102:11] that most people do it fails 56% of the [102:16] time. So do it different. YOU GOT PLENTY [102:18] of room to do it different. And the only [102:21] two people that are qualified to decide [102:24] how to do it really are the two of you [102:26] out of eight billion choices. You picked [102:28] each other. throw whatever party you [102:30] want to. If your friends love you, [102:33] they're going to love that party. AND [102:35] EVEN IF THEY DON'T LOVE IT, THEY'RE [102:36] gonna go like, you know what, that was [102:37] them. That was very them. You know, it's [102:40] great. And this is really what me and my [102:42] partner kind of decided on. We talked [102:44] about having like a wedding or whatever. [102:46] And I was like, you know what I'd love [102:47] to do? And this is really inspired by [102:48] seeing so many of my friends planning [102:50] their weddings and looking very [102:51] miserable in the process and having to [102:53] basically cut back on things they loved [102:55] in their life because they're saving. [102:57] They're saving for the wedding in two [102:58] years time. So, they can't go out on [103:00] Friday evening. They they're going to [103:01] have to cut back date night because [103:02] they've got this wedding in two years [103:03] time. [103:04] Great. Great start to a marriage. [103:05] And I and I just always think to myself, [103:07] why don't you take say if it's 100k, [103:09] let's say, that you're spending on the [103:11] wedding or if it's 10k, why don't you [103:12] just divide it in 10 and have 10 mini [103:15] parties, [103:16] right? [103:16] And invite lots of, you know, and then [103:17] you get all these memories [103:18] and you know the answer to that question [103:20] because who's that wedding for? It's not [103:22] for them. It's not for them. It's for [103:25] the audience. And the more this is this [103:27] is why we're driving a 100 miles an hour [103:30] towards a brick wall in our culture [103:32] because we are now doing it for the [103:35] audience. We're not doing it for us [103:37] anymore. And we have to live in our [103:39] skin. We have to live in our own lives. [103:41] We have to live in our own [103:42] relationships. So what we're doing for [103:44] the audience because it looks good for [103:46] the audience. Like this is why we've [103:48] become a culture with white teeth and [103:50] rotting gums because we don't actually [103:54] care what it is. is we care what it [103:56] looks like. That's why so many people [103:58] that three weeks ago were # blessed # [104:02] bestwife ever are in my office having a [104:04] consultation and are having an affair [104:06] and are have because underneath that [104:09] that air of and by the way how many [104:11] celebrities how many celebrities are [104:14] denying I have I have celebrity clients [104:16] who their their press releases their [104:19] interviews they're talking about how [104:20] happy they are. They're in my office. [104:22] were actively negotiating the [104:24] dissolution of their relationship. They [104:26] haven't lived together because they [104:28] lived in their separate homes on [104:29] separate coasts for the last year and a [104:31] half, but they show up for each other at [104:33] the red carpet and they do their thing [104:35] and then they part ways and don't talk [104:36] to each other. But why why are we [104:39] selling? Because we're selling a dream [104:40] to people. We're selling a dream. And [104:42] see what's interesting to me is I [104:44] actually think reality is prettier than [104:47] the dream. And so if why would you start [104:50] your relationship [104:52] with a a a an homage to fakeness or to [104:57] someone else's vision of things? Why not [104:59] start it with an authentic expression of [105:01] who you are to each other and how much [105:04] you mean to each other and like then the [105:06] paperwork, whatever. The paperwork's the [105:08] paperwork. [105:11] Do you have celebrity clients who are [105:14] literally in fake relationships? [105:16] Yeah, 100%. 100%. I have celebrity [105:18] clients that are in fake relationships. [105:20] I have celebrity clients that are in [105:23] financial arrangement fake [105:24] relationships. [105:25] I had this big conversation with my [105:26] friends the other day because you know [105:28] there's a couple of like big celebrity [105:30] names who've broken up um that we're [105:32] aware of and I went back through their [105:34] Instagram. [105:35] Oh yeah. [105:36] Just to see the way that they portrayed [105:37] their relation because whenever you see [105:39] a celebrity relationship it's like [105:41] perfect perfect over. [105:42] Yeah. [105:43] Well they do what I they do what I call [105:45] the Rosie O'Donnell, right? Because [105:47] Rosie O'Donnell [105:49] for years there were rumors that she was [105:51] a lesbian and she did this whole thing [105:53] about how she had a crush on Tom Cruz [105:55] and she's not a lesbian and she has a [105:56] crush on Tom Cruz and she's not a [105:58] lesbian and d and then finally one day [106:00] she's like of course I'm a lesbian. [106:01] Everyone knows I'm a lesbian. Everyone's [106:02] known that for years. And I felt like [106:04] it's like you just gas lit the whole [106:06] culture. Like and that's all celebrities [106:08] do is they just gaslight us about their [106:10] relationships. Like they they just do [106:11] the like oh we're so in love. We're so [106:13] all these vicious rumors started by [106:14] people that hate us. And meanwhile, [106:16] yeah, the whole thing's eroded. But see, [106:18] that's not a celebrity alone phenomenon. [106:21] Like, what's great about celebrities is [106:23] they have enough distance between them [106:25] that they can hide that because most of [106:28] them own a home in Miami, own a home in [106:30] LA, own a home in New York, and then [106:32] they have some place in Europe usually [106:34] or Italy. Like, they have enough room to [106:37] lose each other and to be okay with it [106:39] and just be like, "Yeah, we're living [106:40] our lives." They just have to be careful [106:42] about not being seen out with other [106:43] people. [106:45] I I always wonder if the public [106:48] portrayal of a perfect relationship [106:50] correlates to a bad one, if you know [106:52] what I mean. Like I think the people [106:53] that would sit on Valentine's Day, [106:56] sprinkle the rose petals, then they'd [106:58] get their puppy and their husband, and [107:00] then they'd say, "Right, can you take [107:01] that photo?" They're probably taking 20 [107:03] or 30 photos. For me, in my head, I go, [107:05] people that like publicly portray a [107:07] perfect relationship. Is it is that like [107:08] a a cloak of the insecurity or is it [107:12] I think so. I mean, I think that that [107:14] and again, this is a function largely of [107:16] social media, but I think there is um [107:20] but we all sort of it works and that's [107:22] why I I think people keep doing it, [107:24] right? Is like it's there's a bad reward [107:26] system at play here. But like I I so I [107:29] live in Manhattan and I live um right [107:33] near and my office is right near the [107:35] vessel and the vessel is this amazing [107:37] beautiful sculpture in in Manhattan in [107:39] uh in in the West Chelsea and my office [107:41] actually overlooks the vessel. It's [107:43] beautiful in the Hudson Yards area. And [107:45] so people, tourists from all over come [107:47] to take a picture by the vessel. [107:49] And so every time I'm walking to and [107:51] from the office, I pass the vessel. And [107:54] I there are always at least a hundred [107:56] people taking pictures by the vessel. [107:58] And I find it absolutely hilarious [108:02] because one of the things you see all [108:03] the time, and it's usually women, but [108:06] men sometimes are guilty of it, is the [108:09] photo of the person pretending that [108:12] they're not having their photo taken. [108:13] So, it's like they're just sort of [108:15] standing there like this or like they [108:17] look over this way and their friend is [108:18] taking the picture from over here. And I [108:20] think to myself, when you post that, [108:23] yeah, [108:24] what are who took that picture? Or is it [108:26] are we to believe that the paparazzi [108:28] were following you? Like you're you're [108:30] just a regular person like there's like [108:32] so clearly you set this up. But here's [108:34] the thing like the thing about us as [108:36] humans is I don't know that we look at [108:38] that photo and go what is what is that? [108:41] Like I mean look at like high we just [108:44] like look at high fashion photos in like [108:46] any magazine Vogue L things like that. [108:49] Look at the position of people's bodies [108:52] like oh that seriously pause this [108:54] whatever you're doing and look do that [108:56] like [108:57] then pause it [108:58] bizarre no one sits you know again [109:00] visually looks good I get it maybe it [109:03] makes the clothes look a certain way no [109:05] one sits like that [109:06] so the thing of like the rose petals and [109:09] the [109:10] like who does that really if they're [109:12] doing it are they doing it because they [109:14] think that's what you're supposed to do [109:15] cuz they saw it right all those rose [109:18] petals All those performative, we're [109:20] madly in love. Look at how in love we [109:21] are. Look guys, quick. Look at how love [109:23] look at how in love we are. It's shower [109:25] sex. It's It looks good, but all you're [109:28] really doing is just putting on a show. [109:30] And that show leads you right to my [109:32] office. [109:32] And the reason we like the show is [109:34] because we want to believe in the fairy [109:36] tale. We because if we see it in my [109:38] favorite celebrity couple, then it [109:40] almost keeps the hope alive. For me, it [109:43] it's it's the the antidote for the [109:46] statistics around divorce. It's the [109:48] antidote for the heartbreak I saw in my [109:50] home. It's the antidote for the misery I [109:52] see around me. Is look, [109:53] fairy tales exist just like Disney. And [109:56] that's why we want it. [109:57] I get that. And I think I understand why [110:00] we do that. But I think it's also like [110:03] pornography. [110:04] It's an it's a I don't want to say an [110:07] idealized version. It's a stylized [110:09] version of something people actually are [110:12] doing. But if you start to to think your [110:16] sex life is inferior because it doesn't [110:20] look like pornography, [110:22] you're you're modeling it against [110:24] something that's very unnatural and not [110:26] real and that is not indicative of what [110:29] actual sex looks like or feels like or [110:32] or how it works logistically or how [110:35] bodies work logistically. So you're [110:38] you're we're we're getting educated the [110:40] wrong ways. And it's again not to tie [110:43] you know go from like marriage to sex to [110:44] death but it's the same problem I had in [110:47] my master's thesis. It really was like [110:49] we convince what we always we shield [110:52] people from death. We hide it from [110:55] people. Like if someone if I said my [110:58] grandmother's dying I want to take my [110:59] kids to sea. You'd be like what kind of [111:02] sick bastard are you? Like if you said [111:04] oh I'm I'm going to walk around the [111:06] graveyard or I'm You don't talk about [111:08] death. You don't talk about these. Why? [111:11] Why? If these are things that are [111:13] important, if these are milestone things [111:15] in our lives, not talking about it is [111:18] not going to prevent it from happening. [111:20] So, why not talk about honestly like [111:23] what's really going on? Like I have to [111:24] tell you, you ever, you know, again, the [111:26] antidote to some of this stuff is to say [111:28] like, "Who took that picture? That's [111:29] weird." Like you didn't know they were [111:31] taking it. Oh, cuz you were looking in [111:32] the other direction. Like, why not just [111:34] start saying like, "Yeah, I'm not going [111:35] to be full of shit." I remember many [111:38] years ago. I remember like waking up in [111:40] New York City and my ex-girlfriend from [111:42] many years ago was like pissed off at me [111:45] because it was Valentine's Day and I [111:47] hadn't text her and like um told said [111:50] happy birthday to her, but I was in New [111:51] York so I was in a different time zone. [111:52] So it was 6:00 a.m. where I was where I [111:53] was. I hadn't even woken up yet. and [111:55] she'd sent me a screenshot of another [111:58] couple who were like with the with the, [112:00] you know, the rose petals and the roses [112:02] and stuff and she was infuriating [112:04] herself [112:06] based on an Instagram post she'd seen of [112:08] another couple and I was being attacked [112:10] because I wasn't meeting that standard. [112:12] Yeah. And this is why I I think we are [112:14] living in a moment where there is more [112:16] comparison than ever. [112:18] You must see that in your office, right? [112:19] I see it in my office constantly. I see [112:21] it in life constantly. But it's not [112:23] just, by the way, it's not just in the [112:25] relationship thing, though. Cuz of [112:28] course, people post their greatest hits. [112:29] People are constantly flaunting their [112:31] relationship and showing everyone their [112:33] relationship. But it's not even just [112:35] your relationship with your significant [112:36] other. It's your relationship with [112:38] yourself. If I see one more person [112:40] posting their workout routine, their [112:42] their sauna and cold plunge, the diet [112:44] routine of the, you know, their [112:46] hashtagbeast mode. If I see one more [112:48] person posting how their parenting [112:50] routine and the wonderful intricate [112:52] snacks that they make for their [112:53] children, like all day long there is an [112:56] idealized stylized version of every [112:58] single aspect of our life that is so [113:00] much better than the gag reel that we're [113:02] living. [113:04] and we're watching it and we're [113:06] comparing ourselves to it and our [113:08] partner to it and we're going, "How come [113:10] my partner doesn't look like that? They [113:12] don't look like that." Like all these [113:14] videos of the person like getting up in [113:16] THE MORNING, WHO SET up the camera? Did [113:18] someone set up a camera? Like, and and I [113:20] really feel sometimes like I'm the crazy [113:24] person going, "Guys, do you not see [113:27] this? Like, do you not see this? Do you [113:28] not see that this is what's making you [113:30] unhappy? You're unhappy with yourself. [113:33] You're unhappy with your partner. You're [113:34] unhappy with your relationship with your [113:36] partner because you're comparing it to [113:37] fiction. And and and because it's on [113:40] your phone instead of on the movie [113:43] screen, you think it's real. Sometimes [113:46] comparison can wake us up to things that [113:48] we needed to know, though. And I think [113:49] your the story of you going to the theme [113:52] park that day, which I was reading [113:53] about, and seeing that couple who [113:56] were pretty idyllic [113:58] Yeah. [113:58] highlighted to you that maybe this [114:00] wasn't the right. They just had their [114:01] 20th wedding anniversary last week. [114:03] Yeah. Yeah. [114:04] What happened? So, you were at a theme [114:05] park with them. [114:06] So, I was with my ex-wife and our young [114:09] kids, and these were college friends of [114:12] ours because we were college [114:13] sweethearts, my ex-wife and I. And we [114:16] were at a theme park with them, with our [114:18] all young kids. And, you know, my [114:22] ex-wife's a lovely person. I think she'd [114:24] say nice things about me, too. I'm a [114:26] nice place to visit, but you wouldn't [114:27] want to live there. Um, I think she'd [114:29] tell you I'm a spectacular ex-husband. [114:30] and have have leave a lot to be desired [114:33] as a husband. Probably fair comment. And [114:35] I would say that, you know, there's a [114:37] lot of people I love that I wouldn't [114:38] want to be married to, and she's one of [114:39] them. Um, she's very happily remarried [114:41] for a long time to a great guy. And we [114:43] were at this theme park with them, and [114:45] they'd been married for roughly the same [114:47] number of years that we were at the [114:48] time. And I remember the kids wanted to [114:51] go on some ride, and it was like the [114:53] permutations of seating. It was like [114:55] three and three. And they had two kids. [114:56] So, we were like, "Okay, I'll sit with [114:58] these two kids. You sit with these two [115:00] kids." and they said, "Great. We're [115:02] going to just hold hands and go for a [115:03] walk." [115:05] And they like held hands and they [115:07] started walking away. And I remember [115:09] looking at them and thinking, "Well, [115:11] they really like each other." Like, like [115:14] they really like each other. And I [115:16] remember thinking like, I don't feel [115:18] that way about her. Like, I love her, [115:21] but I don't feel that way about her. And [115:24] it just it wasn't like, and then I went [115:26] home and we got divorced. we together [115:28] for some more time. But I remember when [115:31] we decided to divorce, [115:35] we had some very honest conversations [115:36] with each other about the marriage and [115:38] about when we'd felt, you know, we were [115:40] very good at postgaming it because we [115:41] stayed friends. [115:43] And I said to her, you know, I remember [115:45] this moment when we were at the theme [115:47] park with and and she goes, "Oh my god, [115:50] I remember that exact same moment." And [115:52] I said, "Yeah." And I thought like they [115:54] went off and were holding hands and I [115:55] remember thinking like I don't love her [115:58] like that. And she was like, "Jim, I'm [116:00] not making this up. I thought the exact [116:01] same thing." She's like, "I remember [116:03] seeing it and thinking like, yeah, like [116:05] I don't like if they took our kids on [116:07] this ride, we wouldn't be holding hands [116:09] walking through the park." And [116:12] why? [116:13] We just didn't have that between us. [116:15] What is that? [116:16] I don't know. That's magic. I don't [116:18] know. That thing. That thing. that magic [116:20] part that nobody can really explain. I [116:23] don't know. It's the thing. It's the [116:24] reason why I've never been homophobic [116:26] because I I happen to be heterosexual, [116:29] but I couldn't explain why. Like, I [116:31] don't know if it's a combination of [116:32] biology, cultural pressure. I have no [116:34] idea. I just know what sparks something [116:37] in me is what sparks something in me. [116:39] And I don't think I have a right to say [116:41] to another adult who has those feelings [116:43] about another adult that they have that [116:45] they're wrong and I'm right or [116:46] something. I I genuinely just feel like [116:48] I don't know there's something magical [116:49] about love. I mean there's something [116:50] magical about romantic attraction and [116:53] the feeling of like deep connection to [116:55] each other. I mean I've known th that [116:57] couple now for the entire 28 years or [117:00] that they've been married and they are [117:03] legit super into each other but they are [117:06] the least performative people you'd ever [117:08] meet. They're