In practice, therefore, it is always the woman who decides to interrupt the relationship; after all, it is always the woman who decides to initiate it and with whom.
It is she herself who, choosing the suitor among the various possible and most reliable ones at the moment, (as we will see, a situation that no longer exists after the separation) determines when it is time to leave him.
So a first relevant gap between the two sexes is this, where the woman in the vast majority of cases, only after having convinced herself of the impossibility of saving the relationship, in a more painful and certain way than a non-return, decides to end it.
On the other hand, men are more concerned about the personal and property consequences, and deep down they are always convinced that they can retrace their steps and they are almost never the architects of the judicial request for separation.
Many men, before reaching the separation, propose to their spouse to keep the relationship of separated at home and that is to continue to live together, even with their own independent life, from a managerial and emotional point of view, often justifying this request with the need not to create trauma to the offspring.
If such an ambiguous situation is acceptable by men, it is not at all acceptable by women, also because, and this is another distinction between the two sexes, as has been said, the common saying holds true that if the woman he declares to interrupt the sentimental relationship, he means this “definitively”, while if the man declares it, his interpretation is almost always “for the moment”.
On the other hand, also from another point of view, as is known, the husband tries to avoid the separation process, where almost always, apart from the personal consequences, from the economic point of view he loses, in the presence of children, in addition to the marital home, also a good part of his income, destined to the maintenance of children, and in some cases of his ex-wife.
And we ignore the very frequent situations in which he must also continue to pay the mortgage payments on the house, those for household appliances or the car.
If in Italy a marital union or more uxorio fails every three, with a trend towards the US average of one union failure every two, it is legitimate to ask who can blame the relationship crisis, at least from a statistical point of view.
It should be clarified immediately that we do not mean guilt in the legal sense, where we speak more technically of a charge, but rather of moral responsibility for the failure of the relationship.
If when a sentimental union ends, the guilt is hardly recognizable, as from Manzoni’s memory, only on one side, one cannot fail to note that, in general, man’s behavior appears from an ethical and causal point preponderant in the failure of a marriage relationship or cohabitation, the most reprehensible.