Wolvesbaned Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 My husband and I have been working through some rough times and things have been progressing. Today I asked him if he thought marriage is about sacrifice, his response brought light onto my concerns. He thinks marriage shouldn't be about sacrifice. In his words, "Marriage is about sharing lives, sharing experiences and not about restricting each other". In other words, he thinks we should both be free to do whatever is really important to us. These important things can be ultimately defined by things that truly enhance our lives, such as friendships, career, and whatever else. He has the morals to keep his views "in check" but my concern is feelings, mainly mine. Anyone have any thoughts on this? It'll take me awhile to sort things out, and I'd really appreciate other perspectives. Thanks gang! Link to post Share on other sites
Arabess Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 If there was a sacrifice which had to be made for a marriage, I think most people would make it. But the marriage in and of itself shouldn't be considered a sacrifice. If is IS....one of the two parties as indeed very miserable. Link to post Share on other sites
End of my rope Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 He thinks marriage shouldn't be about sacrifice. In his words, "Marriage is about sharing lives, sharing experiences and not about restricting each other". I happen to agree with the basics of this. Two people should be able "to do their own thing" in a marriage...to an extent. My fiance and I have a lot of common interest and love to just hang out together...but he and I also have some things we like to do that the other doesn't. For instance...he LOVES to fish. So he goes fishing (and sometimes I do force myself to go just because he loves it so much) and I stay home and scrapbook or something. We strike a balance that keeps us both happy. Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 You're right, Wolvesbaned, you have found the heart of the matter. Marriage, as some absolute perfect universal , does not exist. What exists are particular marriages--each one a little bit different . We married folk live our everyday lives in imperfect , flawed marriages. Some might claim that "sacrifice" is the root of Marriage in the abstract. As for messy marriages, the ones we live, that may be true or it may not. It's not important in the abstract whether "sacrifice" is intrinsic to Marriage. What's important is whether both you and your husband disagree that it is--and if so, how strongly. A real marriage is about agreements, disagreements and maintaining that delicate balance through compromise.. If marital sacrifice is of incredible importance to you so much so that you demand your husband's concurrence, that may become a problem if your husband tells you he does not share your belief. It's really a problem on two levels: he doesn't believe in marital sacrifice and from this belief you may infer a lack of commitment; and he doesn't care about you sufficiently to change his position even though he understands the emotional importance of this issue to you. (Many marital debates operate simultaneously on both intellectual and emotional levels). There's no right or wrong answer to the "sacrifice" issue: What matters is whether fundamental disagreement on deal breaking issues exists. To me , it's almost never a question of a right or wrong answer to a question as measured against "Marriage" in the abstract. What matters is what effect uncompromising spousal disagreement on an issue has on the particular lived marriage. Fundamental agreement or compromise on the big issues, not sacrifice, lies at the heart of every lived marriage. Link to post Share on other sites
meanon Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Well said, zarathustra Fundamental agreement or compromise on the big issues. That's what makes a marriage, in my view. Marriage is about sharing lives, sharing experiences and not about restricting each other". In other words, he thinks we should both be free to do whatever is really important to us. These important things can be ultimately defined by things that truly enhance our lives, such as friendships, career, and whatever else. This is a fundamental in my marriage, except it's not just being free - it's helping your partner achieve what they want to as far as is possible. That works for us, other marriages where sacrifice is a fundamental value will work equally as well. I hope that by understanding each other's perspectives you are able to find a compromise you can both live with. Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 I hope that by understanding each other's perspectives you are able to find a compromise you can both live with. Exactly. That's what it takes. Well stated, meanon. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Wolvesbaned Posted March 27, 2004 Author Share Posted March 27, 2004 Thank you for all your replies. I really appreciate it. You are right, sacrifice is different from compromise. Though right now I'm hurting pretty bad, but I'll be OK - I can say that now, that's a good thing. I'm apparently "mellow-dramatic", did I mention about the sensitivity issues? Oh well, I suppose I can be at times... considering how I've reevaluated my ideals by accepting his new found friendship and trying to truly trust ... so what if he was willing to end it all just 2 months ago and on the phone... so what if I've literally taken myself apart to understand... so what if I bit my lip when he didn't fully think about his comments (he was very stressed, you know)... and I so wanted peace and to work things out that I had to set aside my hurt... so what of all that, I'm mellow-dramatic! Link to post Share on other sites
meanon Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Sorry you are hurting, Wolvesbaned. It sounds like you feel that you are making all the compromises and that your reactions are being dismissed. I know it's so hard but do try and ignore the put down and explain that you have a right to be heard too, that he doesn't have to agree but you expect him to listen and to give a little as well. I hope you can work things out. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Wolvesbaned Posted March 27, 2004 Author Share Posted March 27, 2004 I wrote something quite long to thank you both and spell-check had deleted it. For now, thank you meanon for your kind words. We had a talk and had come to some understanding. I'll be sure to remember what I had written earlier and post it when I get back. Have a great day all! Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 A real marriage is about agreements, disagreements and maintaining that delicate balance through compromise.. Like "Collective Barganing Aggreements," Z? What we really need is some sort of tie-breaker; an odd number, if you will. Perhaps the fact that marriage is traditionally defined as between a couple (even number of votes 1:1) is another of Nature's little pranks designed to remind us that our social norms are not designed within her parameters, and we will suffer for our foolishness? Or, perhaps just as foolish, might be the refusal to believe that one "vote" does not count more than the other: A modern concept, that, based on increases in divorce rates, seems to be less than effective. I'll leave it to you to decide which, husband or wife, has "majority" vote in these tie breaking situations. There is NO WAY I'm Going to give my opinion in the matter (but, I think you can accurately take a guess). Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I'll leave it to you to decide which, husband or wife, has "majority" vote in these tie breaking situations. Interesting concept, Samson. It's clearly not "one man, one vote" in many marriages. My best guess is that whoever wants to maintain the marriage more than the other is at a disadvantage. Thus the person who cares more about the marriafe's survival is probably more willing to compromise. Although one shouldn't go to the well too often through brinkmanship. I imagine the law of diminishing returns applies. Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 So, Z, the road to HELL is indeed pathed with good intentions? Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Most definitely, Samson. Most definitely. Not that we'd get credit for having "good" intentions. We should start a thread devoted to male middle aged relationship fatigue. Imagine what the honest expression of that state of marital being would do to LS's main demographic? Link to post Share on other sites
