So much rides on marriage in our culture! Previously it was not so keenly much expected to fulfil romantic, needs as well as practical economic and child-rearing ones. And it very seldom went on for as long!
Romantic love/lust generally only stays really hot for a couple of years, as we all know. Long enough for the kid to be able to walk well, has always been my analysis of that, evolutionarily speaking.
I have been opposed to marriage from a political/feminist stance all my life - from about 17 on - and many of my friends have also not married - or married very late. I do not have the same objections to it as I did, because I do not see it diminishing women the way it did when I was learning about it practically - from my parents and their milieu (RUN!!!! would be the message I got from that) and from political analyses of it. I am sure the lessons of my family strengthened the importance of the political analysis for me big time!
My attachment studies have finally made sense for me of relationship patterns, and the emotional intensity and emotionally deep and often primitive (in the sense of deepest and earliest feelings and patterning) nature of "love" and its casualties.
So - I know now I always looked for people with an avoidant attachment style who activated my anxious one, sooner or later! Recipe for disaster.
And hey presto - I now have a partner who has broken this pattern - but does not trigger the intense "lerve" that previous partners did. And - the distancing comes from physical, not emotional distance - so I can handle his devotion.
No wonder marriage was anathema to me!
But - yes, the kids.
Research seems to be confirming the damage to the poor little things from modern disposable relationships - though, I do wonder if more intense extended family like arrangements might assist with this? I do think a primary attachment figure is necessary in the first couple of years, though.
And hey - I so admire those of you with strong, lasting relationships that nurture and feed growth. A good marriage is a lovely thing to see, no?
Man - I am babbling!
Yeh, well, I'm agreeing with you, so babble on...
And I read everyword (that doesn't happen often).
Oh - blush - but what should I say next?
Lol!
Marriage is a shell game devised by domestic animals to increase the number of human lackeys catering to their every whim . . .
Cats with opposable thumbs, no doubt...
and the odd dog or two.
7-year itch. Damn. The missus and I began living in sin about 7 years and 4 months ago.
And it's spring.
Better watch my step.
otherwise, bm...
otherwise, bm hits the fan?
Where there is love there is peace...
Quote:So - I know now I always looked for people with an avoidant attachment style who activated my anxious one, sooner or later! Recipe for disaster.
And hey presto - I now have a partner who has broken this pattern - but does not trigger the intense "lerve" that previous partners did. And - the distancing comes from physical, not emotional distance - so I can handle his devotion.
Dlowan - the above describes my current issues fairly well. I tend to go out with the men who cause my blood to boil so loudly in my ears that I can't hear anything else. I was thrashed by one such specimen a few years ago and have been trying to find my footing since. Do I go with the man who makes me crazy, or do I go with the man who makes me feel comfy and less challenged?
I have passed down many men in the latter category.
I keep feeling like there must be a way to have my cake and eat him too.
It seems like everyone is making the reasonable distinction between blood boiling passionate relationship and a long-term commited relationship.
But, I want to disagree strongly (again) with the idea that a long-term commited relationship is a compromise. It is not only for the kids, nor is unfair to women.
A long-term deep commitment adds a lot to one's life even outside of the needs for child-rearing.
I have found a smouldering passion to be more fulfilling than a burning flame-- and staying emotionally commited to a person through the inevitable hard times and going through all of life together is as passionate an act as I can imagine.
The support, the comfort of someone who has experienced much of what you have experienced and knows you deeply are all added benefits.
I believe that commitment must be the core of a successful long-term relationship. As many have said (and research shows) the elevated intense emotions that nature designed to make sure we reproduce diminish after a few years anyway.
But nature also built us for long-term relationships.
A long term deeply commited relationship with times of blood-boiling passion seems the way to go.
Aw.
I have somewhere (need to look it up sometime, have referred to it before) an article that showed that for a long-married couple, just holding hands releases a whole bunch of endorphins.
