Recently, two well-loved Hatrackers announced that they're getting married in a matter of days. This is not the first such announcement we've seen -- and, on the same thread, many other currently-married Hatrackers revealed that they married their spouses within weeks or months of meeting them for the first time. In my anecdotal experience, this is fairly unusual -- at least in the frequency we see on this board.
So why is it so common on Hatrack? Is it our comfort level with long-distance and/or 'Net relationships? Are we just more -- or less -- perceptive people? And since a fair number of those marriages have lasted longer than one might normally expect, are we just that much more committed to making marriages "work?"
It's one of those sociological puzzles that always fascinates me about this forum.
[ December 29, 2004, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Dunno. I only know that I've always been odd, and my entire life has always been odd, so it wasn't a big surprise to me that my marriage would be odd.
I can say, though, that as far as me goes, I've always been unusually self-aware. Add to that my faith in God and faith in receiving answers to prayers. So when it all happened to me and Fahim, and we were both fasting and praying about getting married, we both received the same answer, and once the answer was received, neither of us saw any point in delaying things.
Does that tell you anything?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Yeah, I wondered if it was because most of those couples were very religous (whether LDS or otherwise).
Seems to be a common-ish factor, at least.
I've been with Tony for 4 years and engaged for 8 months, so I'm just a normal slow-mover. Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Hm. Here in France we always take our time to wed, but that's because most people live together before they marry. I went to live at Vinnie's place about five days after our first kiss, we were already talking about marriage and babies, and I was (and still am ! ) sure he was the man of my life. When I went to his place with my toothbrush and my pajamas, he hadn't met anyone from my family, and my father was the only one knowing we were in love. I was 19. EDIT : I realized that my post implied more than what really happenned... I went to live with Vinnie, we slept in the same bed but we didn't make anything really... Hum... Before a few time. I was a virgin and these things are better done when not in a hurry. (do I make myself clear ?)
[ January 02, 2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Anna, you are so sweet. I am so coming to visit you one of these days.
[/random Anna worship]
Maybe that is also something to do with the religous aspect - people who are less likely to live with each other before marriage are more likely to marry sooner?
I've been living with Tony for 2 years now. I'm not sure if I would have married him 2 years ago, but certainly if that was the only way I could have lived with him it would have been a very tempting prospect.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
When it goes against a person's religious beliefs to have sex outside the bounds of marriage, then yes, of course they're more likely to marry earlier and quicker. What else to do when the hormones are screaming?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I just had a very funny mental picture of screaming hormones.
[ December 29, 2004, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I guess we would have married in this case, Quid. Only neither of us is that attached to religion (I am persuaded that God knew we weren't just having fun together but took a big commitment) and I wanted to be done with my studies before I get married.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Not to mention several people on the board like to play matchmaker?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: So why is it so common on Hatrack?
Personally, Tom -- I think it is because the IQ level of the average Hatracker is higher than the normal population. That said, these people have a pretty clear idea of their goals, and go into it with a more of an 'eyes wide open' approach, and a more philosophical viewpoint, than perhaps the average Joe Blow.
my two cents, Farmgirl
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is true, as far as it goes, Farmgirl, but there is a problem with uit. Some of the most miserable marriages I have seen ahve been between two very inteligent people, so intelligence isn't always something that makes a marriage work smoothly.
Of course it IS to be preferred to it's opposite, utter stupidity.
Kwea
[ December 29, 2004, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I think the concept of a guy who doesn't really want to get married and only gets trapped by a clever woman (that we see in American movies) doesn't apply as much to the Hatrack population. Though my husband isn't on Hatrack. He took a dip one time and ran directly into John.
I just wasn't concerned with the rules of thumb, like that an engagement should be at least four months but no more than six (this six month max is an LDS tradition due to the screaming hormones).
The rest of my family: Sister 1- one engagement cut from 5 months to 3- effectively choosing to get married suddenly. That marriage didn't last. The man involved, while intelligent and an OSC fan, had organic impulsivity problems. He was actually the reason I was leary of OSC fans for a while. Her second courtship was 8 months total.
Brother 2- engaged but married on notice of a week due to fiancee's housing arrangement. I suspect this is often a factor, at least it has been in my family. It played a role in Sister 1's first marriage.
Sister 3- first marriage of the sort I outline above. The reluctant groom. They were both plenty intelligent. But both very neurotic. Marriage 2 was a classic elope in Vegas after knowing each other 10 days. I think for this sister, going with the gut worked better.
I'll pause here to note that maybe for a very intelligent person, when your gut does speak, you listen?
This brings us to me. One month of "relationship" and 8 days of engagement. I've realized just this week that I felt about my husband a way I've never felt about anyone. It's always been there, I just never appreciated it until now. I'm glad I trusted that feeling when we got married, because I have a lot of addictive tendencies and I could have wound up with someone bad for me, like most of the women in my family.
Next brother is Wraithsword, and he's still single, ladies!
Sister 6 just married with a weeks notice. I guess they were discretely engaged for four months prior.
Sister 7 wanted to marry suddenly, but was prevailed upon to wait two more months mainly by her fiance's parents. Are fiancee and fiance different?
Sister 8 had the longest engagement, but because it was long distance they probably only spent an average amount of time together before getting married.
Baby brother hasn't gotten married either. But he did join the Army kind of suddenly. He went enlisted despite everyone trying to persuade him to learn more about being an officer. I think it's probably a similar thing to elopement, born from a similar ideal impulse. And the wiser/betters say "It's not what you're doing that scares me, it's how you're going about it."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
People get married quicker because they are smarter. Yeah, I don't know.
I think there are other variables. If we generated a list of all of the hatrackers who married either through the net or through weeks long engagements, I think we'd find other similar variables.
[ December 29, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I think it depends on both the people and oftentimes the amount of time involved. The longer you know someone, the more you know them in my opinion. And sometimes, if you don't know someone long enough, you don't find out their "quirks" till after you're heavily involved.
My sister did this. She met a guy and married him within a few months. His "quirk" was beating her up. Turned out he had a terrible temper.
That's not to say short engagements are bad or anything. Just an extreme example of why sometimes it's nice to know someone for a bit longer.
space opera
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I think it's a phenomenon of confession. We're talking about having short engagements, so everyone with a story of having been engaged a short period of time comes out of the woodwork. Those of us with longer engagements (and yet, I say without any humility whatsoever, endowed with fairly high IQ's) stay out of the discussion because it isn't relevent.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
The hypothesis about not having sex outside of marriage for religious reasons speeding things up is pretty persuasive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I wonder if it works in reverse. I never tried, when I was single, to get someone into bed by saying, "Look, if you don't sleep with me now, I'm going to have to marry you. And we both know how that would work out." Anyone who wants to steal that line can, provided they let me know how it worked for 'em. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It does seem to be a religious thing, don't it? I mean, both the overwhelming desire to finally shag and the fact that, without fail, the couple is confident that this is God's will. Or that God is Ok with it, or something like that. Does anyone know atheists or agnostics who have engagements that last only a matter of weeks? I can't think of any off hand in my limited circle of friends.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Shortest engagement I know of: 2 days, my great grandparents. He was a Civil War veteran and he married his best friend's sister. They stayed married, though it was also a different culture and time.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote: I guess sometimes, you just know.
I'm afraid I can't do much better than this, myself.
For what it's worth, neither of us is particularly religious, so that wasn't our motivating factor.
We did feel like we crammed as much interaction in a few months as most people do in a longer period of time, because we worked together and thus saw each other every day (another relationship "rule" we broke), but maybe that was just the self-delusion of the infatuated--everybody probably feels that the intensity or the frequency or quality or whatever of their interaction with their beloved is greater than that experienced by "normal" people.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I guess I have to argue against my own previous post above.
I consider myself smart for choosing to NOT get married Been there, done that, failed. Have no desire to do the 24/7 thing again...
jeniwren is the one right-on. The seeming "rash" short engagements is because that was the topic of conversation. If we had started a thread about long engagements/relationships, we would probably have an equal number there...
FG
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
My wife and I are both religious and we waited for 4 years before we got married. She went to school 700 miles away. We figured if we could survive the seperation, we were destined to be married. We were also both virgins when we got married.
