There seems to be an increase in threads on various aspects of marriage, and I'd like to know how YOU view the institution of marriage between men and women.

Are you married? Have you been married? Were your parents married? Are they still?

The responses need not be limited to these questions, they're just something to start from.

My parents and his parents are both married and have been for years. Between the two of us we have one divorce within our family. It was a source of sadness for many reasons for all of us but I can't imagine that an alternative to that decision existed.

But, the realities of marriage didn't quite measure up to this ideal. After nearly a decade in my first, and 1/2 a decade in my second, where we spent far more time trying to figure out HOW to get the realities to resemble the ideals (for both of us), I've come to the conclusion that it's just not an institution that works for me, personally.

Call me picky, demanding, what-have-you, but I tried very hard to find compromises and better methods of communication in each marriage, and generally found myself the only partner willing to try. And, then there is the very real fact that after my second husband became abusive (reared it's ugly head in non-physical ways for years before it resulted in physical violence), and I was left without a dime to feed my children, or a way to make that dime immediately, I decided to make sure I never had a reason to complain about THAT again! (Scarlett O'Hara is still alive and well! )

So,unless or until I find that partner that I'm head-over-heels in love with, and also happens to be into "inter-dependence" rather than dependence or co-dependence, then I'm quite content to call the whole thing a wash.

I've learned how to be eerily self-sifficient, which happens to be a major turn-off for most men anyway...so, I don't think I'll be needing to worry about it anytime in the near future.

My brother and sister in law have been married for 33 years. Quite happily.

My marriage lasted about 20 years before my ex and I separated, and all but the last year or two were fairly happy years.

Marriage has become very unpopular in Québec - probably a majority of people 40 and other live together without benefit of clergy and judge, even if they are bringing up children, buying a house together, etc. As a result of this social change, I have never been married, though I have lived with men in serious relationships. I didn't, and don't, see any reason to unless there are other legal or social considerations. In my case, it would most likely be a matter of immigration - emigration (not talking about a phoney marriage, but about "legalising" a real relationship). There are also issues of inheritance, and power of attorney, access to ill spouses, etc. I believe the fact that so many people here in Québec are now living in common-law relationships has tended to change that somewhat, but there are still problems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trinitty:
There seems to be an increase in threads on various aspects of marriage, and I'd like to know how YOU view the institution of marriage between men and women.

Are you married? Have you been married? Were your parents married? Are they still?

---

First, I don't view the institution of marriage as being limited to between men and women.

I am marrieed for the second time to a truly wonderful woman. I was married once before, to a woman whose motives for being married were either changing or dishonest. At least one fantastic child came from that marriage.

I don't know that they would restrict visitors on their own, but if relatives with a PA demanded it, maybe?

The hospital will restrict visitors to family based on the condition of the patient but they will allow exceptions, as dictated by the family, for close life long friends and so forth. It's more a way of sending a message that the volume of visitors needs to be narrowed.

I was almost forty when my husband and I got entangled, so we shouldn't have had stars in our eyes ... but we did anyway.

We were very lucky, I know. What worked for us was that we made each other feel free, even though we were pretty much joined at the hip all day every day for seventeen, eighteen years. We are different in lots of ways, but we were drawn in the same way to so many things that matter. We both loved playing naughty child running away from home, which was why we had such good times travelling together -- and travelling with anyone else is always a severe test. And we both hated fuss -- serious low-fuss household, we had.

And besides, I thought he was beautiful, still do. I love his posture -- I used to be able to recognize him blocks away just by that silhouette. I love his smile. Etc.

It goes without saying that this is merely how I see my own marriage; I don't propose my view of it as an argument, as a recommendation, or as an objective value. It's simply the state of being I experience, which gives my marriage extra meaning.

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: bittersweet ]

I've mentioned on other threads that my sister and her partner are getting married now that same sex weddings are allowed. They've been together for almost 30 years. Her partner at one point started trying to explain why it was so important for them to take this step after so long together. It won't change anything for them on the face of it. She was having a hard time putting it into words, but I stopped her, saying she didn't need to explain it. I got it.

I can't put it into words either, but I understand why they want to get married, and why they're acting like a couple of newlyweds now.

[ 10 October 2004: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

When I was younger, no way any of us were getting married - not so much the "anti-monogamy" schtick - which never lasted long, and was so obviously beneficial to a certain type of alpha male - but because we hated the Church and the State and didn't want our enemies sanctifying our union.

I once asked on of my best friends why he chose to get married- after many years of denouncing marriage as a "capitalist ploy"- and he said, "If I actually HAD a rational, logical reason, then I have no right gettin hitched!".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I doubt that. It's not the people who make the decision to divorce that profit from it.

---

True. But if as much profit was to be had from keeping marriages intact, I bet you the divorce rate would plumet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
True. But if as much profit was to be had from keeping marriages intact, I bet you the divorce rate would plumet.

We'll never know, but it's fun to speculate.

---

I don't believe it. As much profit was to be had by WHOM? People who leave bad marriages do so usually as a last resort. I don't know too many people who got divorced frivolously.

Frankly, the idea of giving financial incentives for bad marriages to stay together frightens me. Sounds too much like right-wing Focus on the Family rhetoric to me. Married people already get tax breaks and other financial "incentives" to be married. They don't mean diddly dick squat when you're in a miserable marriage and you just want out. I don't want to see any measures or "incentives" put in place to encourage people to stay in bad marriages.

Thank you! Many blessing

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

It may be harder when we're younger, to negotiate the differences in levels of responsibility/twitchiness over many things that are just normal among people. Or maybe we were just lucky to be equally irresponsible.

---

I guess what we have to look at is what defines a 'bad marriage'. I think there's few who would try to 'fix' a marriage where there is physical abuse, or chronic psychological abuse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
Yes, that's me Michelle, right wing Christian Fanatic.

---

Heh, I'm glad you realize I wasn't saying that YOU'RE a focus on the family type. But you have to admit - that's been the Alliance and Focus on the Family line, as well as the line of the extremist fringe of the "father's rights" movement for ages - it's all the feminists' and lawyers' fault that there's so much divorce, and we should have financial incentives to keep marriages together, as if there aren't enough already.

Though my the mother of my children and I have been separated for many years, it has been customary to celebrate major holidays, bithdays, and the occassional weekend together with the kids and often extended family. Hence, on Saturday I went out to the ex's condo, spent the night with my kids and some of their friends, Prepared the turkey, stuffing and gravy yesterday morning, (my traditional role), the ex and her guy arrived around 1:00, she prepared the rest of the meal, we all feasted around 6:00 and enjoyed the evening, and I came back this morning.

I say that I suspect that this will have been the last such occassion because she had me served with a divorce petition ten days ago. Now, we will have to draw the lines in the sand.

Edit to add; If discussion of this is to go further, I would just as soon it be via p.m.; would welcome the input of any who are genuinely interested.

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: James ]

I've never been divorced but I married one, if you see what I mean, some years after it happened (no, I was not the Other Woman). In some ways it complicates life forever: I can see that, and I know it can be hard to look forward into the future and see that as a hard truth. Things can get easier when children are adult -- although, well, there are probably many different kinds of story there.

The in-laws, the exes-, the steps-, the step-in-laws -- argh. There's a reason there are so many jokes about them all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

Hugs, James.

---

Thanks, appreciated. And in a way, the timing is appropriate. My son is moving to B.C. in early November, daughter is finishing off her degree in December, ex and the old "new guy" are taking daughter to England for New Year's right after Christmas, so Christmas this year would have been "different" either way. So, giving thanks this day that we were able to maintain a semblance of harmony for the period that it mattered to the kids.

[ 11 October 2004: Message edited by: James ]

I've had two common-law relationships - neither was a stellar choice on my part, both occurred when I was quite young and inexperienced - but I remained single or only casually-connected throughout my eldest daughter's childhood. While she has no positive model for marriage, she has no negative one either.

As an adult, my daughter is quite marriage-oriented, and I suspect that she and her current boyfriend will marry in two or three years if they continue to work as hard on their relationship as they do now.

That jaded me for a long time. But I think sometimes fate just sends the right person into your life. And it feels right. Although we have only "been seeing" each other for 4 months BF and I got engaged this week-end (I know I've said it over and over again today -- but hey, what can I say!!!) We plan to get married in January.

I'm just hoping this works out for a lifetime. My parents have been married sine 1962 - and yes I can believe it - they made a vow, through thick and thin and stuck with it.

The blond guy and I both had early, brief marriages, and a series of not so good relationships afterward. I was married at 21 (engaged at 19), and it lasted 2 1/2 years. I'm glad that divorce was easily accessible. Sometimes you make a commitment with the best of intentions, and just find that you and your spouse want very different things from life. I suppose I could have salvaged the marriage, but the price would have been very high -- I would have had to give up what I consider one of the most valuable pieces of myself to do so. That option felt like lying, and I didn't want to live the rest of my life with someone who only truly liked part of me.

