MJ calls what happened to her in Zion national park “small ‘T’ trauma”. She knows women have experienced worse from their partners. But she still feels the anger of being left behind on a hike by her now ex. “It brings up stuff in my body that maybe I have not cleared out yet,” she said.
Five years ago, MJ and a new partner – he was not exactly her boyfriend, and the pair were not exclusive – traveled from Los Angeles to Utah for an adventure getaway. MJ, who is 38 and works in PR, was looking forward to exploring Zion’s striking scenery; its vast sandstone canyon and pristine wading trails were on the list. But on the morning of their big hike, MJ was not feeling well. She could not shake the feeling that something was “off”; indeed, MJ would learn on this trip that her partner was seeing other women.
As they made their way up Angel’s Landing, MJ’s partner started walking faster than her. “I could tell it was getting on his nerves that I was slow,” she said. “I was like, ‘Fuck it, just go ahead of me.’” He did without hesitation.
When she caught up at the top of the mountain, they took a picture together. Then her partner hiked down the mountain with a woman he had met on the way up, leaving MJ to finish by herself. They broke up shortly after that trip. (MJ asked to be referred to by her initials for the sake of speaking openly about a past relationship.)
Last month, MJ opened TikTok and heard the phrase “alpine divorce”, a label she now attaches to her experience in Zion.
Im not disbelieving. I just find articles with titles that make things out to be a common occurrence or a thing to be wierd when its a rarity. I mean I even get the term because that comes from the group who in talking with each other start using it and with the internet that possible.
that’s what makes it a viral social media thing though. you take a rare thing and try to claim it’s a trend or a novelty.
well and thats the thing with this back and forth im having with another person. they are taking the track I don’t like the article but I just don’t like the title and the way its common with the social media age. I mean I could totally see this in that one section of the sunday paper that dives deeper into things like this.
That’s because your initial comment I replied to said nothing about the title of the article. You were questioning if it even happens often enough to warrant attention.
not warrant attention to give it a name. alpine divorce.
You should really read the article.
So I did read the article. You keep on not reading my comments apparently. I mentioned I get the people in the circle having a term but its the title. The way the title is written including using he term. If it was a common term for an oft encountered situation it would be one thing and it makes sense for the article to mention it but the title is where it gets wierd. I dunno how to make myself more clear through this conversation honestly.
Also the term was coined in the 1800s. Clearly it has happened enough to warrant a name if it’s been around that long.
If it took from the 1800’s to societ creating the internet and connecting a popluations of 8 billion people in 2026 for the term to catch on. It was not happening much and it does not happen much we know that. There are all sorts of terms im sure from the 1800’s that were niche enough no one knows them now. Maybe something will bring it forward. There is nothing wrong with the term itself and its and articles like these are not uncommon. As I said in another part of my, apparently, very constroversial take. There was a section in the sunday paper that might have an article like this but the title would not be this internet wierd click baity thing.
Because you shifted your focus to the title after you realized I wasn’t backing down in our back and forth conversation.
Initially you never mentioned the title of the article at all.
I feel you feel you have some sort of gotcha. This is simply not how casual conversation works. I did not shift my focus I just did not put enough detail initially. My comment did not even need to be about this particular article it could be about any niche thing that makes it sound like its more of a thing than it is.
Dude - read the article. Not just the title, the actual article. The author backs up their title.
What are you talking about? It goes through some individual stories. There is nothing that backs up its like a common occurence or a massive uptick or something.
How many women have to tell similar stories before you believe that it’s a thing that happens frequently enough for there to be a whole article written about it?
Im not saying they should not write and article about it Im saying it should not title itself like it its some sort of thing. Something along the lines of. The stories of women who have encountered the unthinkable. Abandoned in the wilds.
The title ends in a literal question that the author then goes on to explain.
It is a thing. It’s a demonstrable thing where men leave their partners while on a hike. There may be multiple reasons for it, but it does happen.
Im not arguing it does not happen just that it does not happen that often. Its not a craze sweeping the globe. Its something that has happened. There are likely far more prevalent things that don’t get a name or recognition. Did you even get the reason I put down how common things that are considered very uncommon are?
Why are you dying on this hill?
Why does it bother you for women to share these stories?
So any time somone does not change their mind to someone else its dieing on a hill. What do you keep repeating false things like bothering me for the stories being shared or not believing it. My problem is with the title and making things like they are bigger than they are. Women have been abandoned by their partners on hiking trails but women are not being abandoned by their partners on hiking trails as a common occurence. Think of it this way. Would it make sense to have an article go through some of the cases of men being poisoned and title it? Men are being murdered by their partners. Whats behind the poisoners divorce.