Fedup&givingup Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Very well put, Zara. I agree that the boundaries should be laid down within a marriage, and that these basic things need to be agreed on. It is crucial. For me personally, I feel that marriage has a whole lot to do with sacrifice/compromise. What that ties into is the level of committment, respect, loyalty, and love you have for your spouse. If you don't bend sometimes in order to make the other one happy, it will lead to harboring a WHOLE lot of resentment...someone will end up carrying a torch. Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 The interesting stuff occurs when one spouse is substantially more committed to the marriage/relationship than the other one. Then, the Committed Spouse(CS) is at a negotiating leverage disadvantage with the Less Committed Spouse (LCS). Why? Because the CS cares more. It's frequently about symmetry. If the compromising is primarily done by thr CS, I foresee her becoming more and more resentful. This resentment, bottomed as it is on accumulated greivances, manifests itself in blow-ups over picayune matters. Can counseling ever turn a LCS into a CS? Or does counseling simply teach the CS stoicism? Link to post Share on other sites
Fedup&givingup Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Zara, I would have to say that you are right on. The CS ends up getting the short end of the stick, and it does lead to huge blow ups. I think the best recourse would be for the CS to get counseling on how to not have to compromise your whole self in order to satisfy someone else because you aren't getting your needs met. Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Imagine what the honest expression of that state of marital being would do to LS's main demographic? I'm certain we do not need to imagine what the reaction would be: Among the swirl of roughled feathers, we would find ourselves buried under accusations of being heartless (at best) or "women-haters" (at our worst). At least they are becoming more predictable! Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 I think the best recourse would be for the CS to get counseling on how to not have to compromise your whole self in order to satisfy someone else because you aren't getting your needs met. I absolutely agree that that's the best result for the CS, but does that tank the marriage? What I'm wondering is whether an inherent tension exists in these CS/LCS asymmetric marriages between counseling that benefits the CS, by emphasizing the legitimacy and force of her unmet needs and grievances , and counseling that benefits the marriage by emphasizing compromise, deferral and suppression. Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 we would find ourselves buried under accusations of being heartless (at best) or "women-haters" (at our worst). Yep. Or philandering Peter Pans with adolescent commitment issues. The advice industry is dominated by killjoys and scolds--all hewing to a joyless marital work ethic. The humorless Dr. Phils, Lauras, Frasers, et al. What the straight laced fem-dom advice industry needs is sardonic counsel from male middle aged wastrels like ourselves. Let's shake things up! Link to post Share on other sites
meanon Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Let's shake things up! Can't wait!!!! When a couple go for counselling both usually want the marriage to work or else they wouldn't be there. Those that are not committed would not bother with counselling in the first place. When it works, the LCS realises the damage done by approaching every discussion as an argument to be won and learns to compomise. The CS learns not to make all the compromises. Therapy does sometimes result in the ending of marriages, better that than the annihilation of self by the CS. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 sardonic counsel from male middle aged wastrels Ask Paul to create a new forum. Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Meanon, actually the fact is that most marriage counselling does not work, and reason #1 is that one partner is not committed to the process, only participating to placate their mate. (WSJ had an excellent article about this a month ago). As much as some would like to segregate our sardonic postings "counsel from male middle aged wastrels," should be applied where it is most obviously needed, among LS's main demographic. We are concerned about diversity, and the wonders it brings to all advanced thought. Of course, we should do our best to consider fragile sensabilities........those that seem offended when alternative views are expressed..........We wouldn't want to be statistically lumped into the same category as the 0.07% of the population suffering from Narsassitic Personality Disorder, or some other even more poorly understood, over-diagnosed psychological problem whose primary remedies are pharmaceutical products that I could only afford to purchase in Canada. Furthermore, caution should be taken that we are not "abusive," a term that seems to be liberally applied to include any male that has ever made a female unhappy in his past life (and for the hindu, and most others, any life he may have lived previously): For example, Zara, when you use the phrase "let's shake things up," you possibly need to follow with the disclaimer that you did not mean this in a literal, threatening manner, and it is not directed to anyone, or any group in particular, but you meant it in the most caring, considerate, and constructive way. But, I'm sure you can put the boiler plate verbage together in less than 5,000 words that would still not satisfy everyone. Link to post Share on other sites
zarathustra Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Therapy does sometimes result in the ending of marriages, better that than the annihilation of self by the CS. Very well put, meanon. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Sardonicism can be delightful and funny if it is used as a literary artifice, however too often it's the outward expression of bitterness and cynicism. Then, it's just dismal. Link to post Share on other sites
Arabess Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 <<What we really need is some sort of tie-breaker; an odd number, if you will.>> by Samson Maybe this is where a threesome would actually be useful. LOL! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts