Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and a member of the “Fox News Medical A Team”. Despite that rather embarrassing affliction, he still feels qualified to offer the following advice to people. “Instead of getting a divorce, try a consorce.” Even though there’s no such word as consorce.

If the word did exist, the “good” doctor assures us it would mean something like this…. Don’t get a messy, expensive, painful divorce. It will be nasty for you and terrible for your children. What you need is a (made up word).

The consorce works like this. The couple agrees to continue living together as friends as friends and partners in child-rearing. They are to accept that the “romantic” phase of their relationship has ended and they should see this as an opportunity to strengthen their “platonic” relationship.

The following is a direct quote from Dr Reallystrangelove’s Guide To Consorce… “Why not just stay in the same house, continue to work together financially for the good of the family, and, perhaps sleep in the same room (without sexual contact expected by either individual)? original authors parentheses.

He also believes this is all in the best interests of any children involved. They have both parents in their lives full time and a greater likelihood of financial stability in the home. Ummm… Yeah… That’s what’s important… Financial stability and the business partners who make it possible.

So my first thought was that Doc KAblow is “nuttier than a squirrel turd”. (I don’t remember where I encountered that phrase, but I love the way it sounds). Then I started thinking maybe he has made it through his professional career without encountering anybody who isn’t BFFs with their spouse. After a few seconds of profound doubt, I called bull**it and chose option three.

Keith (can I call you Keith) has an agenda (the sanctity of marriage) to push and an ideology to promote. Clearly we can’t let something as arbitrary as reality get in the way. I’ve had the opportunity to observe the decline and dissolution of several marriages over the years and feel quite confident when I say I’ve never seen a single one where consorce would have been an option.

It’s pretty clear from his article here that Dr Ablow regards sex as the only real difference between marriage and consorce. Contrary to Dr. Squirrel-turd, sex is generally only a contributing factor, rather than a primary cause. The withholding of affection and decline in intimacy is more often a reflection of issues in other parts of the relationship. Where these deeper issues exist, the removal of the “romantic” component of the relationship isn’t going to resolve them.

That brings me to what is in my opinion his most egregiously stupid idea. Doctor Dumb claims that this is somehow in the best interest of the children. Sure, having both parents on hand is great. Financial stability is great. Growing up in an environment where love is sacrificed on the altar of expediency and commercial betterment… That’s not so great.

What are these hypothetical children learning about the foundation of a strong and meaningful marriage. Forget love, it’s all about financial stability, a nice house, the illusion is more important than the substance. What an utterly terrible thing to teach children! Love is the foundation of marriage not convenience. More to the point, love is the essential ingredient in a family regardless of marital status. That is by far the most important lesson we can model for our children, not some loveless partnership for the sake of a nice home.

That’s why Dr. Ablow needs his head examined.

Cheers, Winston