Will your marriage last? (An article)

[Samson]

Moimeme, if you find that you are in a fairly regular state of simmering fury, or if things which used not to bother you are getting to you, or if you fall into tears much more easily than normal, or if the slightest thing sets you off, or if you dont' seem to be laughing and smiling as much as you used to - pay heed. These are all warning signs that something is going on with you; often that someplace in your life there is too much stress.

 

First check yourself physically - are you getting enough food? Enough sleep? The right kinds of foods? Enough water?

 

Next, review what's been going on in your life - major life change of some sort? Any stressors, things to worry you? Keep digging. Somewhere is a reason why you're different and you need to know what it is and deal with it.

 

Anger is not healthy. Nor is stress. They literally produce toxins in your body which damage you. So it's absolutely to your physical benefit to find out what it is that is causing you to have changed. You only got one you, after all!

[CurlyIam]

ROTFL!!! I think you posted this on the wrong thread !!!

[moimeme]

Samson, you're hilarious! You seem to regularly mistake me for an angry person. Maybe you regularly mistake other people who aren't angry for angry people, too. You might want to look into that.

 

I think your ideas are 'way out in left field, but it's no skin off my nose. You can bumble around happily (or angrily) in your misguidedness and I'm continuing to have a happy and peaceful life. I only get angry at bigotry, unfairness, and hatred and this discussion has none of those.

 

I do not know what the percentage rate of people going to church vs people who don't is, but do you think that would have any direct correlation to the people who divorce and don't go to church vs those who do and do go?

 

There was a study, possibly even mentioned in this thread but I'm too lazy to look, saying that people who live together before marriage divorce as often, or more so, as those who don't live together before marriage.

One explanation for this statistic is that those who don't live together before marrying are likely to be adherents of religions that advocate no premarital sex as well as no divorce. So, then, these folks will be more likely to remain married. However, that one is married does not mean that the marriage is happily, as can be observed with our own Statler and Waldorf

 

then maybe a part representing a whole would conclude that the ones who don't go have less or don't believe in faith, commitment, etc... and that is why their marriage didn't work? I don't think so.

 

Me neither. It's not about faith in marriage at all. That's silly, too. 'Marriage' is a concept, as Dyer is fond of saying. There is no 'institution' per se. We interpret concepts according to our own inner workings and how we operationalize our interpretation is solely our responsibility. So if you enter marriage with cynicism, that's the monkey on your own back, not 'marriage's' fault just as much as if you enter marriage with unrealistic expectations. It's the approach to the concept that requires change, not the concept itself.

[ladyangel]

I'm amazed at how many people and what they say, on this thread in particular, can be characterized by one person as "in error," "incorrect," "irrelevant," "baseless," "embittered," "cynical," "mistaken,"

"ridiculous," "blathering," "bogus," "bitching," "bleating on," "regularly mistaken," and "misguided"; yet the person doing the characterizing states their opinions as facts, refers to "studies" as their basis for making statements to support their ideas, while ignoring other studies. It's just my opinion, but I think some people should rely a little more on personal experience and a little less on books.

 

Basically, my belief is that everyone is entitled to their opinions without them being cut down. What happened to the "rules of debate" some people are so fond of referring to when it suits their purpose?

 

For the record, I believe in the concept of marriage or I never would have gotten married. I love my husband and I am committed to my marriage and will do whatever it takes to make it last. I am neither bitter nor angry about my marriage. But at the same time, I can see both sides of the argument (debate?) here.

 

There have been many times when I've thought that, hindsight being 20/20, if I had known then what I know now, I might not have gotten married. Sometimes it's because of just the people we are and the inevitable incompatibilities and problems that occur. After all, none of us are perfect...well, I guess I shouldn't speak for all of us.

 

Other times, it's the actual concept of marriage that is difficult; living with the same person day in and day out, no matter what; not having some of the freedoms that I had before marriage; having to share everything with another person, even when you're feeling selfish; not having as much sexual excitement as I had when I was single; less privacy -- basically, many of the things that come along with marriage.

 

With some people, the negatives begin to outweight the positives. I don't think it's fair to make it totally black and white, i.e., it's either the fault of "marriage" or it's the fault of "the people." I mean, can't it be both?

[Thinkalot]

I've been following this debate with interest, and occassionally adding comment, but I think this is where I jump of this train, and let you lot battle it out a bit further.

 

Points have been clearly made. As for me...I'm in love and engaged...so what do you expect me to say!

[meanon]

I believe that people are initially marrying for the wrong reasons, and the marriage does not work for all the right reasons and that's why divorce is inevitable for them. To be so analytical as the idea of Samson and his supporters to marriage, their marriages are probably the ones that have not or are not working so well, and that is no big surprise given the thoughts and notions they argue.

if you enter marriage with cynicism, that's the monkey on your own back

These threads always end up with people blaming others for bad judgement/faith/behaviour, as though if only they had done something differently their marriages would still be OK. The polarisation into advocates and critics of marriage is also a features of these debates.

 

Thinkalot - almost all of us start out as you, in love, NOT cynical, willing to work hard at it, to make sacrifices, believing it will work. You two are particularly receptive to change, that will help. I'm so happy that you and are getting married. You have many years of love, fun and happiness ahead of you. There's a fine line between being realistic and having the necessary faith to weather the difficulties. You need both to sustain a long marriage. For some that's a lifetime, for other's it's not. All we can do is our best.

 

People are not perfect, sometimes we make mistakes and the consequences damage our chances of making it work. Often there is no reason for it, the love simply fades over time as people change, DESPITE the work, the effort, the sacrifice. When it's gone it doesn't come back. Is it the fear of this uncertainty, this lack of control that makes people not wish to see the risks? Or is it that we have vastly different experience of couples who divorce or stay the course?

 

I do not think I am cynical about marriage, mine is very important to me. I can't see how it helps my marriage to pretend that I can protect myself from the possibility of failure by trying very hard, by being very good. Having a degree of realism (not cynicism), means I value our love even more. If my marriage fails I may become more cynical but from my perspective it seems that people in long marriages spend the best part of their lives with someone they love. The knowledge that it may not last forever does not negate the pleasure of sharing your life with another, the benefits of a mutual supportive partnership and the joy of having children.

 

jmd28, the need to analyse and understand is not the cause, it's the effect.

[sinner]

It looks like someone from the New York Times may be reading this Thread. I had criticized "to death do us part" Marriage as increasingly irrelevant and obsolete in today's modern world-- An anachronism that belongs in the dustbin of social history.

 

In today's Times, there's an article about the pandemic divorce rate and that people, as a result, are starting to modify their marital vows to "as long as our love will last" as opposed to the injunction: "till death do us part."

 

Samson, it looks like someone is listening.

 

Check out the Article, entitled, "Till Death Do Us Part, Or Whatever," in the link below:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/weekinreview/27robe.html

[Samson]

Thinkalot, I was hopeful that you wouldn't disengage yourself before commenting on one subject that your opinion would be most interesting: The value (or lack thereof) of pre-nuptuial agreements. Perhaps I'll begin another (bleating?) thread.

 

Moimeme regards them as worthless once we have children since, presumably, all aspects of the children's welfare will be in the interest of both parents and this will nullify any preexisting agreements. I'll not (angrily?) characterize this thought, but would raise the question (blather?): Do all Ozian parents place their children's welfare above their own?

 

On our planet, this simply isn't the case anymore than married couples being able to predict how they will feel about each other 20 years from the date they join in holy matrimony, or until "death" does them apart.

 

The phrase that sounds more like "euthanasia," yes Sinner? (and the subjects of the NY Times article sited?).

 

modify their marital vows

 

Another on my list of recommendations.

[moimeme]

Moimeme regards them as worthless

 

Samson, you can blather on about me to your heart's content but DO NOT presume to know my thoughts unless I have stated them explicitly on this board. This is NOT my opinion. Kindly cease quoting me as though you know me, because you do not.

 

Sinner, this may come as a shock, but you are not the first person to become cynical about marriage and come up with this idea.

[sinner]

I know that, moimeme. I was just struck by the coincidental timing of the NYT article and this very interesting Thread discusssion.

 

I see a new marital paradigm(or, stated differently, many marriage paradigms) coming down the pike--one that embraces multiple ways of pairing. "One size fits all" Marital monogamy for life is rapidly losing its ideological monopoly in both deed and thought.

 

I'm curious as to what alternatives people come up with.

 

These are exciting times.

[Matilda]

Okay, so what do you think is the purpose of marriage?

 

I know what I think the purpose is, but would be interested in hearing what others think.

[Samson]

But, Moi, you did express your thoughts about prenuptuial agreements:

 

Once you've produced offspring, all the contracts in the world mean zilch, which is one more reason why all this bleating on about how marriage 'ought' to be fixed is ridiculous.

 

In you usual, convincingly angerless tone, you seem to be quite clear about your thoughts, always so pleasently expressed in the most diplomatic of ways to avoid hurting even the most delicate of sensabilities.

 

But, should I have misinterpreted, then I'm SOOOOOOOooooooooo Sorrrrrryyyyy!

 

I can sympathise: where will the chill pill industry be when people realize they must change social norms rather than individually administer persciption medication.

 

Now, go take your Soma.

[moimeme]

Well, that confirms it. Your anger meter badly needs recalibration. And forgive me if I presume, Samson, but never in my wildest imaginings could I picture your sensibilities as 'delicate'

[Thinkalot]

Samson- to answer your question as to my opinion on pre-nups (you knew I'd keep reading this thread didn't you?)...

 

I would be absolutely offended if my fiance asked me for one. That's the truth. Perhaps it's not politically correct. Perhaps it's too emotional, or I am too romantic and idealistic. I'd hate it though.

 

We enter into our marriage at least, with the firm belief that it will last. And with trust in each other. And with faith I suppose, that if something does go wrong, that the other person will be fair in the splitting of assets.

Asking for a pre-nup seems to say...I don't really have total faith in us, I need a back up plan.

It's completely unromantic for one, and also seems to spell a lack of trust and faith.

 

Like, I said, call me naive, or idealistic or whatever...but that's how I feel. I know others would say it's pratical and sensible. Hell, my fiance is a financial planner, and would probably advise a very rich person to be careful with their assets too. He has to think in those terms...it's his job.

 

Do I think all couples put the kids first? Nope. People are often selfish. Do I think we will...well of course I do ...I think we will put 'us' first, and that 'us' will eventually include kids, we hope.

 

BTW, just because I am in love, and full of hope and romantic ideals...does NOT mean I am not also a realist. I know the risks, I know marriage takes work...I know things and people can change. So does my fiance. He's been through that with his ex-wife!

 

But, we are already working on our relationship, and doing our best...and if you lose your hope and faith in love...to me the world seems a very sad place indeed.

 

Marriage may not be for everyone these days and that's OK. But you certainly won't here me saying "for as long as our love lasts".

[moimeme]

I'd sign a prenup in a New York minute. I've seen people become - odd in their lives. We can all potentially succumb to some sort of ailment of the brain. Even menopause can do unpleasant things to one. I've also seen a few too many families get into trouble because people don't make their wills and financial arrangements while they have all their marbles. I'd sign a prenup to protect both of us against the possibility that one or both of our brains becomes unwell for whatever reason. The odds are slim, but people also buy life insurance gambling that they won't die. To me, a prenup's the same sort of thing - insurance.

[Thinkalot]

Bunnyboy would probably applaude such practical thinking moi! He's always instructing me to take the emotion out of practical decisions, especially financial ones! LOL. I am our drive to live outside the square, and energy and spontaneity...he is our rudder, and balance, and the voice of reason.

[meanon]

I'd never sign a pre-nup either.

 

Paradoxically, the people I know in couples who were unmarried and have split after very long relationships do wish they had got married. It's not that it would have saved their relationships, nothing could have. It's the lack of legal protection and the recognition from others of the impact it's had on their life that they needed.

 

Within the context of this discussion, everything that applies to marriage also applies to most long term relationships. People want the same things out of life. It's just that there is less social pressure/expectation and therefore less of a reason to marry.