very they're very focused [117:11] on each other. Like they really like [117:13] each other. like he [117:15] she refers to him as her boyfriend. [117:18] They've been married for 28 years. They [117:19] have two kids that are like adults now. [117:21] And they she'll be like, "Oh, well, my [117:23] boyfriend's coming home next week from, [117:25] you know, work trip." And and like she [117:26] means her husband, but like she refers [117:28] to him as that. And like he refers to [117:31] her as my girl. Like he's like, "Yeah, [117:33] well my girl and I were going to go do [117:34] this." And I'm always like, "Dude, like [117:36] how are 28 years of marriage and that's [117:38] how you guys feel about each other?" [117:39] Like, and it's legit. It's not like a [117:41] thing. It's like legit. I don't know. If [117:44] I knew that, man, I'd find a way to tell [117:46] people to do it and bottle it. Like, I [117:48] don't know. I'll tell you what it is. [117:49] It's beautiful. It's beautiful. It's fun [117:52] to even be around. Like, it's fun to be [117:54] It when you're not in a challenging [117:57] marriage, being around that is like the [118:00] warmest, most wonderful place. It's not [118:02] surprising to me that their their two [118:04] sons are like two of the most amazing [118:06] young men I've ever met. [118:08] How do they argue? [118:09] I think they I've never watched them [118:11] argue, I imagine. And so I imagine one [118:12] answer would be privately. [118:14] But um [118:16] from what I understand because I have [118:18] tried to reverse engineer a little bit [118:20] with them like what is it? Because I've [118:22] talked about them enough in media now [118:23] that they know I'm like I always text [118:24] them like hey I talked about you. Um and [118:27] when the the the book they were like oh [118:28] you know I was like hey pa whatever you [118:30] know and they they thought it was quite [118:31] funny. I I think they play fair like [118:35] they um I don't know they never lost the [118:37] plot. They seem to really [118:40] they I hope this comes out the right [118:42] way. They love their sons. They really [118:45] love their sons. They're two amazing [118:46] parents, but it seems to me like they [118:49] both they view each other as the most [118:51] important thing. And she's always [118:53] looking out for his happiness and he's [118:55] always looking out for hers. And it's an [118:57] equal measure. Like I think she is very [119:00] focused on him and what will make him [119:03] happy and he's very focused on her and [119:06] what will make her happy and they both [119:09] take tremendous joy in each other's joy [119:12] and I think they both feel and they have [119:14] I will say they have been through some [119:17] things like she had metastatic breast [119:19] cancer at one point she had all kinds of [119:22] and they they weathered that storm they [119:24] weathered that storm with grace humor [119:27] and even deeper connection. And I again [119:30] I I I don't know if it's partly luck [119:33] that they like just hit the lottery with [119:35] each other, but I I think some of it is [119:38] just that they they pay attention like [119:41] it's important to them. [119:43] You're in a relationship, but you're not [119:45] married anymore. You were married [119:46] previously. [119:47] Will you ever get married again? [119:49] I've said before that I don't think [119:51] marriage is important to me. I I don't [119:56] marriage from where I'm sitting is a [120:00] contract that was written by the state [120:03] that is supposed to define [120:06] in some general way what this [120:09] relationship is and create a set of [120:10] rules that govern it. And if you do a [120:12] prenup, you can change that set of [120:15] rules, but you're still saying, you [120:18] know, I really want to get the [120:19] government involved in this situation. I [120:21] I have no part of me that in my [120:25] relationship goes, "We really need to [120:27] get the government involved in this." I [120:30] just don't. That's just not in me. And I [120:32] And it's not only not in me, it's just [120:35] seems absurd to me. [120:37] Marriage seems absurd. [120:41] To me, mar I understand why people get [120:44] married. I think I understand it better [120:46] than most people, but I it just to me [120:49] doesn't make any sense. Why do they get [120:51] married? [120:53] I think we need a lot more time. I think [120:55] it's cultural pressure. Okay. [120:56] I think it's performative. [120:58] I think it's because we live in a [121:00] society, if not a world, that presumes [121:04] marriage is a good idea. I think that [121:06] that is tied to medieval institutions. [121:10] It's tied to things that are way before [121:13] us. And it's tied to partly land [121:16] ownership. It's partly tied to religious [121:18] concepts. It's partly, you know, what [121:19] Freud talks about in civilization. It's [121:21] discontents. It's so we're not all [121:23] killing each other over mates. It's [121:25] it's, you know, we've structured society [121:27] around this idea of turning pair bonds, [121:29] which by the way is a very healthy [121:32] permutation with which to raise [121:34] children. And it's very it's fits our [121:36] biology quite nicely, you know, in terms [121:39] of the amount of time that a child's in [121:41] gestation versus, you know, but I I I [121:44] think we've just we're just like running [121:46] a program that it was here before us and [121:50] that we've been taught is how it's [121:52] supposed to be. This is what you do. [121:54] Like again, ask the question, [121:57] you think it's a bad idea, don't you? [121:58] Getting married. [121:59] Yeah. [122:00] I think it's an incredibly bad idea. I [122:01] think it's an incredibly dangerous idea. [122:03] I I don't think it's a bad idea. I think [122:05] it's a dangerous idea. There's a [122:07] difference between those two things. [122:07] Like skydiving is a dangerous idea. I'm [122:09] not saying it's a bad idea, but it's a [122:11] dangerous idea. It It depends on how [122:13] much joy you place on that thing, right? [122:16] Like for me, the joy of jumping out of a [122:18] plane as compared to the danger of [122:20] jumping out of a plane precludes me from [122:22] jumping out of planes. Maybe I'm missing [122:24] out on something. That's okay. I'll live [122:26] with it. There's lots of cool stuff to [122:27] do. I haven't gotten bored yet. Marriage [122:30] is kind of the same thing. Like I think [122:32] marriage is again like because turn [122:36] around the question which is we know [122:41] facts facts marriage is overwhelmingly [122:44] unsuccessful. [122:46] It is way more dangerous than skydiving. [122:49] Yes you die from the skydiving but the [122:51] chances of a catastrophic skydiving [122:53] incident is like 0.00003 [122:56] and a one where you die is 0.00001. [123:00] It's like very limited the chances of [123:02] dying from skydiving. Whereas the [123:04] chances of divorce again 56% divorce [123:07] rate. How many stay together who are [123:09] unhappy and they just stay together [123:10] because they don't give up half their [123:11] stuff or for religious reasons or [123:13] whatever. This is a technology with an [123:15] unbelievably bad failure rate. [123:17] And more people die from marriage or [123:19] skydiving. [123:19] Well, I think more people wish they were [123:21] dead from marriage than star skydiving. [123:23] I think most people's sense of self, [123:25] many people's sense of self dies as part [123:27] of an unhappy marriage. Like it's not a [123:29] question of will you die. It's that [123:32] you're alive and not living your life in [123:34] a way that's enjoyable or in a way [123:36] that's authentic to who you are. And I [123:38] think a lot of people are doing that as [123:40] a function of the choice that they made [123:41] of marriage. And again, I'm not saying [123:43] don't get married. But what I'm saying [123:46] is when someone says, "I'm getting [123:48] married." Why is it impolite to say why? [123:53] Why? You're about to do something [123:56] incredibly dangerous that fails so much [123:59] of the time. Why not just say why? I'd [124:02] like to I'm not saying why would you do [124:04] that? It's stupid. I'm saying why? Cuz [124:07] most people's answer doesn't make any [124:09] sense. [124:11] Well, because you know I don't want to [124:13] be alone. Wait, you have to get married [124:16] to not be alone? Join a church group. I [124:18] don't know. Join a baking squad. Join a [124:20] softball team. You won't be alone. What [124:22] does that mean? Well, I want to have, [124:24] you know, regular sex. Okay. I don't [124:27] know that getting married is the [124:28] solution to that. Like, it's not a [124:30] guarantee of regular sex. Like, that's [124:32] not, you know, so if if the question, [124:34] first of all, you're not even allowed to [124:36] ask the question why. If anything, if [124:39] you don't say, "Oh my god, that's so [124:40] great. You have intimacy issues." [124:43] People say for the kids, you know, it's [124:44] good for the kids. And [124:45] which kids? The kids you've already had [124:47] or the kids you're going to have. You're [124:48] saying, "We're getting married so that [124:49] we can." And by the way, again, okay, [124:52] you're saying society it's good for I [124:54] mean, I think what you're saying is it's [124:56] good for a a mother and a father in a [124:59] household with children together, right? [125:01] So, the polarity of male and female, [125:03] again, I I know a lot of samesex couples [125:05] that have raised very successful, happy [125:06] children. So, maybe you're saying a two [125:08] parent family is a good thing, that it [125:09] doesn't have to be male and female, [125:11] whatever. Okay, that's all true. What [125:12] does a marriage license have to do with [125:14] that? What does the government getting [125:15] involved have to do with that? [125:16] It gives me security. [125:17] What What's security? Security. You're [125:19] saying something that fails 56% of the [125:21] time makes you feel like you get [125:22] security. That's a really weird sense of [125:24] security. If I said to you, "I've got an [125:26] airbag in my car that doesn't deploy 70% [125:29] of the time." Would you drive around [125:30] feeling safe? Or would you go like, [125:32] "This is a lottery I don't want to [125:34] participate in. I'm just going to strap [125:36] myself in and do something else cuz I'm [125:38] not going to rely on this 30% airbag." [125:43] You wouldn't have a job. [125:44] Well, that's that's main reason. I don't [125:46] know. I mean, listen, I I've been saying [125:49] for years that I think I have tremendous [125:51] job security, and it makes me very happy [125:54] on one level, and it makes me very sad [125:55] at another level, that I have such job [125:57] security. I think I think I don't think [126:00] we're getting better at this. I think [126:02] we're getting worse at it. And I I don't [126:04] think by the time I retire, which isn't [126:06] that far away, like I I I don't think [126:09] we're going to get so good at it that [126:11] I'm going to be out of a job. [126:12] As an entrepreneur, I'm always looking [126:14] for ways to connect and to create. And [126:16] that's why I decided to launch the [126:18] conversation cards. I turned to Shopify [126:20] who also sponsored this podcast. And [126:22] Shopify made it so easy to set up an [126:25] online store and reach all of you no [126:27] matter where you are in the world. I [126:29] remember the challenges we faced when we [126:31] first launched the DEO conversation [126:32] cards, managing inventory, ensuring a [126:34] seamless checkout process, and reaching [126:36] our audience. Shopify stepped in and [126:38] made everything so straightforward and [126:40] efficient. It was like having an entire [126:42] team of experts by our side, allowing us [126:45] to focus on creating content and [126:46] connecting with you. What I love about [126:48] Shopify is no matter how big you intend [126:50] to grow your business, they give you [126:51] everything you need to take control and [126:54] take your business to the next level. [126:55] And to say thank you for listening to [126:57] this podcast, we're giving you a trial, [126:58] which is just $1 a month, and you can [127:00] sign up by going to shopify.com/bartlet. [127:04] The link is in the description below. [127:06] More and more people are getting [127:07] prenups. said to me that a lot of people [127:08] contact you these days asking for you to [127:10] help with prenups. One of the [127:12] interesting things we were talking about [127:13] before we started filming was [127:14] it's really uncomfortable to turn to [127:16] your partner and ask them for prenup. [127:18] I know a lot of people say that and I [127:21] think it's a question of how you enter [127:22] the conversation again. like, you know, [127:24] I I guess cuz I get paid to talk and I'm [127:27] used to talking sometimes about [127:28] difficult things with a judge or or [127:30] revealing, you know, things that are [127:32] hard to reveal about someone and trying [127:34] to make sure that they're not viewed [127:35] negatively even though they might have [127:37] behaved negatively. So, I think prenup, [127:39] it's all about how you bring up the [127:40] conversation and and my preferred entry [127:44] point for a prenup when I talk to [127:45] someone is every single person who gets [127:47] married has a prenup. [127:49] It's either written by the government or [127:51] it's written by the two people who love [127:53] each other more than the other 8 billion [127:54] people in the world. I personally think [127:58] that the two people in a marriage are [128:01] better qualified to create the rule set [128:03] of their marriage than politicians they [128:06] don't know. Especially when you consider [128:08] the nature of politicians. They won a [128:11] popularity contest. They managed to [128:13] offend as few people as possible and [128:16] they change constantly. So, you're [128:19] signing up for the most legally [128:21] significant thing you're ever going to [128:23] do other than die [128:25] with a rule set that no one ever [128:28] explains to you in advance and that can [128:30] be changed [128:32] by by people who don't know you based on [128:36] who won a popularity contest. Okay, that [128:39] seems smart to you. or or do the two of [128:43] you decide what the rules are going to [128:45] be and then starting from the beginning [128:49] which is where you are if you're doing a [128:50] prenup because you're about to get [128:51] married. Okay, then you live your life [128:54] in accordance with that rule set [128:56] together and when one of you is [128:57] deviating from it or when a red flag [128:59] goes up like you go, "Hey, how come [129:01] you're doing it that way? Remember we [129:02] have that rule set." And so I I like [129:04] that. I think prenups I think prenups [129:06] even having a conversation about a [129:09] prenup I think is a very healthy [129:12] exercise for a couple. I cannot tell you [129:15] how many people since our first [129:17] conversation have stopped me on the [129:19] streets of New York City and said, "I [129:22] got into the coolest conversation with [129:24] my girlfriend about prenups and marriage [129:26] after I saw you and Stephen talking." [129:28] I've had I've had probably like two [129:31] people a week say that to me. It's it's [129:33] a very I always say to these people I'm [129:35] like you do weird stuff in bed. Like [129:37] you're watching Diary of a CEO in bed. [129:39] It's like [129:40] it's you know there's other stuff like [129:42] I'm not great on the shower thing but in [129:44] bed you don't you know it's I like [129:46] Stephen too but that's not the time. [129:47] Maybe it is. [129:48] But they I guess it is. Anytime's a good [129:50] time. [129:50] Please don't. [129:50] But they know I'm not trying to hurt [129:52] your [129:53] I know you broke 7 million. I don't want [129:54] to screw it up. But I I I I do think [129:57] that there is um there is something to [130:01] this conversation. And I do think [130:02] sometimes like, you know, look, you're [130:04] you're in a relationship, you've had a [130:05] hard conversation with your partner. [130:07] Yeah. [130:08] And when you're in it, [130:10] it's not fun and you kind of go like, [130:12] how are we ever going to get out of [130:13] this? Is this how it's going to be now? [130:14] Like we're just we have this feeling and [130:16] it's like awkward and it's weird. And [130:18] then you make it through it. And then [130:20] the next morning you wake up and maybe [130:22] things are still a little weird or [130:23] something, but like oh yeah. And then [130:25] like I like to believe that then there's [130:28] this feeling of like, oh, hey, we did [130:29] that thing. Like that thing was a little [130:31] weird. It was a little hard. We lost the [130:32] plot, but then we got it back and we're [130:34] still here. [130:34] Look at us. [130:35] Yeah. Look at us. Like, yay, go us. You [130:37] know, [130:38] I think there's real value in that. I [130:40] think that again, the hard thing to do [130:42] and the right thing to do are usually [130:43] the same thing. It's hard to talk about [130:47] when this ends. It's actually the thing [130:49] I'm proud of most in my relationship is [130:51] exactly what you just described there. [130:52] I'm not proud of our relationship being [130:55] perfect because it's not. I'm proud of [130:57] how imperfect it is and how we [130:59] continually resolve the conflict with [131:01] without coming out the other side [131:02] resenting each other. We come out the [131:04] other side proud of each other. We're [131:05] like, you know that meme where I think [131:07] it was the Hot Ones meme where they're [131:08] like, "Look at us. Who would have [131:09] thought?" [131:09] And that's like the thing that my [131:11] girlfriend turns to me and says [131:12] continually is, "I'm so proud [131:14] of [131:16] how much we've got through [131:18] because she she refers to it like the [131:20] roots have got even longer." And going [131:23] back to your conversation about prenups, [131:24] it reminds me of what we were talking [131:25] about before we started recording. This [131:27] idea that people don't want to confront [131:28] it because you tried to get a stand at a [131:31] wedding convention as a divorce lawyer. [131:33] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I So I want [131:36] to say one thing about what you said [131:38] before that because I I your verbiage is [131:40] very interesting to me because you said, [131:42] you know, in my relationship, you know, [131:44] we're not it's not perfect, but I'm [131:46] proud of X, Y, and Z. And I have to tell [131:48] you, like I I don't know, that sounds [131:50] pretty perfect. Like I think that things [131:53] are imperfect like and that's that's [131:56] perfect. Like I there's no such thing as [131:59] a perfect relationship like that ever. [132:02] And that's perfect. Like it's perfect. [132:03] Like it I I genuinely believe we're [132:06] perfect. Like I think we're all flawed [132:09] and we're perfect like because we're [132:11] authentic. We're real. So So I I I think [132:13] that's a really important if people if [132:17] perfection is the standard we will all [132:19] fall short. I think the reality is that [132:22] we are all perfectly imperfect. And [132:24] that's really