We will be at 17 years this year. 2 kids. If it is true love it will wait. I hate to hear a girl/woman say "If I don't do it now I might loose him." If that is your thought you are not ready to get married.
msquared
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
FG.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:"If I don't do it now I might loose him." If that is your thought you are not ready to get married.
You're absolutely right. Msquared, I hope you didn't think that was what I meant by the hormones raging comment. It isn't.
When people fall in love, it's only natural that there's a desire to do more than just kiss and hold hands. And the longer you're around each other, the stronger it tends to get. And when you know you want to marry each other, it tends to get stronger still.
If those people do not want to break the laws of chastity, they either need to get married, or have very strong will power. Evidently, you and your wife had very strong will power. Good for you. Not everyone is made that way, and isn't it better to recognize that and avoid chastity problems?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
No becuase sex in marriage has commitment problems. What if one person is gone for weeks or months at a time? What does the other do? What if one partner has an illness and can never have sex again? All of these things need to be thought through. I think we let people get away with not trying to have will power. We make it easy for them. We are not animals. We do not have to breed just because the odors are right and our bodies are telling us to go ahead. A dog in heat does that.
Too many people confuse love with lust. I do not believe in love at first site. I DO believe in lust at first site. I KNOW that happens. It has happened to me many a time. Still does. But I do not act on it.
I truly think that no one should get married or live together or have sex until they have been dating for at least a year. Too many women fall some guy, just to be close to someone, and he ends up beating her or whatever. By then she is too emotionally involved to do the smart thing and get out. You need to see someone in good moods and bad. Under stress, with their family, with their friends, at work. See how they treat a dog when they think no one is watching. See how they deal with kids. See how they deal with someone with disabilites. You can not do this with a 2 month engagement.
msquared
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quid:
quote:If those people do not want to break the laws of chastity, they either need to get married, or have very strong will power.
I'm surprised you'd say this, actually. The young men and women I've met who succeeded at waiting until marriage attribute their success to drawing on God's strength. One of the coolest couples I've met were nearly 30 when they married, both of them virgins -- and both of them are good-looking, vivacious people, so it's not like they didn't have opportunity. They just both believed in reserving sex until marriage, and they didn't meet the "right one" until they were in their late 20's. They openly say it was not at all easy, and that they didn't have strength within themselves to do it, but believe that God helped them. Paul's "My strength is sufficient for thee." Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"They openly say it was not at all easy, and that they didn't have strength within themselves to do it, but believe that God helped them."
I think it's a shame that they sell themselves short in that way. I know many young people who devoted themselves to chastity and yet failed in that goal. I'd rather believe that they were simply not as strong-willed than believe that God just decided not to help them.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I knew that I was going to marry Andrew after our second date, but I didn't want to get married right away. We dated for a year and were engaged for a year. It was important to me to finish college before getting married.
Year-long engagements are very common where I grew up (rural Georgia). It takes a year to plan a wedding. Also, etiquette dictates that a year-long engagement is preferable if the bride and/or groom are under 25. The exceptions to this were the very short engagements when the bride was in a family way.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom, someone who believes that God gives them strength in difficult times will see any failure as their own, not God's. Personally, I'd ask those who failed if they stayed out of situations where failure was a distinct risk. I would call it mocking the strength of God to put myself into a difficult situation *on purpose* just to see if God would help me out of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I would call it mocking the strength of God to put myself into a difficult situation *on purpose* just to see if God would help me out of it.
I think it's safe to say that none of the good Christian girls I know who lost their virginity young did so because they wanted to test God. On the other hand, I sincerely doubt that any of them would say that God helped them lose their virginity, either.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I'm somewhat insulted by the idea that chaste people who get married quickly just want to get laid.
Having been in the religious, chaste before marriage dating scene, the deciding factor to get married (at least with me and those I knew) was hardly because we were so horny we couldn't stand it. I will admit to a relatively short courtship, being about 3 months, and the entire period between meeting and marriage being about 6 months.
