Marriage out of insecurity

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'd really love to hear about some of your experiences.

I am 8 months into "moving in" with my girlfriend, and while the first 3 months or so were quite hard, it has turned into a period of day-to-day bliss.

Without question, the first year for us was VERY hard, and for a variety of reasons. We were both very young and still finding our way in life, and that put a lot of stress on our relationship. My wife was the first person I had lived with outside of my family, and that was also a big adjustment. I think based on my own experiences that I would encourage anyone not to rush into marriage. My marriage works very, very well, but in many respects I think it is a result of good fortune as much as anything.

Originally Posted by peter12

Few things:
[*]We share almost identical interests, opinions, personalities, basically everything. It is important to be with someone almost exactly like you. Opposites do not attract. There are certainly small differences that make life more enjoyable, but you have to share fundamental premises.

This works for many people, I am sure, but I cannot say that my wife and I are all that similar. I am a professional academic, and she has a high-school education. She loves to get out while I enjoy my solitude and often will choose to stay close to home (I used to joke with my friends and neighbours in Chilliwack that I was the "Hermit of Promontory": Our house in Canada is located on a hill on the edge of town, and with working primarily at home, there would literally be days when I would not leave my neighbourhood—at all). I have a high-level time commitment to my work, and my wife is most often bored out of her skull by my research, and she has NEVER read a single thing that I have ever written and published.

Originally Posted by peter12

[*]We do almost everything together, and enjoy it. This includes trips to the grocery store.

This is extremely important. The key to a great marriage is really in how much each partner enjoys the other. My wife and I also do practically everything together. Especially now that we are in Norway and are slowly adjusting to a new culture, language, and making new friends, we and our kids basically form one another's entire social world, and it could not possibly work if we didn't honestly enjoy one another's company. After twenty years, she is the one that I plan my leisure time around, and I have a very difficult time even imagining what life could be like without her.

Originally Posted by peter12

[*]We don't have a lot of money (mid-twenties in school with loans, rent, etc...), but this doesn't get in the way of us having fun. We have never had a money fight, ever.

Disagreements over money are almost guaranteed relationship killers. My wife and I have never had a lot of money, and neither of us is very good at managing our finances, but we have both come to understand very early this principle point: Be open about what we earn and what we spend. Be honest about are concerns and fears. Be supportive of one another's hope and desires even if we cannot afford them. A good case in point:

We no longer own a car and are entirely dependent on public transportation. It is really easy for me because the bus stop is close to our house and the university is only 6–7 mins. away. With me at work every day now (this is a HUGE change for me personally), my wife does all the shopping and looking after things at the house, and there are a number of days when it is really difficult for her getting around and getting things done whilst riding the bus. She really wants to buy a car, but we honestly can't afford it right now, and likely won't be able to until the summer or fall. We don't fight about it. She understands that she needs to be patient and realistic. I understand that she has extremely valid reasons for wanting to make the sacrifices to buy one. We know that at some point we will eventually arrive at a consensus because we trust each other and have very high respect for one another.

Originally Posted by peter12

[*]You start to realize that while big gestures are a lot of fun, it is the little acts of love, and affection that generate the most positive good will.

To be perfectly honest, practically all of my "big gestures" end disasterously, which is why I seldom even think to make any any more. However, I have absolutely needed to supplement these with lots of "little acts of love". In turn, I find myself hardly caring about "getting" from my relationship. After a while the time invested, the security that we have built in our love for one another and the opportunity to spend our lives with the same person whom we enjoy and adore is all the reward.

Originally Posted by peter12

[*]Obey a simple algorithm - relationship stability = frequency of lovemaking - frequency of quarrels. On almost every given week, we make it well into the positive side of that equation. Just from experience, weeks that go into the negative are bad.

That is an excellent formula, and without question, the more intimacy there is in a relationship, the healthier and more enjoyable it is. As you get older, and the longer you are together, you will probably find that your frequency in lovemaking and your frequency in quarrels will both decrease. In our case the ratio is still positive, but the data set on either side is much smaller. I often worry about people who depend so heavily on sex as the "key" to their own relationship: there are some couples who only get along in bed, and this is really a recipe for disaster. As you mentioned in your first point, it is really important to ensure that you enjoy one another's company in a wide variety of situations.

One of the "sacrifices" every man should make in his marriage is spending time doing things that he ordinarily wouldn't do, because his wife wants to do them. For me, this means that I spend a lot of time watching chick-flicks, and bad reality romance shows with my wife. (I can't complain, considering that she watches and enjoys sci-fi movies, The Walking Dead, and Homeland. While we were still dating she actually went into a comic book store and bought a number of classic Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge comics to fill out my collection!) This is perhaps the most pertinent lesson I have learned from my observations of pseudo-reality love connections on television, and I believe it addresses this point:

I really find ABC's "The Bachelor" to be an insufferably stupid show for this very simple reason: The premise of building a sustainable relationship under ideal circumstances is doomed to utter failure, and it is idiotic to believe that a man and a woman can genuinely find real love while jet setting in a fantasy world. A much better premise is in the lesser known "Love in the Wild": Couples are challenged to build relationships amid a mix of triumph and adversity. The things that I take the greatest satisfaction from my own marriage are those big challenges and hard times that we have overcome and come through. Without the tough times, we would never have made it in the first place.

Originally Posted by peter12

[*]And of course, communicating your feelings, and apologizing for miscommunication.

True again. Looking back on it just now, I have a difficult time even being able to recall the instances when either my wife or I have needed to apologise to one another. Not because we have just stopped doing it, but because with each passing year, the times in which we disagree, or say or do stupid things are just becoming substantially more rare. As time passes we are finding that we are much more like-minded in those things that matter the most.

[troutman]

http://lifewise.canoe.ca/SexRomance/.../20573281.html

Canada's Top 10 cities for cheaters

1. Ottawa, Ont.
2. Calgary, Alta.
3. Edmonton, Alta.
4. Saskatoon, Sask.
5. Toronto, Ont.
6. Halifax, N.S.
7. Vancouver, B.C.
8. London, Ont.
9. Regina, Sask.
10. Montreal, Que.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://lifewise.canoe.ca/SexRomance/.../20573281.html

Canada's Top 10 cities for cheaters

1. Ottawa, Ont.
2. Calgary, Alta.

Let me guess what city ranks last - Victoria.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Muta

Marriage is not the institution it once was, and 'one person forever' is an outdated mentality not dying quickly enough.

I see in the far future as people being perpetually single with multiple partners and a focus more on career. Kids will come, but only through common law relationships, since really its like being married anyways.

Do you ever wonder why marriage is not the institution it once was? Call me old fashioned but I still think long term 2 parent families are the best conditions for a stable society/culture.

I think people are having kids out of wedlock because of government meddling in family law, the welfare state and an overall breakdown in morality. I have questions about marriage myself. It seems very risky for a man these days.

The family institution is the most important part of modern civilization. I hope the majority of society does not come to see family as obsolete like you do.

[Locke]

As someone who is getting married soon.....why do I talk to you guys?

Except TextCritic. Hes handy.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Locke

As someone who is getting married soon.....why do I talk to you guys?

Except TextCritic. Hes handy.

Marriage is great :-)

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Do you ever wonder why marriage is not the institution it once was? Call me old fashioned but I still think long term 2 parent families are the best conditions for a stable society/culture.

I think people are having kids out of wedlock because of government meddling in family law, the welfare state and an overall breakdown in morality. I have questions about marriage myself. It seems very risky for a man these days.

The family institution is the most important part of modern civilization. I hope the majority of society does not come to see family as obsolete like you do.

You do realize that you can have a family without actually being married right?

I agree that having 2 parents is best for kids, but it doesn't matter if they are legally married or common law. What it really boils down to is kids need stability and good role models. Nothing the government has done with 'family law' has hurt that.

They don't need 2 people joined together with a nice ceremony and a legal document to provide those things.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Do you ever wonder why marriage is not the institution it once was? Call me old fashioned but I still think long term 2 parent families are the best conditions for a stable society/culture.

It is not the institution it once was because like all things in society, everything changes. The reason two parent families have historically been successful is because society has developed in such a way that promotes their health and stability. If that is in the process of changing—and I think there is good evidence to suggest that it is—then marriage will adapt and change with it. There is nothing intrinsically special about marriage, because it has developed to fulfill specific functions. As those functions change, so too will the institution of marriage to meet them.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I think people are having kids out of wedlock because of government meddling in family law, the welfare state and an overall breakdown in morality. I have questions about marriage myself. It seems very risky for a man these days.

People are having children out of wedlock because it is becoming much more progressively sustainable to do so. It was once unheard of because societies were not designed to offer support for "non-traditional" families. As alternative lifestyles and family organisation continue to change, our society will change right along with them. It doesn't have anything to do with "meddling". It is all much more a matter of perspective.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The family institution is the most important part of modern civilization. I hope the majority of society does not come to see family as obsolete like you do.

I seriously doubt that anyone anywhere honestly considers the family "obsolete". However, there are certainly many who would challenge what we currently consider the traditional definition of "family", but this is nothing new. In modern Western culture polygamous unions are obsolete, as are patriarchies, as are multi-generational extended family clans. I suspect that the current, monogamous, heterosexually defined parameters that have for the past several hundred years constituted a "family" will also one day be similarly obsolete. This is not a tragedy. This is cultural evolution.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Rathji

You do realize that you can have a family without actually being married right?

I agree that having 2 parents is best for kids, but it doesn't matter if they are legally married or common law. What it really boils down to is kids need stability and good role models. Nothing the government has done with 'family law' has hurt that.

They don't need 2 people joined together with a nice ceremony and a legal document to provide those things.

I see what you're saying here but personally I think common law families are becoming more common because young men and women, some having been through the divorce industrial complex in their childhood are a little gun shy. Also, I think pop culture has glorified things like divorce, adultery and marital strife (Eat, Prey, Love anyone?) leading to more selfish attitudes and an overall breakdown in morality.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I see what you're saying here but personally I think common law families are becoming more common because young men and women, some having been through the divorce industrial complex in their childhood are a little gun shy. Also, I think pop culture has glorified things like divorce, adultery and marital strife (Eat, Prey, Love anyone?) leading to more selfish attitudes and an overall breakdown in morality.

what about if it is a same sex marriage?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is not the institution it once was because like all things in society, everything changes. The reason two parent families have historically been successful is because society has developed in such a way that promotes their health and stability. If that is in the process of changing—and I think there is good evidence to suggest that it is—then marriage will adapt and change with it. There is nothing intrinsically special about marriage, because it has developed to fulfill specific functions. As those functions change, so too will the institution of marriage to meet them.


People are having children out of wedlock because it is becoming much more progressively sustainable to do so. It was once unheard of because societies were not designed to offer support for "non-traditional" families. As alternative lifestyles and family organisation continue to change, our society will change right along with them. It doesn't have anything to do with "meddling". It is all much more a matter of perspective.


I seriously doubt that anyone anywhere honestly considers the family "obsolete". However, there are certainly many who would challenge what we currently consider the traditional definition of "family", but this is nothing new. In modern Western culture polygamous unions are obsolete, as are patriarchies, as are multi-generational extended family clans. I suspect that the current, monogamous, heterosexually defined parameters that have for the past several hundred years constituted a "family" will also one day be similarly obsolete. This is not a tragedy. This is cultural evolution.

We will see what happens but I don't think that these changes in the family structure are a completely natural "evolution" like you're implying, but engineered in a way through laws, pop culture etc.

I see the nuclear family as the most sustainable system to date. It's mostly self-relliant and promotes a stronger cultural fabric. I view todays western cultures as sick and degrading in many ways, instead of "progressive" and healthy.

When you get away from the nuclear family, you need a massive welfare state propping up pandemic levels of broken families and single motherhood. Is this what you imply when you say we can now offer ($) support for "non traditional" families through taxation? Well, the world is in debt now.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I don't find him funny at all.

Cool

[Ozy_Flame]

Who cares if the family institution is changing, Mikey? Like governments, technology, social norms and cultures in general, rules of marriage change based on the expectations of generations that move through different cultural eras. The 4-8 kid family that was once prevalent is now an exception to the rule in the Western world. Also, same sex marriages are becoming more commonplace as society gradually accepts homosexuality.

Does the preference for the nuclear family too also mean no mixed racial breeding? And what about religious preferences? I'd like to hear your side on this.

The traditional family institution is disappearing. I'm actually in support of this for more modern alternatives that give people more freedom to do what they want. I would think that should be something you would support given your views.

[jammies]

I strongly support a traditional family with one man and his harem.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Marriage is great :-)

Marriage is grand. Divorce is twenty grand.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Marriage is great :-)

Too late now, you've already scared me out of it!

[Tinordi]

If your wife isn't your best friend you're doing it wrong.

[KTown]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Marriage is grand. Divorce is twenty grand.

Sign me up!!! Where do you find this deal? Mine cost me 200K when all was said and done.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Who cares if the family institution is changing, Mikey? Like governments, technology, social norms and cultures in general, rules of marriage change based on the expectations of generations that move through different cultural eras. The 4-8 kid family that was once prevalent is now an exception to the rule in the Western world. Also, same sex marriages are becoming more commonplace as society gradually accepts homosexuality.

Does the preference for the nuclear family too also mean no mixed racial breeding? And what about religious preferences? I'd like to hear your side on this.

The traditional family institution is disappearing. I'm actually in support of this for more modern alternatives that give people more freedom to do what they want. I would think that should be something you would support given your views.

I'm not against the concept of change. I just think that we have a hair trigger for change in this day and age and change for the sake of change does not always end up benefiting society. Sorry I dont understand what you're asking about mixed race marriages. I didn't think the concept of nuclear family is race specific.

In general, I think of nuclear family and liberty as the strongest protection against tyranny from our rulers. Some socialist, dictatorship style governments (eg. communism) seek to destroy the traditional family. This is no accident, as an atomized, divided society is more easily controlled from above. I believe that the west is being socially engineered in this direction.

Family, health and liberty are my top 3 most important values. I see the family institution changing, but I have yet to see how it is better than what we had or how it promotes more freedom.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Muta

Nah. He's funny as hell and shouldnt be taken seriously.

For a fiction novel I would agree, it's a great read.