Wolvesbaned Posted June 8, 2004 Share Posted June 8, 2004 Found this article on Psychology Today titled "Will Your Marriage Last?" http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/ptoarticle/pto-20000101-000036.asp There's even a little test you can do that's based on the study attached after the article --though I don't know how accurate it really is because I ranked amongst the "Fine Romance" category, and for those that read my posts, know where my marriage has gotten me --out of this thread and into the separation area. Link to post Share on other sites
JustSoRight Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Yeah I was part of the Disaffected Lovers group. It said that I maybe heading for divorce...haha...yeah I'd say so. The cheat deserves to be divorced! Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Hiya! Wolf, hope you're making great plans about how you'll enjoy your freedom. Good link. Thanks. Took the Quiz: results, not a surprise: "Disengaging Duo" although it is very difficult to recall differences between first and second year of marriage, my residual feelings are probably just as accurate a measure as any written log. Social science has a name for that fading dynamic--"disillusionment": Lovers initially put their best foot forward, ignoring each other's--and the relationship's--shortcomings. But after they tie the knot, hidden aspects of their personalities emerge, and idealized images give way to more realistic ones. This can lead to disappointment, loss of love and, ultimately, distress and divorce. What is surprising is that, although we know the wheels are coming off the cart after the first year, we'll hang on through 5, then 10, and now almost 15 years. Why? My theory is that we take comfort in externalities: In other words, during the 2-15+ year period, so much else is happening, children are being born, homes are being bought, jobs are being lost and found, etc., that there are many excuses for ignoring the weak foundation that was clearly apparent after the first year. Also, especially for "optimistic?" age group of twenty-somethings that get married, there is the refusal to surrender. Of course, this is only for the few that are mature enough to admit there was something wrong in the beginning. But after things settle: Perfect job is secure, mortgage is being paid regularly, kids are out of diapers and in school, we revisit the point in our marriage, year ONE. We are now weary of optimismic refusal, and quite mature enough to admit something is wrong, and surrender. We also might envision the light at the end of the 20-30 year tunnel. Do we want to spend it with or without our spouce? If we need anyone to travel with are we capable of reintroducing the joy of sharing life's journey with or without our spouce? Questions that definitely deserve some very careful reflection before answering. But they must be answered sooner than later. Link to post Share on other sites
sinner Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 The "externalities" to which you refer, I call the business of everyday life. In our 20s and 30s, we are in a state of permanent distraction: jobs, kids, family --all compete for our time. The marriage is in a state of benign neglect. But it works just enough to get the daily projects accomplished day after day. By our 40s and 50s, the kids are well into high school or college, the job is stable and remunerative and the the functional distractiveness starts to dissipate. The busyness of family life winds down. No longer able to cling to the "marriage preserver" of externalities, you look at this stranger in your bed and ask yourself: Do I want to spend my remaining days with this person with whom I can't speak--let alone love? Is there something more? Will I always be a stranger in my own bed? Love dies with a whimper, Samson, a whimper. Middle age is a home wrecker. Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Then you'd agree that science has artificially extended our lives and in the process made marriage an impractical anachronism. Death by age 45: The good old days! Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Then you'd agree that science has artificially extended our lives and in the process made marriage an impractical anachronism. If, by 'marriage', you mean 'two people cohabiting the same house, engaging in sexual relations, and otherwise devoting their time and care to self and people other than partner, who is, for the most part, treated as a roommate' you might be right. If, by 'marriage', you mean 'two people who each place their love and concern for the other above other priorities and who make the continued effort to show their love for each other', then it could never become an anachronism. This reminds me of people who muddled through in school by not bothering to work all that much, scrape by, and never take responsibility for not having put forth their best effort. It's the school, the system, the dog who ate their homework, the computer that crashed to blame, but certainly not them for not putting in the work or for letting things slide. There is nothing wrong with marriage. What's wrong is the people who marry. Link to post Share on other sites