beautiful. [132:25] But yes, the the the wedding so so in in [132:28] in the United States, I don't know in [132:30] the UK, but in the United States, we [132:31] have these things. They're called [132:32] wedding bizaars or wedding expos or [132:34] wedding fairs. And it somebody came up [132:36] with this and it's a brilliant business [132:38] move, which is you rent a gigantic hall [132:40] or a small hall depending on where some [132:42] of them are done at like giant [132:43] convention centers. And you know, people [132:46] who are associated with the wedding [132:48] industrial complex, you know, they pay [132:51] to have a booth. So there's [132:53] photographers, there's bakers, there's [132:55] and and you know, every table has like [132:58] something. The photographers have [132:59] different pictures. The cake people [133:01] might have like little samples of cake. [133:03] You know, there's all the little grab [133:05] bags and things that people give out as [133:06] wedding gifts. There's, you know, uh [133:08] different uh travel things related to [133:10] your honeymoon and where you might go. [133:12] There's different web websites for, you [133:14] know, your registry. Like, there's so [133:16] many wedding related, wedding adjacent [133:19] businesses. This is a multi-billion [133:22] dollar industry. So, I reached out to [133:25] like four or five different smaller and [133:29] bigger wedding expos. And I said in [133:31] summon substance, I'd like to get a [133:34] table. And they said, great, [133:35] photographer, baker. What do you do? And [133:37] I said, "Well, I'm a lawyer and I I do [133:39] divorce and family law, but it's just [133:41] going to be themed around prenups. It's [133:44] not going to be in any way negative [133:46] about marriage. It's going to be, you [133:48] know, just a congratulations on your [133:49] engagement. Have you talked about a [133:51] prenup?" And then I'll have brochures [133:53] and things and you can, you know, make [133:55] sure that they pass muster, that I don't [133:57] say anything that would be offensive to [133:58] anyone. I don't want anyone to be [133:59] uncomfortable, any other vendors to be [134:01] uncomfortable. But there's literally [134:02] hundreds of vendors at this thing. So [134:04] there's no reason [134:06] Not one wedding expo would rent a table [134:10] to me. They refused my money. They would [134:13] not take it. They would not take it. No [134:15] matter how flowery I said I'd make the [134:18] language, no matter how respectful to [134:20] the institution of marriage I said I [134:21] would be, they would not let me buy a [134:25] table. They wouldn't take my money. And [134:27] those tables are not cheap. It's [134:29] thousands of dollars to get a table at [134:30] Wedding Expo. They would not take my [134:32] money. Even though almost 60% of people [134:34] end in divorce and it's like a almost an [134:37] inevitability, the probability is [134:39] yeah, [134:39] there's going to be a conversation about [134:41] how we separate. [134:42] As I've said before, every single [134:44] marriage ends. It ends in death or [134:45] divorce. The majority of them end in [134:47] divorce. The majority of them end in [134:50] divorce. Why wouldn't you allow me to [134:52] have a table that just says [134:55] if you'd like to have a prenup here? I'm [134:57] not even trying to sell a prenup on you [134:59] like you're getting engaged. You need a [135:01] prenup. It's just have you talked about [135:03] a prenup and information about that pre? [135:06] They would not even let me in the room [135:07] and I because because it shatters the [135:10] illusion. It's reality. They don't like [135:13] reality. They don't see reality [135:16] as what it is. Which I think, by the [135:17] way, is quite romantic. I think there's [135:19] something very nice about talking to [135:22] your partner about, you know what, I'm [135:24] afraid of losing you. [135:27] I don't want to lose you to death, even [135:29] though I know someday I have to. But I [135:31] don't want to lose you to divorce [135:33] either. But man, almost 60% of marriages [135:36] end in divorce. And if we got divorced, [135:38] like what would we be? Like I hope we [135:41] wouldn't hate each other. Like I hope [135:42] I'd still love you and care about you or [135:44] I'd still want you to be well. Even if [135:46] you left me, I wouldn't hate you. Like I [135:49] don't have one exgirlfriend [135:51] that I go, "Man, I hate that person." [135:53] Like, I wish all of them joy. I hope [135:55] they're all happy. like our our chapter [135:58] together ended, but I wish all of them [136:00] joy. [136:01] People don't like to go into things [136:03] without optimism, though. And the the [136:06] conversation around should we get a [136:08] prenup almost sounds like I think we're [136:10] going to break up someday. [136:12] I think you can hear it that way, but I [136:14] don't think it has to be that. I agree [136:16] with you about the optimism. I think [136:17] people would prefer to look at the [136:19] bright side of things and to be [136:20] optimistic. And I am not suggesting like [136:24] I don't believe in fairy tales. I'm a [136:27] realist. That doesn't mean I get up [136:29] every day just thinking about nothing [136:31] but death and divorce and how miss like [136:32] that's not life is beautiful and life's [136:34] meant to be lived and like what you [136:36] don't want to sit like I'm not going to [136:37] sit at a wedding and be like do you know [136:39] how many percentage of this people are [136:41] going to get divor. I don't view it that [136:42] way. I think it's wonderful. [136:44] But be realistic about things. Like I I [136:48] don't want to get ill, but I have a [136:50] physical every year. I go to the doctor [136:52] every year. Like I like to know what's [136:54] going on. I like to be a realist. I like [136:55] to I don't plan on crashing my car, but [136:58] I like knowing that I have a seat belt [137:00] and an airbag. And by the way, if my [137:03] seat at my my seat belt and airbag [137:06] aren't working, I would like to know in [137:08] advance because I'm driving as if [137:11] they're going to work. If you told me, [137:12] "By the way, Jim, your seatelt and your [137:14] airbag aren't working." I would drive [137:16] very, very, very carefully, right? So, I [137:20] think it's the same thing. Like, just we [137:22] can't have an honest conversation and be [137:24] optimistic. Divorce in the US is very [137:27] different from divorce in the UK. And I [137:29] I actually learned, well, I think it is. [137:30] I learned this from watching [137:33] several things, but one video comes to [137:34] mind from a couple of weeks ago. You'll [137:36] know the case. There's a black actor who [137:38] is currently posting a lot on his social [137:40] media about how his wife is like chasing [137:42] him down for child support. [137:43] Oh yes. Yes. I don't remember his name. [137:45] I'm bad at celebrity names [137:47] unless I represent them. [137:48] But yes, I know who he is. [137:49] And he was he said on a couple of shows, [137:51] but he went on his Instagram and said [137:52] like my wife who I've broken up with who [137:54] like basically doesn't really have a job [137:56] at the moment or is making some money [137:57] from some some Instagram work. Yeah. is [138:00] she's got this like pack of lawyers who [138:02] email me [138:03] and demand to see my bank statements [138:06] because [138:07] I've been doing well lately. I've got a [138:08] couple of new movies and stuff and she [138:10] wants to make sure she gets more money [138:12] for me and the kids based on his [138:14] success. And I never realized it was [138:16] like that. I never realized that. [138:17] Oh yeah. Oh yeah. It's modifiable. It's [138:19] modifiable. Child support, for example, [138:21] is modifiable every 3 years when there's [138:23] a 30% change in income up or down. So, [138:26] if I have a wife and then we have four [138:29] kids and then I break up with her [138:31] and when I break up with her I'm making [138:32] a million dollars a year [138:33] and then I'm making $100 million a year. [138:36] What [138:37] goes up? Child support goes up [138:38] to like what what what are the numbers? [138:40] What [138:40] depends on the percentages in in New [138:41] York? One child is 17%, two is 25, three [138:44] is 29, and four is 31% of your gross [138:47] income [138:48] of my gross income. [138:49] Gross income less FICA 00765 social [138:52] security Medicare. If my gross income is [138:53] a hund00 million. [138:55] So theoretically there are caps on the [138:58] combined parental income [139:00] everywhere. [139:01] Yes, pretty much. But judges have a [139:04] tremendous amount of discretion based on [139:06] a variety of factors including [139:09] things like what was the lifestyle of [139:12] the children during the marriage? What [139:14] are the reasonable needs of the [139:15] children? Like celebrity divorces. I [139:17] will tell you [139:19] there are some legitimate separate needs [139:21] that celebrities, the children of [139:23] celebrities need. Like they, you know, [139:26] security for example. [139:27] What's the biggest child support [139:29] payments you've ever heard of? [139:31] Well, I mean, Diddy had I think it was [139:33] $20,000 a month for a period of time. [139:36] Um, he's kind of a well-known one and it [139:37] was very well publicized. The most I've [139:40] ever had in a case is I had a client who [139:43] got $65,000 a month in child support. [139:46] But it it covered a lot of things. It [139:49] covered a portion of private school [139:52] tuition. It covered a security detail. [139:54] It covered, you know, these were very [139:56] very high net worth, you know, public [139:58] figures. [139:58] What kid needs $65,000 a month? [140:01] Well, the kid doesn't get the money. The [140:02] parent who has primary physical custody [140:04] gets the money [140:04] and they can do with it whatever they [140:05] want. They so they could go spend it in [140:07] Vegas. [140:08] Correct. [140:08] That's that's not fair. You should have [140:09] to provide receipts. Well, what I've [140:11] always said is I mean, first of all, the [140:14] system's complicated enough without [140:15] people having to provide receipts to [140:17] check the math of a person and what [140:18] they're spending the child support on. [140:20] Like, it's already overwhelmed enough [140:21] and it's already difficult enough. Like, [140:23] listen, what you're proposing would [140:25] create a lot of additional work for me, [140:27] so I appreciate it, but it it is from my [140:30] perspective, it is a um it is a [140:33] potentially very dangerous thing. What I [140:36] always tell people is getting married [140:40] without a prenup is a fairly risky [140:43] activity. Having a child with someone [140:48] is a is the most risky activity in [140:51] relationships in terms of of the amount [140:54] of emotional and financial damage a [140:57] person can do to you. Have a kid with [140:58] them. Having a kid with somebody, they [141:01] can weaponize that child. They can [141:02] alienate that child. they can use that [141:05] child's needs to piggy back onto [141:07] financial needs. There's there's so much [141:09] stuff a person can do to torture you if [141:11] they have a kid with you. And there's so [141:13] much legal wrangling and rambling to to [141:16] do. And what I'll tell you is it it [141:20] you know I've had CL I have a client who [141:23] spent somewhere in the realm of $100,000 [141:26] in legal fees arguing over whether [141:28] Thanksgiving should begin on Wednesday [141:30] and end on Sunday or whether it would [141:33] begin on Thursday morning and end on [141:35] Thursday evening. Now that person's [141:37] worth, you know, seven or $800 million. [141:41] So h 100red grand to them is not a lot [141:42] of money. [141:44] Most people, myself included, I'd just [141:46] eat turkey another day. Like, it's not [141:49] worth that amount of money, right, to [141:51] have that argument. [141:53] That's why having a kid with someone, [141:57] you're opening up the door to [141:58] potentially tremendous amount of [142:00] battles. Whereas, if you're arguing over [142:03] a $50,000 bank account and you spend [142:06] $30,000 in legal fees, even if you won, [142:08] you only won $20,000. If you lost, you [142:11] lost significant. So it it it forces a [142:14] certain rationality into the [142:15] transaction. Whereas your time with your [142:18] kids, [142:19] people could attribute whatever value [142:20] they want to that. I've had clients who [142:22] fought over minuscule things about [142:24] children that to me would be minuscule [142:27] to them were incredibly important. [142:29] You said that the two big reasons why [142:30] people divorce are infidelity and money. [142:33] Yeah. [142:34] Is it a loss of money, a lack of money, [142:36] the person goes poor? [142:37] Um it's that's a big piece of it. losing [142:39] money, um, ga gambling money or losing [142:42] money unexpectedly, bad business and [142:45] investment decisions. There was a period [142:46] of time where I did a lot of divorces [142:48] because people decided they were going [142:49] to try to be day traders and all of a [142:50] sudden people's, you know, they were [142:52] like borrowing against retirement [142:53] accounts. Yeah, they were learning the [142:55] hard way that that if you short stocks, [142:57] there's almost no limit to how much [142:59] money you can lose. Um, [143:00] crypto divorces, [143:01] crypto's big. I did a couple of cryp [143:03] divorces relate that where crypto became [143:05] very important and whether it was on a [143:06] hard wallet or whether it was I mean [143:08] hiding money with crypto very some years [143:11] ago when crypto was first sort of on the [143:13] scene when when I really should have [143:14] been buying Bitcoin because it was like [143:16] you know $3 or $5. Um there there was a [143:19] period of time where most divorce [143:21] lawyers and most judges did have didn't [143:23] understand what crypto even was. I mean, [143:25] try to explain to a 75year-old judge who [143:27] has an AOL email address what [143:30] cryptocurrency was and the difference [143:31] between Ethereum and Bitcoin like and [143:33] why you're concerned that they might [143:35] have these funds on a hard wallet and [143:38] they're looking at you going like what I [143:40] have I have no idea what this is, you [143:41] know? So, it's tricky. I mean, there's [143:43] these are the things we as a divorce [143:45] lawyer, one of the things that makes it [143:46] a very exciting job is that we're [143:48] constantly [143:49] we're getting an education in all of [143:51] these things. Like I represent I [143:54] remember I represented a surgeon and I [143:56] learned everything about how surgeons [143:58] get paid, how they make money, how they [144:01] hide money, what their expenses might [144:03] be. And so then the next time I did a [144:05] surgeon, I'm like, "Oh, I know this." [144:06] You know, the first time I represented [144:07] someone who owned a hedge fund or was a [144:09] partner in a hedge fund, I had to learn [144:11] about how capital accounts work and how [144:12] people are paid and where you might be [144:14] able to hide money. Have you ever seen [144:15] that where someone's like publicly [144:17] thought to be a billionaire and then you [144:19] look at their bank statements during a [144:20] divorce and you realize that they've [144:22] basically managed to hide everything. So [144:24] they're they're basically broke. It's [144:25] all in someone else's name. [144:26] Well, yeah. There's two permutations of [144:28] that. One is people who are publicly [144:31] incredibly wealthy and then in reality [144:33] they're leveraged to the hilt and broke [144:35] like way broke. Um that happens a lot [144:38] and that happens a lot with celebrities. [144:40] Um, celebrities are very often leveraged [144:42] to the hilt because they had a hit [144:44] record or they had a hit movie or two [144:46] and then they think, "Oh, everything I [144:48] do is going to be like this." And so [144:50] they just go out and buy tons of stuff [144:52] and there's always people who loan you [144:53] money, you know, especially if you're a [144:55] public figure and you have some money, [144:57] right? A couple of million bucks. You [144:58] you can get a couple million more real [145:00] easy. So, and then it just very rapidly [145:02] and they buy everybody else. They have, [145:04] you know, there's always clingers around [145:05] the person, you know, the whole [145:06] entourage that a lot of whom are [145:08] siphoning money off of people. So, [145:10] there's a lot of people that look very [145:12] wealthy and are dead broke. Um, and and [145:15] I have a lot of those. [145:16] How does that play out in court when the [145:17] wife finds out that their partner or the [145:20] husband finds out that their wife was [145:22] they're not happy? They're not happy. [145:25] And and um and it's hard because they [145:28] think they have proof of something. Like [145:31] they they're like, "But look, here's a [145:33] picture of him with a Ferrari." And it's [145:34] like, "Right, I can show you the papers [145:37] that he doesn't he leases that Ferrari. [145:39] like it's this much of a car payment. [145:40] Like I had a guy who had like three [145:42] Bentleys and a couple of you know like [145:45] McLaren. He had crazy cars and yeah it [145:47] was all leveraged to the hilt. It was [145:48] not he didn't own them. You know [145:50] what's the second permutation of that [145:51] you [145:52] the second permutation is when someone [145:56] is is um [145:57] when they've hidden the money. [145:59] Yeah. They I I'm trying to find the [146:00] right adjective that they're enough of a [146:02] sociopath that they're enough of a uh [146:04] they're enough of a malignant narcissist [146:07] or they're enough of a careful planner [146:10] that um they have created structures [146:13] that that make it almost impossible for [146:16] their spouse to get anything in the [146:18] divorce. there the the so some of the [146:20] things that people do in um in the ultra [146:26] high netw worth space [146:28] for generational wealth preservation and [146:31] tax avoidance [146:34] have secondorder effects when they get [146:37] divorced. Right? So a lot of wealthy [146:39] people don't own very much of anything. [146:42] They own companies that own properties [146:46] and they have an interest in a trust for [146:49] the benefit of their great grandchildren [146:52] that owns companies that own properties [146:54] that they then borrow against. Like [146:57] there's their whole structure is a very [147:00] complex and they pay hundreds of [147:02] thousands of dollars to trust and [147:03] estates attorneys and accountants. So [147:05] they pay almost nothing in taxes and so [147:08] that they will have no estate issues. [147:10] They will have intergenerational wealth. [147:11] Well, those things make a lot of sense [147:14] from a wealth preservation and estate [147:17] planning perspective, but they make a [147:19] divorce really complicated because it's [147:22] no longer marital money. It's owned by [147:25] this trust. It's owned by this [147:26] corporation. It's owned by I only have [147:28] this percent interest in this thing, [147:30] which is why we've both benefited from [147:32] the taxation of it. So that's where it [147:35] gets like a little um what I do is is a [147:38] fascinating job because we work with you [147:40] know very very brilliant forensic [147:43] accountants who kind of go in and try to [147:46] recreate whether something was done as a [147:49] fraudulent transfer and contemplation of [147:51] divorce or whether something was done [147:53] for good faith reasons and and and you [147:55] know was done in a way that was designed [147:57] to benefit the marriage as opposed to as [147:59] divorce planning. [148:00] There must be scenarios where someone [148:01] goes into divorce. I I think I'm [148:03] divorcing you, let's say, and I think in [148:05] divorcing you, I'm going to get a big [148:06] payout. But it turns out in divorcing [148:08] you that you get a big payout because [148:09] I've got more money than you. [148:10] Yeah, that happens a lot. That happens a [148:11] lot. I've actually I I I wrote an [148:13] article uh for for one of the women's [148:16] magazines um called The Last Remaining [148:18] Feminist Taboo and it it talks about a [148:21] lot of um female clients who are paying [148:23] alimony to their husbands and and it it [148:26] stings. You know, you you you you can [148:29] have a woman who's like a Bella Abzug [148:32] like Gloria Steinum level feminist and [148:34] when she gets told, you know, that like, [148:37] yeah, you got to pay him alimony, [148:38] they're like, I'm sorry, what? Like, no, [148:41] he's a man. He could work. Like, he can [148:43] work. He's a men get alimony. And you're [148:45] like, no, gender is a construct and sex [148:48] is actually, you know, a construct [148:50] socially. and you're a CFO of a company [148:53] and he's a really cute long-haired [148:55] musician who you married cuz he's like [148:58] fun, you know, like and you earn 4,000 [149:02] times what he earns annually. And so you [149:05] have to pay him alimony cuz it's just [149:07] math. It's God's gender blind. It's just [149:09] math. And they're like, "Yeah, no, I am [149:10] not paying alimony. He's a man. He's got [149:12] a strong back. Tell him to get a job." [149:14] By the way, I've had men in that [149:17] situation go, "Yeah, I'm not taking [149:18] alimony." [149:19] Really? They won't take [149:20] they won't take it. [149:21] Alimony is like the [149:22] spousal support. [149:23] Okay. Like what? But but child support [149:25] or [149:25] No, it's for your it's it's to maintain [149:28] the marital lifestyle. It's [149:30] it's in order to rehabilitate your [149:31] earnings so that you can be so for [149:33] example um I marry a woman from the UK [149:37] who's a physician and now she's coming [149:39] to the United States because we're in [149:41] love and she's marrying me and she is [149:43] going to lose her license to practice [149:45] medicine because she's coming to the [149:46] United States and it's a different [149:47] lensure. Okay. So now she moves here in [149:50] reliance on us being married and we're [149:52] married for a couple of years and then [149:54] we divorce. She's going to need because [149:57] I now make a lot more money than her. [149:59] She's going to need some money to get [150:00] her back to a place where she's back to [150:02] her earning capacity. [150:03] So if I marry Taylor Swift and we're [150:05] together for 20 years, do I get half? [150:07] You do not get half usually. No. No. [150:10] It's I mean, first of all, she has too [150:11] many good lawyers, I'd imagine, for you [150:13] to get half. But I you you you would [150:16] certainly I mean there was a [150:18] how much could you get me? [150:19] How much could I get you from Taylor [150:20] Swift? I'd have to know how much Taylor [150:22] Swift has. I also don't think she's [150:23] she's never made it down the aisle yet, [150:24] has she? [150:25] But if I take her down the aisle and [150:26] then we we stay together 20 years and I [150:28] come back say, "James, it's time." [150:30] Here's what I'm going to tell you. I'm [150:31] going to get you as much as possible. I [150:32] can't promise you anything, but I am [150:34] promising you I'm going to get you as [150:36] much as I can. I mean, [150:38] you know, I'd have to know. I'd have to [150:39] know what the finances are. I would have [150:41] to. She has a billion dollars [150:42] in cash. [150:44] Billion dollars in cash acquired during [150:45] the marriage or prior to the marriage. [150:46] During the marriage, [150:47] all acquired during the marriage, you're [150:48] getting half. [150:49] There you go. [150:50] You're getting half. You're getting [150:51] half. Listen, uh uh Adele's ex-husband [150:53] did very well. Um Kelly Clarkson's [150:56] ex-husband did very well. It depends on [150:58] how quite well. Look it up. Look it up. [151:01] It's out there. I don't remember the [151:02] exact numbers, but it's out there. The [151:03] the reality is is those were people she [151:05] had her most successful tour at the time [151:09] during the marriage. She had her most [151:10] successful album at the time during the [151:13] marriage. It's all a question of where [151:14] things land in the trajectory of [151:17] someone's life. If you marry someone [151:19] when they're on the comeup, like Jeff [151:21] Bezos, great example, like largest [151:23] divorce settlement probably paid in [151:25] history was to his ex-wife. Why? Because [151:27] Amazon wasn't a thing when they got [151:30] together, right? So, so, so that was she [151:33] was there for the whole trajectory. If [151:35] he got remarried now, she's not going to [151:38] get half because she wasn't there. [151:40] There's a premarital component to that [151:42] that is significant. [151:43] If you got me 500 million from Taylor [151:45] Swift, then would you take like a [151:47] commission like an hour? [151:48] No, it doesn't work that way. You're [151:49] prohibited from doing that. Yeah. Paid [151:50] by the We get paid by the hour. [151:51] You're prohibited. [151:52] I am an hourly wage earner. Like if I [151:54] worked at McDonald's, [151:55] who who prohibits you? [151:57] The rules. The rules that govern and by [151:59] the way, rightfully so. [152:00] Why? because you otherwise would create [152:03] an incentive for the lawyer to maximize [152:07] recovery for their client rather than [152:09] the recovery that makes sense for their [152:11] client. So like I've had cases where the [152:15] cash payout I get for my client is lower [152:20] because I want to get them more support [152:22] like child support or spousal support or [152:24] I want to get them more of the real [152:25] estate rather than the payout. So really [152:29] what we're supposed to do as lawyers is [152:31] not be invested in the percentage of the [152:34] result. Personal injury lawyers like if [152:36] you slip and fall that's different. [152:38] Last question from me is regarding me [152:40] and my partner. I never want to end up [152:42] in your consultation room. [152:45] We never want to go there. [152:47] If you were to give me one piece of [152:49] advice to prevent and it can't be don't [152:50] get married. Um to prevent me and my [152:52] partner ever ending up in your [152:54] consultation room. [152:55] It wouldn't be don't get married. [152:56] Okay. It would [152:57] What would it be? [152:58] Pay attention. Just pay attention. Right [153:00] now, you're paying attention. Like, [153:02] you're paying attention. She's important [153:04] to you. You're important to her. You're [153:06] interested and you're interesting. You [153:08] know, I I I would say pay attention and [153:10] and pay attention to three things. [153:14] The you, the me, and the we. Because [153:18] those are three different things. Like, [153:20] you be you, cuz you're who she fell in [153:23] love with. And don't let you go too far [153:25] from shore. like you be you. Don't let [153:28] don't let anything in the world don't [153:29] let her don't let the we don't let any [153:31] of it stop you from being you cuz you're [153:34] who she fell in love with and the she [153:38] right who she is. So there's you, [153:39] there's me, there's we. So her, remember [153:42] who she is. Let her be her. Like make [153:44] sure that she takes time to be her. Make [153:46] sure you give space for her to be her [153:48] because that's who you fell in love [153:49] with. And let that person change just [153:51] like you might change sometimes from [153:53] time to time. And if things change too [153:54] much, I'm not saying resist it, but note [153:58] it. Pay attention. Say, "Hey, this is [154:00] going on. Is it is that a good thing? Is [154:02] it a bad thing?" Like, what? You know, [154:03] let's just notice it. Let's just pay [154:04] attention. And then the Wii, like the [154:06] you, the me, and the we. Like, talk [154:08] about, you know, pay attention to the [154:09] Wii. Make sure we're watering the plant. [154:11] Like, make sure that that'd be the only [154:13] advice I'd ever give to anybody. It has [154:14] nothing to do with marriage. It has to [154:16] do with connection. It has to do with [154:18] love. It has to do with there's a reason [154:21] why you found the Wii, right? Like you [154:25] can be you all by yourself and she can [154:27] be her all by herself. But there's value [154:30] in in being we and seeing each other's [154:33] blind spots and and and and and if [154:35] there's value in that, treat it like [154:38] something valuable. Don't let the world [154:40] don't let your own strengths and [154:43] weaknesses don't let anything pull you [154:44] off of that. Pay attention to you, the [154:47] mei, and the wei. And don't be afraid. [154:49] The hard thing to do and the right thing [154:51] to do are usually the same thing. So if [154:53] it's harder to talk about it, it's [154:54] harder to point it out. It's harder to [154:56] say, "Hey, are