I saw many characteristics that impressed me a great deal that had very little to do with how good he would be in bed. He was a very cautious man, and yet playful. He was responsible: he worked in a job that was somewhat flexible, yet never left it undone to come to me and never skipped work to be with me, though he easily could have done. But he also never kept himself at work overlong. He was intellegent. When he percieved something missing in his life, he changed himself. He grew up without religion, but knew the inspiration of God when it came on him. He took any promise or vow he made very seriously. These were all qualities I saw before I decided to marry him, and they told me he was good husband material.
All these observations have borne themselves out. He never quit a job even when it was horrible before he had another job, and he has gravitated towards a job without deadlines so that he can be home at regular hours. There have been a couple of jobs he wouldn't take because he knew how the people were worked there. He also eschews management because of a tendancy to more hours and being over people while not doing what he actually enjoys doing: programming. His family is most important to him, and his cautious nature has imbedded itself in his protectiveness of us. He is cautious with money, yet only as a means to living and enjoying life without the stress of poor finances.
We admitted our faults to each other. Infatuation blinded us, of course, to actually having to deal with them, but commitment and love have seen us through.
I hope that is how a lot of fast courtships have happened, and how the marriages have turned out.
I was involved in another fast courtship that failed because despite fantastic first impressions, faults came up in the man. My first reaction was to 'rescue' him for his good qualities. But within a few weeks it dawned on me that rather than me rescuing him, I would be always hurt and the possibility that he could cause harm to any children we had made this man a very poor choice in mate, and I quickly removed myself from the situation.
My point is that perhaps people are perceptive enough to see what they want. And then, why wait?
The party and hoopla around the wedding that requires so much planning is not as important as the marriage itself to many religious people. I am stunned when I hear of people spending ten thousand dollars on such an event. If the event itself is important to people, it takes a much longer time to plan and save for. To hold off marrying someone because the event isn't the fairytale or the social showing off they want seems to me to point to different priorities than actually having a good marriage. I admit, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but it sets off a bit of warning to me, at least.
That would make an interesting study, though. How does the amount of money and time spent on a wedding and reception affect the quality of the marriage?
Of course, there are also people who hold off on marriage until school is over, or until they have a better job, or in the case of long distance relationships, until they have lived near each other long enough to get to know one another better and see if what they percieved through writing and calls was who the person really was.
There are many ways to meet and court your spouse, and just because a courtship is fast doesn't mean it is based on infatuation and hormones.
Posted by Lisha-princess (Member # 6966) on :
In my opinion (and this is ONLY an opinion, I'm not even dating anyone, so I don't exactly have a lot of life experience here), the time to get to know someone is while you're dating them, not once your engaged to them. If you're engaged, it seems to me that you should already know them pretty well. In which case, why bother waiting to get married? Have enough time to plan a wedding suffienctly, and then do it. Why wait?
I had a roommate last year with quite the opposite view. She was engaged for over a year and once said that that way she had enough time to find out if there was anything 'wrong' with him. They seem to now be happily married, but living with her and her raging hormones (maybe not everyone has this problem, but these two sure did) was a total nightmare. She also turned into a huge flake as soon as she got engaged. Not good, not good.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Lisha, I think it depends. I got engaged to my husband not knowing for sure that I wanted to marry him, but it was for a very specific purpose. We'd been dating for 9 weeks when I moved 1500 miles away to take my dream job. We'd only been dating 3 weeks when I was offered the job. A month after I moved, we got engaged -- this was, in large part to make it very clear between ourselves and everyone else that we were serious about our relationship, not to indicate that we were ready to step up to the altar. It was a good choice. My new female co-workers all started throwing their single male friends at me once I arrived, and wouldn't hear that I had a boyfriend until the ring was on my finger.
I think that interum-commitment was helpful for our circumstances. I would have broken the engagement if I thought marriage would have been a mistake.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Too many people confuse love with lust. I do not believe in love at first site. I DO believe in lust at first site. I KNOW that happens. It has happened to me many a time. Still does. But I do not act on it.
I think this is the most sensible sound bite of the entire thread. People really like to toss 'love' around, and I think it diminishes the power of the word. Say you meet someone and are attracted to them, you date for a while and you've definitely fallen for them... this does not mean you are in capital L-O-V-E love. But what happens sometimes, particularly when a religious upbringing is involved, is that 'love' is the only socially correct label that can be applied to an attraction. And the socially correct response to falling in love is to get married. So they do.
There's lust, there's infatuation, and there are other kinds of attraction and closeness that are not the same thing as love but often get mislabeled as such. Before you start chucking the word 'love' around, spend some time thinking (not praying) about how you feel and whether or not any of the other possible descriptive terms fit your feelings better.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I guess that is a difference of how we view engagement, jeni. For me, engagement is a commitment to get married. It is such a commitment that it involves financial planning, child planning, and pretty much everything that is in a marriage but sharing a household and having sex. It is saying, not "I think I might like to marry you, lets see how this works out", but "I am going to marry you. What steps do we need to take to do this?"
For me, this is why there was a commitment to exclusively date. The couple makes it clear to everyone that this is the only person they intend to date. That is a level below actual engagement. If one feels the need, there is also the 'promise ring' type of commitment in which you promise each other that when the time is right you'll get engaged.
[ December 29, 2004, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
That's awesome Amka, My brother recently got married. It was rather fast too, but they genuinely fit together well. I am glad that people can find each other, and hopefully the find who they are really looking for is all I hope for people. I do not know how my brother and his wife are alone, but from what I see of them together, and how they relate to one another, I can see that there is love, that is deeper than what I normally see in people.
I cannot be sure of this. However I hope they can trust who they have chosen, and hope they can be happy.
For me, I have not yet began to understand myself nearly enough to know what I should be looking for, but what I look for now is if I can be comfortable being me around the woman. I have been through some things in my life that make it harder for me to trust anyone and I hope one of these days I can change that.
I am happy for those who do try.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote: have been through some things in my life that make it harder for me to trust anyone and I hope one of these days I can change that.
Hm Mark, I think you've hit on one of MY issues actually.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
It might be a message board thing. The other board I am a member of (Terry Goodkind's board) has had at least a half a dozen marriages between members since I started there (and one divorce). I think people just get to know eachother through the internet...and then once they meet they quickly decide to stay together.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:The exceptions to this were the very short engagements when the bride was in a family way.
This was asked of me by my future mother in law. My reply was "Well, if I am pregnant, it's the right time of year for it."
Intended and soon to be father in law laughed uproariously.
...
Tom, I just wanted to say, the well-love comment made me all squishy inside.
...
And for us, it isn't being so horny we just can't stand it any longer. It's a...*thinks* so many different factors and plans and feelings that it just makes sense, to us, and to most of the people around us. Hell, MY family is being rational about it, a rarity. We aren't heading into this thinking it'll be all easy-peasy. We know crap will happen. We know we'll argue. We know I'll get into a mood, or he'll get into a mood (not THAT mood) and be grumpy and tired or what have you. We expect that. But we also expect the good stuff, too, and are willing to work our way through whatever happens to keep this relationship and this new life we're about to start.
This is the guy who locked us out of my car for two hours in podunk New Hampshire and made it out alive. We've definitely got that something.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
It's not really the short engagements that worry me, it's the time spent with the person before the engagement. An engagement implies marriage, and marriage is (Well, to today's standards I suppose was) a life long commitment, some people who get engaged in about a month of knowing a person is just... odd to me... How do they know for sure on that person? Some might say a prime time to learn all of the other things about the person is during the engagement. My personal belief is to talk seriously about becoming engaged before you do it. I don't really understand all of those stories I see of people hoping thier love interest will... suddenly pop the question. It should be discussed throughly among the two before it actually happens. Ok, now I'd just start rambling if I don't stop, so onwards!
Perhaps someone can answer this, what's the point of kissing in general? I can understand wanting to be in a close proximity to someone you care for or love... but kissing specifically, what's the point? Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: My point is that perhaps people are perceptive enough to see what they want. And then, why wait?
I think most people are completely fake when they are first dating another person. Putting the best foot forward and all that. So, I would seriously disagree that anyone can really see how a person generally 'is' after only knowing them by dating them for a combined total of some hours.
Also, I think most young people (I would say about 25 and below) don't know themselves ,really, because they don't know the general way they will change over time. They haven't yet understood the reality of who they are versus their idealized vision of themselves, much less come to accept themselves for who they *are* to be honest. So, they lie to themselves and others around them, not because the want to, but because they often aren't operating from who they really are.