The blond guy and I have been a couple for 8 years, in about a month and a half, but didn't have the wedding until just over 6 years ago. Our path to wedded bliss is not one I would recommend: Both of us recovering from truly awful relationships (mine with a downward-spiralling alcoholic and his with a woman with severe mental health issues), we started to date. Six weeks later, we found out I was pregnant. Two months later he moved in. We spent a lot of time navigating some stressful hot buttons and fears and overcame urges to bolt. In spite of our foibles, we fell madly in love in the process, and we still are. It worked for us, gawds only know how, it was a recipe for disaster. But my heart still leaps when I see him across a crowded room.

More than romantic partnership, we've managed to build a business and creative partnership, a very solid parenting partnership and tend to do most things together. We sometimes even answer questions in unison, which is a little weird, but when you spend nearly all your time with someone, it is bound to happen. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Edited to add: I call relationships "marriages" even when they haven't been legally formalized. It really is, for all intents and purposes the same thing. So, lagatta, in my opinion, you have so been married!

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

[ 12 October 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by this little girl:
i will remain legally married until legal aid has time for my case .

---

Since meeting my husband almost 6 years ago and marrying him about 4 years ago, I have living proof that not all relationships/marriages are like my earlier experiences and those of older people I have known. We are very happy together, rarely ever disagree or quarrell, and have some kind of mysterious soul-mate thing going on which is just lovely. It's also very healing for me after all the ugliness I've lived through. Most of my siblings have been trapped in bad relationships for most of their lives. At 47, I feel extremely fortunate to not be living like that anymore.

I think divorce is a wonderful thing for many unhappy couples, however acrimonious it may be for some. I never encourage unhappy people to stay in a marriage or relationship that is making them unhappy and sometimes other people treat this as my having an anti-social or cynical attitude, or being a plain old man-hating feminist. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know, and am fond of, many wonderful men, but the kind of guys most of my sisters have been attached to would not fit into that category. It has been a great inspiration to me to know nice people who are happy together at times when I was either single and lonely or unhappily attached.

My mother was married 5 times-- my father being #3; My father was married twice-- mother being #1. There's a busload of step-creatures.

The good news? My partner and I met when I was 20 and have been together, lo, these last 18 years.

I must say, it is an odd thrill when your anniversary numbers are bigger than old Mum & Pop's.

Edited because I initially confused Mom's placement on Dad's romantic calendar.

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: Tape_342 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bobbie k:
I think divorce is a wonderful thing for many unhappy couples, however acrimonious it may be for some. I never encourage unhappy people to stay in a marriage or relationship that is making them unhappy and sometimes other people treat this as my having an anti-social or cynical attitude, or being a plain old man-hating feminist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

---

quote:

---

Infidelity, alcoholism, abuse, incarceration, and a cousin who murdered his partner.

---

Although, perhaps besides the murderer, I would see infidelity as the worst.

I have met BF's father and his new step-mommie and we have been invited for dinner at their house. It will probably be a frosty friday in hell before we got though. He's still pretty steamed at his dad for cheatin' on his mom and then marrying the woman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beverly:
Neither of us can't understand why people just don't get divorced then go out and find new partners. As Michelle says maybe if there were better divorces. .... although mine was no bed of roses.

---

That could be why some people don't get divorced first and then find new partners. Plus about a few thousand other possible reasons beyond "s/he's scuzz". Because the divorce process can be hell, because certain segments of society have people convinced that divorce spells FAILURE, and custody fights are a bitch-and-a-half, and that makes people are scared of it, even if they're miserable and would rather move on.

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by beverly:
Neither of us can't understand why people just don't get divorced then go out and find new partners.

---

I never though I'd get married, even when I realized I was in love with Mark. But slowly my mind changed, and here we are, and I'm all blissed out and happy!

quote:

---

I'm all blissed out and happy!

The best part about getting married, I think, was sort of formally becoming each other's family.

---

I'm happy for you and Mark, Audra. I think that's what I'm looking forward to the being in each other's families too. We will be re-stoning (???) my family ring to add him as an engagement ring.

Got word, yesterday, my family really liked him; even my sis-in-law (We thought it best not to announce the engagement until the second visit).

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
The best part about getting married, I think, was sort of formally becoming each other's family.

---

quote:

---

The best part about getting married, I think, was sort of formally becoming each other's family.

---

This is why we got married.

We plan to just use my last name for their middle name, it'll work for a boy or girl.

As for the In-laws:
Father-in-Law - Charming and lovely, and taught my hubby all about being a naughty perv.

Mother-in-Law - Nice but relentless and loves to exculde the daughter-in-laws from conversations. Glad she lives on another continent so I can really enjoy seeing her when I do.

Sister-in-Law - Love, love, love her. I like having an older sister, even if it's only by a year.

Brother-in-Law - Had best keep his lying, cheating ass seveal continents away from myself and his brother. Is also a bossy, boor that looks like Dudley, Harry's cousin in the Harry Potter movies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
We plan to just use my last name for their middle name, it'll work for a boy or girl.

---

My father always called his MIL by her first name, although she was more of a mother to him than his own.

Maybe it's because of that, or maybe not, but I can't imagine being comfortable calling a hypothetical in-law mom or something similar. I think if I had children I'd raise them to call me and their other father by our first names. The more I think about it, I really don't "get" calling people by their relationship instead of their name.

As it stands, the costs of getting married can be as minimal or as exhorbitant as one chooses. But, the costs of divorce are always great, both in financial and emotional terms.

quote:

---

Scout: We will handle any possible kidlets with Mark's impending vasectomy, I hope

---

I like the commitment of marriage, whether you ever go through the actual ceremony and get the piece of paper or not. My best friend is getting married this Saturday because he and his partner are planning to adopt, but otherwise all the commitments had been made years ago (heck, they're sharing a mortgage; what more do you need?).

quote:

---

I like weddings because I think people don't celebrate enough in life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trinitty:
I'm interested in hearing babblers thoughts on marriage.

There seems to be an increase in threads on various aspects of marriage, and I'd like to know how YOU view the institution of marriage between men and women.

Are you married? Have you been married? Were your parents married? Are they still?

The responses need not be limited to these questions, they're just something to start from.

Thanks!

---

People ask you weird things these days when they find out you've hit 25... like how'd you do it, as if we weren't stumbling through life like every one else.

I don't think marriage is for everyone, and I don't believe that marriage is an institution based only on the union of a man and a woman... I believe we'd have a lot more happy people in the world if there was less emphasis on "perfect models" per se, and more emphasis on flexibility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

That could be why some people don't get divorced first and then find new partners. Plus about a few thousand other possible reasons beyond "s/he's scuzz". Because the divorce process can be hell, because certain segments of society have people convinced that divorce spells FAILURE, and custody fights are a bitch-and-a-half, and that makes people are scared of it, even if they're miserable and would rather move on.

[ 14 October 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trinitty:
Are you married? Have you been married? Were your parents married? Are they still?

---

I am not married. I have never been married. My parents are and have been my whole life (plus a year or two). To one another even.

I am in a union, though, albeit an unformalized one. My girlfriend and I have been together for eight years (and five weeks) and have lived together for four of them. We're a great team - lovers, best friends, and of course vicious nemeses who come to nuclear war over every little thing all the time. It's idyllic.

When we met, I had already decided that I didn't believe in monogamy. I was sixteen, I had it all figured out. She, on the other hand, did believe in it - passionately. She said she wanted all the typical things a girl's supposed to want. We didn't need to worry about it much right away, but we had a hunch that this wasn't going to be a short term relationship and it really looked like this was going to matter some day.

And the thing was, I was smitten. I had formulated all of my lofty beliefs about how monogamy oppresses both parties and how possession isn't love without actually having any real relationship experience to draw upon. Once I was actually in the position of feeling so strongly about someone I was certain I never wanted to be apart from her, I started to soften up to the idea of exclusivity. I made the decision very early that if she ever did want to get married, I would.

But it never really wound up mattering what I decided, because over the first couple years of our time together, we spoke extensively in theory about relationships and friendships and what distinguishes romantic love from friendly love and what the pros and cons of exclusivity would be and to what degree sex was sacred and to what degree it was just pretty awesome.. and over that time, she came to see the whole thing just the way I had when I was in high school. She examined her own feelings, considered my points, applied her own emotional logic and decided that she would never want to get married, or to reserve any form of love exclusively to just one person.

So we pretty much see eye to eye on it at this point.

But really that's not exactly why we won't marry. We're also very secular (I atheist, she agnostic) so a religious ceremony would be a sham if we went through the motions, and also I think we both really like the idea of not building a fence around ourselves. You get married, you make a vow and you endeavour to honour the vow forever. But we're together every day because we choose one another every day. We could split with no legal or moral fuss, but we won't, because the very idea is anathema.

Okay okay so yeah, it kinda is marriage. But it's OUR marriage. Wholly on our own terms, which we've arrived at together.