sinner Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Marriage for life in the traditional/ideal sense--absolute fidelity, 24/7 lust and eternally blissful monogamous union--is not just an anachronism, it's an illusion, a chimera: One propagated by the multi-billion dollar wedding -industrial complex, religious zealots and self-help zealots (who've mostly replaced the religious kind). These scolds peddle their marital fantasies on TV , the Net and mostly women's magazines. Live by the ideal, die by the ideal. Lose your illusions. Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by sinner Lose your illusions. I know you weren't talking to me...but I don't want to lose my 'illusions' thanks very much! I'll call them ideals though. Link to post Share on other sites
ladyangel Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme This reminds me of people who muddled through in school by not bothering to work all that much, scrape by, and never take responsibility for not having put forth their best effort. It's the school, the system, the dog who ate their homework, the computer that crashed to blame, but certainly not them for not putting in the work or for letting things slide. There is nothing wrong with marriage. What's wrong is the people who marry. I suppose that would include the author of the above, since she herself has been divorced...? Link to post Share on other sites
sinner Posted June 13, 2004 Share Posted June 13, 2004 Good point, Think: Illusions are merely Ideals punctured by Reality. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Marriage for life in the traditional/ideal sense--absolute fidelity, 24/7 lust and eternally blissful monogamous union--is not just an anachronism, it's an illusion, a chimera: One propagated by the multi-billion dollar wedding -industrial complex, religious zealots and self-help zealots (who've mostly replaced the religious kind). These scolds peddle their marital fantasies on TV , the Net and mostly women's magazines. Live by the ideal, die by the ideal. Lose your illusions. I described what I thought 'marriage' ought to be. You apparently didn't read it, because the little blurb you posted was NOT what I said. I suppose that would include the author of the above, since she herself has been divorced...? Apparently, you inferred I was critiquing people who have been divorced. You are also in error. People who say marriage is to blame for their failure to conduct happy marriages are, IMHO, trying to deflect responsibility away from themselves. Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 People who say marriage is to blame for their failure to conduct happy marriages are, IMHO, trying to deflect responsibility away from themselves. How can this be misinterpreted? At any rate, yes Moi, we should all remain eternally optimistic about an institution as successful as this: It works 50% of the time, and even when it does, most, given the option, would bail given no embarrassment, no cost, and hasselless freedom. Yes, we are all to blame for social problems, and anyone who decides that society is to blame for their own mistakes, misfortunes, or misperceptions must be "deflecting responsibility." Now that we've accepted our responsibilities for the present, how soon can we agree that the future must change to meet the changing demands of a longer life? It is inevitable, as we see the age that people marry (the shrinking fraction that bother) increasing. Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 So divorce stats aside, what percentage of people are actually in HAPPY marriages? Let's say 50% don't get divorced....of that 50% how many are content/satisfied...happy? Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Dr. Phil in "Relationship Rescue" writes that "Learned Helplessness" is the condition which many married couples are in when it comes to their relationships: 1. You have consciously accepted a dull pain as a way of life 2. You feel a regular malaise 3. You have surrendered to the reality of just going through the motions in a motionless relationship. 4. You often think or say "What's the use? It will never change" 5. You no longer even bother to protest whe being attacked or abused by your partner 6. You feel lonely 7. You begin to turn to other people or activities in search of fulfillment. 8. You express disappointment covertly (fiended illness, drinking, therapy sessions) Anybody out there NOT posting about one or several of these blessings marriage has broght them (of course, it is all their own fault, right Moi). Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Prove me wrong. Tell me it was 'marriage' and not the failure of one of the partners, if not both, to carry out the role of a married person with all the work that entails. The institution isn't broken; the participants are. Don't blame 'marriage'. It's probably eleven thousand other things, but the institution itself is neutral and therefore not responsible for any problems. Just as religion itself is not to blame for the acts of its adherents. If you have a cookbook, choose a recipe, and then fail to use any of the ingredients or methods in the book, it's not the book that's the problem, is it? Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted June 14, 2004 Share Posted June 14, 2004 Mmmm. Cynical, negative views of married life. I choose not to buy into them, as I prepare to marry my love next year. He's divorced, and an example of hope over experience. I simply have hope. Link to post Share on other sites
Samson Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 The institution isn't broken; the participants are. Don't blame 'marriage'. It's probably eleven thousand other things, but the institution itself is neutral and therefore not responsible for any problems. Such generic descriptions could be applied to any "institutuion." E.g. The Spanish Inquisition was neutral; Nazism: neutral, just filled with broken participants. Sorry Moi, but the ash heap of history, human history, is filled with failed "institutions" that were, admittedly, and quite obviously based on man's.........er, and, um....... woman's, individual imperfections. Surviving human institutions are those that recognise the most flawed participants and have incorporated flexability to sustain them within the aggregate population. Marriage, as an "institution" has failed (at least 50%) of its so horribly flawed participants. It needs redefinition, reconstruction, and evolution if it will survive, and like most "social organisms" it is, for example: 1. Fewer are getting married 2. More are having children outside marriage (voluntarily) 3. Many are marrying later in life BTW: Good for Thinkalot and her "BunnyBoy" (why is it that I'm embarrassed to type that name????). I'm not saying marriage is bad for everyone, but to believe it is a successful social institution is an illusion. I hope Think & BB will be really successful, and define the ideal "reality" that defines this illusion. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Such generic descriptions could be applied to any "institutuion." E.g. The Spanish Inquisition was neutral; Nazism: Bogus, bud. Somewhere, there's a name for this fallacy, but whatever it's called, it's a bad debating point. HAAAWWWWNNNKKKK (the buzzer that goes off when the contestant offers an incorrect answer). Link to post Share on other sites
ladyangel Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 I'm so glad there are plenty of people on this forum who can make posts that are not filled with sarcasm, acrimony, criticism, derision, rancor...etc., etc. It makes it so much easier to ignore those who do. I've actually enjoyed this debate, until it degraded into the above. It's just too bad some of us can't be right all the time. I'm sure it's frustrating to those who are. Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Originally posted by Samson BTW: Good for Thinkalot and her "BunnyBoy" (why is it that I'm embarrassed to type that name????). LOL! Because, Samson, it's a corny, cutesy sounding name, let's be honest! It actually is a bit of a joke, which derives from his surname, which has caused him to be the focus of more than the odd bit of friendly teasing. And don't worry...you have not turned me off marriage. Quite frankly, I don't think you or anyone else has the power to do that right now. My parents divorced when I was 4, my fiances parents are divorced and don't talk to each other, my fiance is divorced...we are not exactly surrounded with glowing examples of marriage, and yet we remain hopeful. Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Originally posted by ladyangel I'm so glad there are plenty of people on this forum who can make posts that are not filled with sarcasm, acrimony, criticism, derision, rancor...etc., etc. It makes it so much easier to ignore those who do. I've actually enjoyed this debate, until it degraded into the above. It's just too bad some of us can't be right all the time. I'm sure it's frustrating to those who are. ladyangel...there is some irony in this comment of yours. Link to post Share on other sites
ladyangel Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Originally posted by Thinkalot ladyangel...there is some irony in this comment of yours. Oh, I know. There's lots of irony going around on this board. Just to clarify, I think you're one of the nicest people on this forum. And I mean that sincerely. We should all aspire to be more like you, myself included. I love the name BunnyBoy. It's cute as heck. And there's even a little emoticon to go with it! You also have the coolest avatar. But I think it would go much better with my screen name. Sorry to derail. What was the topic of this thread again? Link to post Share on other sites
Thinkalot Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Originally posted by ladyangel Just to clarify, I think you're one of the nicest people on this forum. And I mean that sincerely. We should all aspire to be more like you, myself included. Thanks...it's really nice to hear such things. Pity I'm not always as calm when I'm at home with Bunnyboy! LOL! Link to post Share on other sites
sinner Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Well stated, Samson. Well stated. Link to post Share on other sites
Matilda Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Samson and Sinner are you really that cynical? It just seems so sad to me, so hopeless. So marriage has failed as a social institution, are there any "social institutions" that you feel have been successful? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts