Love and Marriage: Has Loved Ruined It?

Remove all ads!

Here's quite and interesting read. I disagree with much of it. But of course this is without having read Coontz's book. But I think the notion of romantic love as a point of reference (leading to it's fulfillment in marriage) for modern society grew out of stirrings in the Aquitaine (in the twelth century).

Stuck with the idea of marrying for love? I don't think she is serious here. But I agree that the notion of marrying for fulfullment is tied heavily to the "pursuit of happiness" and the guarantees of personal liberty. Of course, the authoritarians would like nothing better than to get better control over who is marrying whom and for what reasons.

http://preview.msnbc.msn.com/id/8017908/site/newsweek/

 

What really ruins marriages is a lack of commitment on one or both partners. When one decides that they'd rather screw someone else, or put hobbies over their family, there's bound to be trouble...

 

Which goes right back to the whole issue of "self-fulfilment", which is far too often seen by the morons of this world as "consequence free self gratification." If you DARE to suggest to someone that they make a sacrifice or that they have a responsibility, they start howling about the fact that you are repressing them. So . . .

People marry for love, and then find out their spouse isn't perfect. Maybe it takes some time for that imperfect spouse to change. But then these idiots start talking about their "needs" not being met, and they figure that gives them the right to do whatever they want, regardless of morality, decency, and the promises they voluntarily made in the first bloody place. It makes me sick, and I'm afraid, Chandos, that far too many people marry "until death do us part -- or I don't feel like it any more."

 

Chandos, think of all the myths, legends and fairy tales that revolve around "true love". And they're a lot older than 200 years. This guy Coontz has been reading too much sociology. But maybe he's right. It's what we've been searching for all these years, and we've found it.

 

I somehow cling to the "one true love" idea and the soulmate theory. I'm perfectly aware that there is always a number of persons with whom it would work out, and an even larger number of persons with whom it would just work, but I still want something special. Of course, things like this don't just happen and one has to work on the bonding. Generally, relationships require lots of work. But there is that something which makes you want to work on it or not.

I do agree with LKD on:

Simply nothing is ever going to work without a self-giving, self-offering and even self-emptying attitude on both sides. It always needs both people involved to be responsible, admit to and learn from mistakes and make sacrifices.

I again have to agree with LKD:

I don't buy the whole "needs" thing. My upbringing was different, my culture was different. It feels so repulsively selfish that I can't grasp it. As for morality, decency... what do you have if you don't have your principles, your beliefs? Promises? I would think word once given is always given, but no... promises and even oaths seem to be conditional these days and best avoided.

If you're married, well you have to stick by it. If you aren't, you can do what I do. Say goodbye to the girl/guy on first knowingly and willingly broken promise without a grave reason. It will hurt but you won't regret.

Still, the idea that marriages lasted longer because they were a method of strengthening a contract, forging alliances, joining estates etc is absurd. The marriages lasted on paper, had not much substances and only existed as a facade. Who wants to have a lasting marriage which already looks like in separation or after divorce?

On the other hand, the idea of elders or family or whomever finding you a good match isn't such a bad thing. They have way more experience than you, are old and wise and don't have their heads clouded by hormones. Still, things should "click" before vows are taken. I don't like the idea of strangers before the altar and everyone keeping the illusion that everyone is happy and there's a great love around.

As for me, I want both romance and reason. I don't want any economic or political crap. But I do want a good match, apart from the chemistry. It's more in attitudes than feelings per se. Loving people will love those whom they are about to marry or have already married, anyway. There's a reason why I said one day, "I will sooner marry an old friend than a new crush". Still, some kind of love has to be there. I don't believe in mere matchmaking and hooking up with strangers.

[ June 03, 2005, 12:31: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I have been a member of the boards for sometime now - and I have lurked for sometime before that. It always suprises me how high some peoples relationship expectations are, not that this is wrong but I think sometimes they are overly Idealistic in terms of relationships.
I just wonder wether the people who are holding out for the perfect love, or think that it is a easy thing to strictly adhere to marriage vows, are married or have been in serious relationships before.
Sorry to take this off the beaten track a little but this has been nagging at me for sometime.

 

If you're speaking about me, idealistic maybe. And yeah, rather holding out for the real thing than jumping into it. As for perfection, it's as perfect as we make it. What do you mean by strictly adhering to marriage vows? There are many people who have never cheated. It takes some special upbringing, but there are people who religiously stick by their word. It surely is not easy, but what point bothering if it were? Life is not meant to be easy and neither are vows. "Needs" not being met, other people being more attractive... who cares? If it hurts, you clench your teeth and go on.

 

Chev, Your views are honourable and I do respect you for them.
I will also add at this point I am married and I have never been unfaithful to my wife (neither has she I hope) and I dont plan to either, in fact I never really think about it. When you've been with someone for 11 years its difficult to look at things in the same light. The one true love idea - well I never in believed that, you are either compatible or you're not.
People do change - the wife is not the same woman she was when she was 21. She acts differently she has a lot more responsibility, and she is more serious. Above all else - I now live with her, so I get to see things you never really wanted to see. Like when she wakes up in the morning with a bad cold... and vice versa (I'm sure I horrify her more than she does me) Its nots always that easy to get along when things are going **** up at every corner. Things that may well be out of you hands as a couple, thoughts at this point may well be along the lines of how are we going to get out this mess.
What I am trying to say is that all going well I will be spending another 40 - 50 years with my wife, and I guarentee you the things you think are important when you first meet dwindle into insignificance after 3 or 4 years let alone 11.

 

Actually, I think it's even simpler than that. I will admit that it may be difficult to turn down sex once it's offered. But chances are, if it got to that point, you've done some fooling around already that you shouldn't have been doing. Or at least flirting. If you're married, there are usually a sequence of steps that need to be taken to get to the point that you're having sex with someone else. The first step is usually the easiest to resist, and that usually involved flirting. If you take that first step, every step thereafter is harder to resist.

Still, I really shouldn't be so judgemental because I've never been faced with such a temptation. Perhaps it's because I've never taken that first step, or perhaps I've just been lucky. Afterall, I've only been married for two years, which isn't all that long relatively speaking. I do not presume to know how I will act in every possible situation, simply because I have no knowledge of every possible situation that I will face. All I can say with certainty is that I have never cheated up to this point, and I have no intention of starting. Saying with absolute certainty that I never will is not something that I - or anyone for that matter - can predict. We may all proclaim that we are made of stronger stuff to not be caught up in temptations, but until it happens - can you really know for sure?

 

Just who are these "old and wise elders" anyway? Sorry but this comment goes way off the charts into the realm of Never, Never Land. Never happened, never will.

 

Let's say the two aren't too far apart. I think great compatibility doesn't happen all too often. This probably explains my views a bit.

Agreed. Sometimes what attracts at first, puts of later. Sometimes things come up, people also change. I suppose it's important to try and get to know the nature of the person rather than take traits for face value. On the other hand, life is a journey and so is marriage, I suppose. At least it's supposed to be the beginning of something and not a mere completion of a romance or legitimatisation of something already in place. Some time ago, I think, it even involved sort of growing up together. Especially if people weren't even 18 or sometimes even 16 (especially women) when they married. It must have been a wonderful experience for them. Perhaps not everyone would like that, but it does sound like a wonderful experience for me, when they were growing up together and discovering each other while already being committed till in death they would part. Sounds unrealistic perhaps, but with kind, generous and honourable persons, this could work. Kind, generous and honourable people tend to be better matches in any relationship, anyway.

Not really. Parents and other such figures generally tend to have more skill in match-making than the two people involved. Friends who aren't emotionally involved also tend to have a better perspective on things. It's always wise to listen to advice.

 

Many cultures have survived successfully with arranged marriages rather than love marriages. That said, I'd rather die than be in one, but if that's what the whole country/culture is doing and you know no differently, then it might not be so bad.

I know for a fact that if my parents had been in charge of who I married, I would have ended up with my best friend's sister (I'll call her Jeniece). I think we would have made it, though it would have been pretty tough at times, as she does have some seriously weird ideas

Let me reiterate, though, that I had a love marriage, and we were in love, so much so that we were the envy of many of our friends. It was the real thing, too (if you were to see me, you'd realize that not many women would see me as an object of physical desire ).

Sadly, we both changed and shifted, and most people on the board know what happened. I was just as idealistic as Chev, and a part of me still is -- I still believe in love, I just know now some of the pitfalls to avoid while working on it, and I'm working as hard as I can to avoid any of the others that I'm sure are out there.

 

LKD - thanks for sharing your actual real life experiences.

Actually, I have some friends who have had arranged marriages (as they are from Pakistan) and it seems to work really well for them. They were saved the bother of having to try and meet potential partners because their parents did all the hard work. Plus, they had the right of "veto" over anyone they didn't like.

 

Sounds good. Instead of wasting their best years looking out and getting hurt, they got what was good for them. I prefer to be my own match-maker, but I do pay attention to things.

 

I don't ask them to do the match making, but I would consult my parents on a perspective bride, as well as my Bishop. They aren't the ones marrying her, but they have the opportunity to watch things from a bit further back. They might make an observation that I missed, or have a question I haven't thought enough about...

 

I never consdered dating a "bother." In fact, I feel like I just entered the Twilght Zone with you guys. I had a blast while I single. I dated some great girls, and although love was not in every relationship, it was a great experience. Finding my wife in all of the fun, made it all the more fun to find the right person (but in fact, she found me). BTW, I'm W-A-Y too independent to allow anyone a "veto" on whom I could marry, or not marry.

"All the hard work?" WTF? That's called living your life. When you take the quest, live for the quest; live the dream. Man...wake up, and start living. Nah, on second thought, I think I'll just let my parents do that for me -- NOT!

 

No, no, the kids had the right of 'veto', not the parents. That is, if the parents introduced them to some loser, the kid could say 'No, he/she is not for me'.

I'm not saying that's how I'd like to do it, but it definitely worked for them.

 

I have to say that I agree with chev on this, kinda... not that I think there's anything called a 'one true love' but more that there's a set number of people that each one of us could get along with for many years AND are sexually attracted to, and that set number is generally very, very small.
As far as whether the notion of marrying for love arises completely out of the 'pursuit of happiness' notion... I think the ideaology of 'pursuit of happiness' and 'self-fulfillment' have given rise to many ideas and perhaps that is one of them, but I can't call it a bad thing. I think the bad thing that has arisen is the idea of 'leaving for love', throwing in the towel the minute your spouse is no longer exactly the person you want or remember them to be, or when someone who happens to fulfill your immediate sexual expectations comes along... I think that is more of a product of our self-masturbating society than anything else.
Though I have seen some people who stay in long term relationships that truly no longer work and where love is no longer present simply out of sheer stubborness, and I guess that can work too.

 

Ah, OK. My bad. Then it's not really all that arranged, since the parents are really just playing "as matchmakers." I agree that's not necessarily a bad thing. But I'll stick by my contention that the process of romance, call it dating, falling in love, or whatever, is still one of life's real pleasures. In fact, the "all the work part" comes after that, IMO.

 

Yeah, romance is great. Sometimes I'm not sure if it's better to have had many relationships to learn from or one but no hurts or regrets instead. It's perfectly possible to discover the whole world from first kiss to raising grandchildren with one person. Then there are the hurts and the regrets. All the psychological and moral hassle. Well, the morally dubious parts usually happen out of any relatinship, but anyway. My view is that it's best to keep things at friends unless one really thinks he or she is in love and the person is right. Otherwise, it's just leading people on and being tied down oneself. Pretty bad deal. Of course, there are people who have come to the conclusion that having several relationships at the same time is not wrong. It's a popular trend amongst American Catholics now. But come on. That's a big joke. Romance is as exclusive as it can get. That's why one should think twice before involving and keep eyes and ears open for all signals, while still working on the relationship as best one can and hoping for the best. This is what I think, at least.