But you know, my little sister is getting married in a traditional (very traditional - with the men in kilts!) manner next summer and I nearly cried when she told me. Like, because I was so proud and happy for her. It's not like I begrudge traditional marriage for people who desire it and for whom it works.

"What is a Marriage?
A Marriage is
where two people
promise to love
one another for
better, for worse,
in good times
and bad,
in sickness and
in health.../
In elevators and closets,
in bathtubs and beds...
(Oops, sorry...I'm getting
confused with my
"What is a Honeymoon?"
speech.)

quote:

---

I made the decision very early that if she ever did want to get married, I would.

---

How on Earth did you end up there? Like what thought processes did you go through? I ask because I would like to end up in a civil union of some kind with someone, someday (nice and vague, huh?) but my exclusive boyfriend of four years is totally against it. He's into that Woody Allen/Mia Farrow vision of togetherness where we keep seperate places, have no civil union, but still "see" each other exclusively.

Personally I don't think that's much of a shared life, and it doesn't sit well with me. This has become a point of contention between us because we seriously disagree on where we should go from here. I'm supposed to take my chances to see if he "comes around" on the idea of someday going to city hall. I didn't think people really changed their minds on marrying a person after being with them for this long, but what do I know? Jesse Dignity proves me wrong.

This, also, would be a deal-breaker for me:

quote:

---

I made the decision very early that if she ever did want to get married, I would.

---

Wow. The passion.

That isn't how I got married, and I would never have married anyone who was thinking that way -- ie: you make the commitment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puetski Murder:
He's into that Woody Allen/Mia Farrow vision of togetherness where we keep seperate places, have no civil union, but still "see" each other exclusively. Personally I don't think that's much of a shared life, and it doesn't sit well with me.

---

quote:

---

I didn't think people really changed their minds on marrying a person after being with them for this long, but what do I know?

---

Strictly speaking, Mrs. Magoo and I aren't formally married. We've been letting our 14 years of cohabitation serve as our testament and sacrament, but soon we may. Thing of it is, we've basically got the marriage, just not the wedding. I suspect we'll probably have both within a year.

quote:

---

Wow. The passion.

---

He should consider riding up on a white stallion, his codpiece waving in the wind, her bodice tearing under the heaving of her bosum?

This doesn't sound all that odd for a cohort that doesn't see standing at the front of a church with your backs to all of your friends and promising God that you'll stay together forever as all that important. To many people "marry or live together" is as banal a choice as "paper or plastic".

I don't think marriage is for me. I believe in love and I believe in sharing one's life with those one loves, but I am reluctant to involve the state in my close intimate relationships, especially given that my view of relationships doesn't really fit the marriage model. I'm not exactly polyamorous (at least I don't think I am)but I do believe that it's unrealistic to expect one and only one person to fulfil all my companionship, romantic and sexual needs for the rest of my life, or to expect that I could do that for another person. I've only known one person I loved in a way that made me toy with the idea of asking him to marry me... after some thought I decided not to. Although we don't consider ourselves partners for a number of complex reasons, we're still together and very happily so

It's a little weird giving any thought to marriage, since until pretty recently I didn't have the option. Since the advent of gay marriage, weddings seem to have sprouted up like mushrooms.

One of the most thrillng days of my life was the day after the first marriage decision in Ontario legalized same-sex marriage, when amid the uncertainty and the fear that the government would close the window that had so suddenly opened, a lesbian couple who are good friends of mine decided to take the plunge and get married. Hundreds of couples were doing it across the province, and so they joined the rush to get a license, find someone to marry them and get the deed done... it has to have been one of the speediest wedding organization jobs ever It happened at First Unitarian in Ottawa, just a day after marriage first became legal. Two people stood next to the couple holding cellphones, with the parents of the couple on the other end listening in from their homes in Nova Scotia... they couldn't get to town in time to be there and the couple couldn't wait lest the government appeal and their opportunity be lost. Despite the haste, it was one of the most beautiful ceremonies I've ever seen, and part of what made it so beautiful was the palpable joy and excitement of the couple at being able to have their commitment to each other legally recognized.

So take what I said about the Woody/Mia arrangement and strike out the molestation thing as well as running away with my daughter. Also throw in that both parties in my case are not crazy or celebrities.

quote:

---

Thing of it is, we've basically got the marriage, just not the wedding. I suspect we'll probably have both within a year.

---

This sounds good to me. I'd just like the paper at some point, because this:

quote:

---

part of what made it so beautiful was the palpable joy and excitement of the couple at being able to have their commitment to each other legally recognized.

---

Is something I would like to experience in my lifetime. Maybe I'm old school, but I find it meaningful.

quote:

---

If there is one thing that no one needs in a marriage, it is that constant low-level buzz of stress that comes from one partner knowing that she is more committed than her emotionally flaccid partner.

---

I like this.

quote:

---

He should consider riding up on a white stallion, his codpiece waving in the wind, her bodice tearing under the heaving of her bosum?

This doesn't sound all that odd for a cohort that doesn't see standing at the front of a church with your backs to all of your friends and promising God that you'll stay together forever as all that important. To many people "marry or live together" is as banal a choice as "paper or plastic".

As a feminist, you might need to abandon this idea that men have to "woo" women. It's a wee bit 19th century, no?

---

Well, actually, no.

I don't see how whether you formalize a marriage legally or not makes much difference, as long as the commitment is there. At the same time, I wouldn't want a partner who was lukewarm to the idea of a full, passionate commitment.

Heaving bosums and waving codpieces aside, romance and enthusiasm are something that I need to have in a relationship. I've been in relationships where the commitment has been iffy, and the back and forth of "I want you, but I don't want you badly enough to move in/commit to an exclusive relationship/see myself with you permanently/etc" was a constant thing. It sucks.

So would being in a relationship where your partner says "Well, I will if you will..." Sounds a little wishy-washy, don't you think? Does being a feminist mean one should settle for wishy-washy? I don't think so. Nor have I settled for that, although I could have.

For some you go to being their slave/maid, for others that means you are now their punching bag as well. I actually had one b/f who (in retrospect) I don't think even liked me but still proposed.

I would marry my partner today, yesterday, two months ago if she would agree to it. I love her madly and I think marriage is important, socially and personally. It's especially important since we're both women - we face enough obstacles in society, I want all the support it can offer me. My sweetheart is not all that interested in getting married. Weddings don't appeal to her and the whole institutional history of the thing she finds offputting. But her commitment to me is absolutely unwavering. I'm honoured to be worthy of it. I'm also shocked to be in a relationship in which I'm the beloved.

I do tend towards the essentializing position, though. That may be because I get jealous easily -- I used to think I should cure that in myself, but then I discovered that I didn't need to -- when I found a relationship that never caused it.

Committed relationships aren't perfectly happy, of course, and there are a lot of things I can live with (boy! ), but that low-level buzz I mentioned above and that I remember from my younger days -- no way, not never again.

So, yes, Mr Magoo, I am given to jealous fits and romantic tizzies, although I wasn't demanding wooing above. As it happened to us, there was a moment when each of us felt a switch had flipped in ourselves and recognized that turn in the other. I'd never felt that before, but I guess I needed it.

Here's a curious question though: how many of you would marry if marriage had to be for life? No divorces, no annulments. Till death do you part. How many believers in commitment would commit at that level?

quote:

---

Here's a curious question though: how many of you would marry if marriage had to be for life? No divorces, no annulments. Till death do you part. How many believers in commitment would commit at that level?

---

I have done. I do look at marriage as that sort of commitment. However, I'm glad there is such a thing as divorce, having foolishly made such a commitment when I was too young.

quote:

---

I don't think a high divorce rate signals the lack of ability to commit so much as it suggests that we make commitments that we find ourselves unable to maintain - and the reasons for that are myriad.

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "unable to maintain"? I think I'd replace it with "unwilling".

50 or 100 years ago we didn't have the same divorce rate we do now. Certainly there must have been some genuinely unhappy people stuck in loveless marriages back then, but I think that to some degree people also took that commitment more seriously than now. Nowadays it's trendy to write your own vows; back then it was common to keep them. Back in the day, your wedding wasn't the day you got to wear your $3000 hand made Italian satin dress and carry your $400 spray of flowers in front of 200 friends and relatives, it was the day you made a promise to your fiance and God.

I think that today we regard marriage to some degree the way we regard pretty much anything else; if it works for me I'll keep it and I'll champion it. When it stops working for me I'll discard it as quickly as my acid washed jeans. If my spouse doesn't provide me with everything my fantasy of marriage led me to expect then I'll bail and find someone else. Why should I fix something when I can get a new one.

In the same way that darning socks has been replaced by buying new socks, I think actually working through the hard parts of a relationship has been replaced, for many, with simply ditching the one with the hole in it and going out shopping.

And to bring it all back, I find it interesting that so many people are interested in the commitment, except if it actually means committing! What does it mean to "commit", if you can in fact undo that commitment any time you want? It's like signing a contract that says you'll show up for work every day, without fail, except when you don't feel like it. What kind of contract would that be?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Here's a curious question though: how many of you would marry if marriage had to be for life? No divorces, no annulments. Till death do you part. How many believers in commitment would commit at that level?

---

Arkansas, Arizona and Louisiana offer "covenant marriages" that require pre-marital counselling and make divorce much more difficult to obtain.

Only a very small percentage of couples marrying in those states choose that option.

See http://tinyurl.com/5gt8w for more information.

quote:

---

As andrean says, people change and situations change.

---

This is true. But as Mr. Magoo adds, sometimes people just don't want to put forth the effort. In that case, it's easy to rationalize wanting out as simply "I've changed", even if that change really just means "I've finally noticed that more attractive person and I want to be with them", or "I know now that I want lots of sex partners".

And so I still wonder what commitment means if there's an escape hatch for that commitment. Why wouldn't a person just say "Hell ya! I'm with you 100%, I'm committed like nobody's business, baby!" and then renege whenever it looked appealing to do so?

1. going home in 15 minutes
2. working tonight and coming home in 5h 15m
3. the weekend

... so if you want to take it in another direction, g'head.

ed'd to add:

I guess all that really remains to tempt me is wondering why it is that people still seem very interested in "commitment" and want partners who'll commit to them, but they also seem to want to be able to pull the plug quickly and with a minimum of grief if they so choose. I guess I find it hard to wrap my head around such a contradiction.

It seems to me a little like saying "I want a tattoo, and I want a good one that won't fade or bleed or run... one that I'll still have when I'm 80. Oh, and if I wake up one day and don't want it anymore I want it to remove easily with soap and water."

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

However, Magoo's point is valid. People in this thread have claimed that if someone isn't sure they want to get married, then they're not into commitment, as if that's a bad thing.

So I think that does make it a very valid question - how much "into commitment" is anyone? It's all fine and dandy when you've married a keeper to say, "I'm 100% into commitment! I was sure from the start, I knew right away, and I was right!" But I don't think that has as much to do with being dedicated to "commitment" as it does having gotten lucky and having that person you clicked with right from the start not turn out to be an asshole, or not turn out to be someone incompatible.

Skdadl and Zoot, both of you say that you view marriage commitment as a lifetime thing, and I think that's great. But that's not Magoo's point, as I see it. It's one thing to have a happy marriage and then say that you've stayed together because you value commitment.

Unless you can say that you would have stayed with your husbands even if they had turned out to be incompatible somewhere down the line rather than the great life partners they did happen to become, then I don't see how you can argue that you have any more sense of "commitment" than someone who is ambivalent about marriage.

What I would say to you is that your sense of commitment is no stronger than mine because I'm ambivalent about whether or not to marry someone. I could say that my ideas about commitment are just more realistic than yours are. Because we both know that if we entered a marriage that turned out to suck, whether due to abuse or simple incompatibility, we'd likely leave. So really, your sense of commitment is no stronger than mine.

I don't think I said at any point that my feelings of commitment are any better than anyone else's -- rather, I said that a relationship with someone who was ambivalent or less than enthusiastic about making a life-long commitment would not work for me, because that passion and enthusiasm (in regard to commitment as well as other aspects of the relationship) is something I need. I am well aware that marriages fall apart, and why. I think I have noted, in this thread and others, that I am actually on my second marriage. I was the one who left, too.

I resent Magoo talking about people who leave marriages as doing it on a whim, with a minimum of fuss, muss or grief. When my first marriage ended, it was because I was down to 92 lbs, looked at myself in the mirror and knew I was dying. And it still took me 3 months to actually leave. And then it took 3 years of grieving the relationship and massive guilt before I could even let somebody take me out for coffee. I think "unable to maintain" was more accurate than "unwilling" in my case. I wish to gawd it had been as easy as tossing out old socks and shopping for new ones.

Hell, some days I still feel a twinge of guilt, 14 years later.

I think I can understand fear of committing again. The first couple of years the blond guy and I were together was a white-knuckle time for both of us. And yes, we both know exactly how lucky we are.

[ 04 November 2004: Message edited by: Zoot ]

quote:

---

I resent Magoo talking about people who leave marriages as doing it on a whim...

---

I'm not suggesting everyone who divorces does so trivially. Not at all. But I do think that some people expect marriage to be just like in movies, and when it isn't, they bail. And these days they can. Insofar as this group of people probably entered into marriage thinking it would be forever, and expecting their new partner to make that kind of commitment to them, it's curious to me what that commitment means if they decide to split. What kind of "commitment" could it have been, if it can be undone by signing a few papers.

My Parmakhai and I have been together for 25 years--at first common law and then formally--although we did separate for a time (actually two).

We were very young when we got together, and had our fist kid by the age of 20. We were feisty and fiery and impatient then.

We separated for a year, got back together, had another kid, separated again a few years later for a few years, then got back together, but didn't cohabitate until five years ago. Since then we've been as solid as can be.

I think marriage between a man and woman for the most part works well. The problem is our economy actually creates so many stresses and obstacles that it makes it tough to build a successful relationship.

It seems people organized into families for the same reason they organized into communities: they realized they needed to cooperate as relative equals in order to really grow and survive.

I can see why. Despite all of the hardship, stress and challenges of working class family life, I find there is nothing that has given me so much of a practical sense of purpose and motivation than my wife and kids and their well-being.

Marriage seems to have been around a lot longer than the various religions that claim to value it so much.

It looks to me like institutionalized religion is more a function of class society that was developed to control families and communities to keep them subordinate to whatever ruling class was in charge at the time. The same is true today.

I see more couples that stay together for who knows why? Others as more of a habit that leaves them sort of indifferent. Or I see an incredible lack of equality between the two and they get into these ‘ putting each other down syndrome.’

I’m divorced and am not looking to have any long term or short term relationship. My age is a big factor and also the men of my generation. I am supposed to wear flowered dresses with stockings,use make up and dye my hair. Do not disagree with their politics or profound ideas. I’m probably known as the Golden Age bum behind my back. A lot of nice people but I cannot seem to learn the dress code.

I don’t even own a bloody dress. Or maybe I own one but haven’t worn it for 10 years.

quote:

---

I'm just wondering at what point a commitment isn't a commitment anymore.

---

In my scheme of things commitment becomes re-negotiable when:

1) The rules of the game change. Kids for instance are often said to be representative of an even greater commitment to one another. Conversely many newly long distance couples find it is difficult to cope, and become less committed.

2) Deal-breakers have been broken. Take your pick: infidelity, drug abuse, cap off the toothpaste etc.

I find that I will not commit myself I can't adapt to the new rules of the game, and I've had to contend with a deal-breaker. Since I am very adaptable and have few deal-breakers it is rare for me to abandon the commitment. But I know myself well enough to know that those two instances are my commitment re-evaluation windows.

My parents did the cost-benefit analysis approach. They could obviously commit to the marriage even though they weren't happy. They decided it wasn't worth it to commit to something that didn't work, and dissolved their marital commitments to one another.

So when Michelle says:

quote:

---

I could say that my ideas about commitment are just more realistic than yours are. Because we both know that if we entered a marriage that turned out to suck, whether due to abuse or simple incompatibility, we'd likely leave. So really, your sense of commitment is no stronger than mine.

---

I'm not sure how to respond. I mean, as things are in my marriage right now, no one, but no one on earth, would ever enter it voluntarily, and many people here understand what I'm saying.

Staying in it required accepting real physical abuse and some constant danger for about a year, too. Hitting, kicking, biting, head-butts, assault with deadly weapons, you name it.

Now, maybe you might have stayed had you married someone who, a couple of years into the marriage, began to be emotionally or physically abusive towards you, with no reason other than that being his way of relating to the women he's close to. But I wouldn't consider that admirable, nor would I consider it evidence of stronger "commitment".

Zoot, I wasn't meaning to be harsh. But the original argument in this thread was that people who feel ambivalent towards marriage are merely not willing to commit. And I think that's a false generalization. I don't know very many women who would stay in a marriage forever and ever no matter what happens, no matter what kind of abuse or lack of feeling happens down the road, whether they were gung ho to jump right in at first, or ambivalent at first.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

I understand; I empathize; but ... people are different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Just this week, Michelle, I had a long and interesting conversation with a woman who is walking away because her partner is sick.

---

Actually, you know what? That occurred to me after I posted. So I shouldn't have implied that what you're doing doesn't take extraordinary commitment. I guess I was thinking that when you marry one of "the good guys" then it's a lot easier to understand when illness makes them abusive than it would be if your marriage had been distant or abusive beforehand.

I just wanted to clarify that when I was talking about abuse or distance, I was talking about abusiveness for the sake of abusiveness, or distance because of growing apart, not because of a life-altering illness. Sorry for being insensitive.

[ 05 November 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]