I don't doubt that there are many marriages that work for people that don't really know each other before they got married. Obviously, from the responses on Nate 'n' Mack's thread and this thread, there are. However, it's also pretty clear that people who marry in haste are just begging to be miserable down the road. 'Your lover's hyena-like laugh does not get better over time.'
I would also like to point out that there is a significant cultural difference between people of the book and the rest of us poor, pathetic sinners who have to find our own way. So, while y'all can hook up with a guy at church and have a reasonable idea of his ideals and beliefs before you date him, the rest of us kind of have to muddle through it and actually get to know the person.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Perhaps someone can answer this, what's the point of kissing in general? I can understand wanting to be in a close proximity to someone you care for or love... but kissing specifically, what's the point?
What do the people of your planet do to show affection?
Good grief. What a question.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's an old saying: for those who believe, no explanation is required. For those who don't, know explanation will suffice.
Same thing applies to kissing.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And Santa.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Meh, whatever I guess... I just don't see how putting your lips on another's shows affection.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Then you're not doing it right.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Also, I think most young people (I would say about 25 and below) don't know themselves ,really, because they don't know the general way they will change over time.
If the two are willing to make a reall commitment, then this becomes one of the best reasons to marry young, IMO.
Will you continue to change over time? Yes. If you are married, then the two of you can change together, and grow together and closer.
In many ways it would be harder for me to marry now than it was when I was 23. I "know" who I am too much, and am too set in those ways.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Beautifully said, sweetie. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
When I was talking about screaming hormones, I did not in any way mean to imply that that is the ONLY reason people get married quickly, nor that it is necessarily a factor in all or many or most marriages. I do think it can be a factor. A factor. Not THE factor. If I wasn't clear enough earlier, then I apologize. I typed those posts at 2 or 4 or something in the morning, when I am not at my most clear or intelligent.
quote:I think most people are completely fake when they are first dating another person. Putting the best foot forward and all that. So, I would seriously disagree that anyone can really see how a person generally 'is' after only knowing them by dating them for a combined total of some hours.
That's . . . cynical.
quote: My point is that perhaps people are perceptive enough to see what they want. And then, why wait?
The party and hoopla around the wedding that requires so much planning is not as important as the marriage itself to many religious people. I am stunned when I hear of people spending ten thousand dollars on such an event. If the event itself is important to people, it takes a much longer time to plan and save for. To hold off marrying someone because the event isn't the fairytale or the social showing off they want seems to me to point to different priorities than actually having a good marriage. I admit, the two aren't mutually exclusive, but it sets off a bit of warning to me, at least.
That would make an interesting study, though. How does the amount of money and time spent on a wedding and reception affect the quality of the marriage?
Many good points here. I know that for me and Fahim, as well as for my sister and her husband (who married each other after having known each other for 5 months), cost of a wedding was a factor. I don't see the point in celebrating a wedding - especially expensively. Anyone can get married - that's no big accomplishment. I'd rather use the money to buy a house. Or build up savings. I'd rather celebrate when we've actually accomplished something - like staying happily together for 25 years.
The idea of spending hundreds or thousands on a wedding dress is repugnant to me, never mind that they don't suit my personality. I was content getting married in a $20 CDN dress I bought at Zellers, floral, thank you very much. That was very much more my taste and fit my idea of budget much more. Granted, I was willing to spend up to a hundred, but I really lucked out in finding that dress.
And I feel pretty much the same about engagement and wedding rings. Fahim and I still don't have wedding rings. They're not important to us.
And there was also the factor of, if not eloping, not inviting people who would think they had the right to be insulted if they were not, or having to spend that time with people I didn't really care about, or . . . well, honestly, why can't I and Fahim, or my sister and her husband, or any of these other people who get married in short order, get married whatever way suits us best? Does it always have to conform to everyone else's idea of suitable? I haven't seen any evidence that a long engagement or a long dating period equals a more successful marriage.