we okay? Is everything [154:58] good?" Like, you know, if that's harder, [155:00] do that. Lean into that. [155:04] James, we have a closing tradition on [155:05] the podcast where the last guest leaves [155:06] a question for the next guest, not [155:07] knowing who they're leaving it for. The [155:09] question left for you is, what is [155:12] your most controversial opinion? [155:15] Oh god, you're going to be cancelled. [155:19] What is my most controversial opinion? I [155:23] think [155:26] I think I alluded to it my last [155:28] conversation with you. Um, [155:31] I my most controversial opinion is that [155:33] the most important thing in people's [155:35] lives and their greatest accomplishment [155:37] should not be their children. [155:39] That's a real hot like when you say to [155:41] people like I think it's if the if if [155:44] you say the most important thing that [155:46] ever happened, the greatest thing I ever [155:48] accomplished in life was having [155:50] children. I find that very um I find [155:53] that logic very strange because if you [155:56] say the most important greatest thing I [155:58] ever did in my life was having children. [156:00] Well, is then the greatest and most [156:02] important thing your children ever did [156:03] going to be having children and is the [156:05] greatest thing their children ever did [156:06] is having children? Because that's the [156:08] ideology of a virus or a cancer cell. [156:10] Like it's not like growth for the sake [156:12] of growth for the sake of growth. Like I [156:14] I think there has to be a higher nobler [156:16] purpose to life than reproduction. So [156:19] I'm not an antiatalist, [156:21] but I tend to when someone says to me [156:24] like my children are my greatest [156:25] accomplishment, I tend to look at them [156:27] and go like made some interesting [156:29] choices then. I guess [156:30] science and sort of evolution and [156:32] Charles Darwin might argue that that's [156:34] exactly the point of life is [156:36] and it is on the cellular level and for [156:39] squirrels and for pigeons [156:42] and we're monkeys. [156:43] Yeah, but I think we're different than [156:45] monkeys. Like if you've watched like [156:47] we're we're we're very similar in lots [156:48] of ways, but I'd like to think that that [156:51] there's something higher that we're [156:53] called to. And I don't know that [156:56] reproduction should be the highest goal [156:59] of a human being's life. I'm not one of [157:02] these people that thinks like don't have [157:04] children, it's a terrible thing. I have [157:06] kids. I love my kids. Was great having [157:08] kids. Learned a lot about myself in [157:10] having children. Learned a lot about the [157:12] life and the what I love spending time [157:14] with them. I have a great relationship [157:15] with my sons. I look forward to being a [157:17] grandfather. But the truth is like, is [157:20] it the greatest thing I ever [157:21] accomplished in my life? Absolutely not. [157:23] It's it's in the it's in the top of the [157:25] list. It's a wonderful experience I had. [157:28] But it is not the thing. And I think [157:29] that's a very I don't know why that is [157:31] such a controversial opinion. When I say [157:33] that to people, they they look at me [157:35] like I've got lobsters coming out of my [157:37] nose. [157:37] There's definitely two schools of [157:38] thought there. There's the one school of [157:40] thought that you were saying something [157:42] earlier and it really at the start of [157:43] the conversation about how people lose [157:45] their identity when they have children [157:46] and it causes all of this sort of [157:47] psychological dysfunction and who am I [157:49] now? I'm attached to this thing and [157:51] where did my life as an independent [157:52] person go? [157:53] You know that that's kind of the one [157:55] school of thought where [157:57] where you're resisting [157:59] become becoming all about procreation. [158:02] You're resisting becoming just a I'm [158:04] just here to be a mother father. And [158:05] then there's another group of people [158:06] that go absolutely this is me. This is [158:08] my purpose. [158:08] Right. But see, I I think like [158:10] everything like we don't have to treat [158:11] dandruff with decapitation. [158:13] Like I I think you can you cannot reject [158:17] the concept of having children or making [158:19] them a priority. And you can also not [158:22] make your children your entire identity. [158:24] I think that you can just sort of say, [158:26] "Hey, my children are incredibly [158:28] important to me. I love them. They're [158:30] wonderful. Um, but I also have other [158:33] aspects of my life and self and other [158:35] relationships that have value to me and [158:37] I'm not going to let them all be [158:39] sacrificed at the altar of my children. [158:42] Who's more likely to end up in your [158:43] office? Which school of thought? [158:45] People who are obsessed with their [158:47] children. [158:48] I think people who are obsessed with [158:50] their children stop paying attention to [158:52] themselves and to their partner. That's [158:54] been my experience of people who are [158:56] obsessed with their children. I don't [158:57] mean people who are focused on their [158:58] children. When I mean people who make [159:00] their children a high priority in their [159:01] life, I'm talking about people that are [159:03] like obsessed with their children. That [159:04] their children are their this is who I [159:07] am. I am a mother. This is who I am. I [159:11] am a father. Which cuz by the way, [159:13] childhood is a temporary state. Like [159:16] theoretically, you're going to have a [159:19] very close and intimate relationship on [159:21] a day-to-day basis with your spouse a [159:23] lot longer than your children. If it's [159:25] done properly, your children are [159:26] supposed to leave and go start their own [159:29] families and live their own lives. [159:31] Whereas your partner is not supposed to [159:33] in 19 years or 18 years move out. [159:36] They're supposed to stay there. So it's [159:38] kind of smart to also feed. Not again, [159:41] not only feed, also feed that [159:44] relationship. There's no reason why you [159:47] can't simult and by the way sometimes [159:50] being a really good supportive [159:52] person to your co-parent and loving your [159:56] wife and loving your husband is a [159:58] wonderful gift to give to your children. [160:00] It models great relationship behavior to [160:02] them. It it it's showing that you love [160:05] and respect the other person who loves [160:07] them as much as you do. Like there's so [160:09] much good in being a good parent that is [160:13] made up of being a good co-parent, a [160:16] good spouse, a good partner. [160:17] So you think you're more likely to end [160:19] up in your divorce office if you're [160:21] obsessed with your children? [160:22] You make your children your absolute [160:24] number one priority and your spouse [160:26] falls very far down that list. Yes, for [160:29] sure. [160:30] James, thank you. [160:31] Always great to see you. I love our [160:33] conversations because they're, you know, [160:35] you're a divorce lawyer and you, you [160:36] know, your practice, I guess, is dealing [160:38] with divorces, but your width of wi [160:41] wisdom and knowledge and how it all [160:43] intertwines in the most beautiful, wise, [160:46] enlightening way, and just the [160:48] overarching filter of you not being [160:50] afraid to say things that most people [160:52] would wouldn't say, you not being afraid [160:54] to be politically correct provides a a [160:57] message which is so important and quite [160:59] um unfortunately rare, but is so [161:02] everything you say is so [161:06] obvious in the sense that it's common [161:07] sense, but it's common sense that's [161:09] completely uncommon. [161:10] That means a lot to me. [161:12] That's what I found in your book as [161:13] well. I found the same level of brevity [161:15] and wisdom and experience and diversity [161:18] of experience which ties into these [161:20] central ideas. Everyone, if you didn't [161:21] go by the book last time, you have to go [161:22] buy the book. It's called How to Stay in [161:24] Love. Um, and it's my favorite book ever [161:26] written on the subject of love and [161:28] relationships and life, quite frankly. [161:30] So, I think everyone needs to go and get [161:32] the book. I'll link it below. Um, James, [161:34] thank you so much. [161:35] It's great to see you. [161:35] I love our conversations. I hope we have [161:37] many more. So, I really appreciate you. [161:39] Thank you for having me. It's great to [161:40] see you. [161:44] Isn't this cool? Every single [161:47] conversation I have here on the Diary of [161:48] a CEO, at the very end of it, you'll [161:50] know I ask the guest to leave a question [161:53] in the diary of a CEO. And what we've [161:56] done is we've turned every single [161:58] question written in the diary of a CEO [162:00] into these conversation cards that you [162:03] can play at home. So you've got every [162:05] guest we've ever had their question and [162:08] on the back of it, if you scan that QR [162:11] code, you get to watch the person who [162:14] answered that question. We're finally [162:16] revealing all of the questions and the [162:20] people that answered the question. The [162:22] brand new version two updated [162:25] conversation cards are out right now at [162:27] thecon conversationcards.com. [162:29] They've sold out twice instantaneously. [162:31] So if you are interested in getting hold [162:33] of some limited edition conversation [162:35] cards, I really really recommend acting [162:37] quickly. [162:41] [Music]