I definitely agree with the last part, can be both. Doesn't have to be either/ or, and if you haven't found both, might just mean that you haven't found both... yet. Not that you should or need to compromise.
Marriages of 20, 30, 40, 50+ years are such a (comparatively) new phenom that I'm not sure we (as a society, and individuals) quite know what to do with them.
They're not really necessary for anything.
Emotionally - a nice idea. Rationally/logically - can't make the argument for it.
ehBeth wrote:Marriages of 20, 30, 40, 50+ years are such a (comparatively) new phenom that I'm not sure we (as a society, and individuals) quite know what to do with them.
They're not really necessary for anything.
Emotionally - a nice idea. Rationally/logically - can't make the argument for it.
ehbeth,
You may very well be right in saying that long term committed marriages aren't really necessary for anything. I haven't had one myself. My grandparents did. They were married 63 years before my grandfather died. My sister was married 31 years before she died. My older brother has been married 26 years now. The real reason I believe in the long term committed marriage though is by example of my parents whom I am fortunate enough to still have around. They'll be married 54 years in September. They married very young at 17 and 19 years old. I got to spend several weeks with them before I recently moved and watching them interact after all this time together was a treat! They still banter and tease each other, they still give each other good morning kisses and good night kisses, they still hold hands when they go on their evening walks, they still gripe about silly things the other one may or may not have done. They have their funny little quirks and routines but they know each other sooo well. When mom went through her cancer radiation treatment, dad was there for all 37 times. When dad went through his cancer radiation treatment, mom was there for all 42 of his. When mom fell and broke her shoulder several months back, dad was there for her every step of the way, even setting up and working her crafts booth at a crafts fair because she couldn't do it.
Maybe it is nothing more than a comfortable existence. Maybe they just get their strength and purpose from each other. I don't know how it works for them and it very well may not mean anything at all. But I wouldn't trade it for the world. You can see by watching them, that they are truly each others happiness.
Then there's my parents who pecked and squabbled with each other through most of their 40+ year marriage. They're still together, but there were many times when I wished that they weren't.
I rest more on littleK's side of the balloon, but am aware of the sheer presence of long time family regard and can, though have only a short clue of it myself, get it that sequence matters as a kind of cultural wrap, cultural wrap, my words, in case they become trendy, in which case they are by me a2k's.
Gag, that I could think of this. Cultural Wrap as a concept.
I get "Cultural Wrap". I understand it. But, I think one can get that from friends and family as well as from long-term partners.
Well, we all know families that move along as a group. Or don't we?
Personally, I'd have to think a while.
Be quiet, I'm thinking.
I don't know why I think this is appropriate, but maybe we need a little romance...
Here is a love song from Tom Lehrer
Tom Lehrer wrote:
The most popular type of popular song is of course the love song, and I'd like to illustrate several subspecies of this form during the evening. First of all, the type of love song where the fellow tells the girl that although the years ahead will almost certainly destroy every vestige of her already dubious charms, that nonetheless his love for her will shine on forever through the years, you know. Another example of stark realism in the popular song.
This particular example is called When You Are Old And Grey, and I'd like to dedicate it to anyone in the audience who is still in love with each other.
Since I still appreciate you,
Let's find love while we may.
Because I know I'll hate you
When you are old and grey.
So say you love me here and now,
I'll make the most of that.
Say you love and trust me,
For I know you'll disgust me
When you're old and getting fat.
An awful debility,
A lessened utility,
A loss of mobility
Is a strong possibility.
In all probability
I'll lose my virility
And you your fertility
And desirability.
And this liability
Of total sterility
Will lead to hostility
And a sense of futility.
So let's act with agility
While we still have facility,
For we'll soon reach senility
And lose the ability.
Your teeth will start to go, dear,
Your waist will start to spread.
In twenty years or so, dear,
I'll wish that you were dead.
I'll never love you then at all
The way I do today.
So please remember,
When I leave in December,
I told you so in May.