Maybe we should also criticize anyone who married someone more than ten years older, too. I mean, that's odd. Or criticize women for marrying men 5 or 8 years younger. Or criticize someone for marrying someone who'd been married one or more times, because they've got to be a huge risk. [/sarcasm]
So while some of you disdain us because we knew each other for less than a year before we got engaged or married, or whatever else you might want to condemn or criticize us for, we're simply going ahead being happily married. We're still compatible. We still get along. We're still best friends. We still support each other. We still love each other. We're still making our marriage work.
Put that in a pipe and smoke it. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
For what it's worth, my previous comment about the persuasiveness of the 'no sex before marriage' speeding marriage up theory was in no way intended to imply that people in this situation get married to get laid.
As I was in that camp, I know that I did not get married to get laid. However, being in a culture where sex before marriage is pretty much unacceptable I KNOW that we marry younger than most people do in this generation. It's not because you simply 'want to get laid', but it's because you see dating as serious and with the intent of finding a marriage mate. If you casually date for an extended period of time, your chances of becoming physically involved with someone you don't plan on marrying increase. Basically, your chances of 'getting in trouble' increase, and so serial casual dating is discouraged.
Plus, a serious-minded person who has no problem with sex before marriage will most likely take these steps: date, move in together, become engaged, marry. (Or, alternatively, become engaged, move in together, marry.) This tends to be a longer courtship than: date, become engaged, marry. Also, if you find that the person you fell in love with is difficult to live with, you are more likely to (emphasis on "more likely to" not "will inevitably") end the relationship if you are not married - and even more so if you aren't even engaged - and so the process starts over again. Date, move in together, move out, date, move in together, etc... This is time consuming, and people tend to get married later in life after these events have led them to the person they finally want to settle down with.
It becomes a cultural issue, not a hormone issue.
[ December 29, 2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think while part of it is not being able to have sex, there is far more there than that. Two people who live together before marriage are not *just* sleeping together. They are living as though they are married. They live *together*.
When you know you are going to marry someone, but you are not willing to live together with them until that time, not being married to them is agony. You want to be married and all that comes with it! Sex is part of that, but it is the intimacy of living together--sharing everything. So much more than *just* sex.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Yeah, I would agree. There seems to be more urgency to marrying to be with the person when you cannot live together before marriage.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think these well-known lyrics sum up the feelings perfectly:
Wouldn’t it be nice if we were older Then we wouldn’t have to wait so long And wouldn’t it be nice to live together In the kind of world where we belong
You know it’s gonna make it that much better When we can say goodnight and stay together
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could wake up In the morning when the day is new And after having spent the day together Hold each other close the whole night through
Happy times together we’ve been spending I wish that every kiss was neverending Wouldn’t it be nice
Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true Baby then there wouldn’t be a single thing we couldn’t do We could be married And then we’d be happy
Wouldn’t it be nice
You know it seems the more we talk about it It only makes it worse to live without it But lets talk about it Wouldn’t it be nice
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
WE NOW PAUSE FOR A MOMENT OF SERIOUS IRREVERENCE ************************************************
The most perfect relationship I ever read about was the one between Old Dan and Little Ann.
C'mon - truth now . . . how many of you cried buckets of tears when Old Dan dies defending Little Ann, and then cried yet more buckets of tears when Little Ann died forlornly of a broken heart on Old Dan's grave?
Be honest now - this is for posterity's sake . . .
************************************************* END MOMENT OF SERIOUS IRREVERENCE
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
If that's what I think it is, I cried for hours. Man that was a painful book.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I LOVE that book!!
It's one of a very very very short list that made me cry.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Um? Huh? Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Where the Red Fern Grows
[ December 30, 2004, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Ah, that moment is very sad... I don't believe I cried though...
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
My institute teacher always counsels us on the importance of a "long courtship, short engagement." I think he is very wise. This seems to work well coming from the religious culture we do. Short courships don't allow time for the initial silly infatuation to wear off and honest, objective evaluation to begin, and long engagements are just drawing out the preparations for a social event that ends up taking precedence over the religious event it is commemorating.
But that's just me.
[ December 30, 2004, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Annie ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That sounds like good advice to me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think people can't help but get sensitive in this thread, because everybody is posting why they feel the way they feel, and why they don't favor some other approach. I've seen several posts that seem to suggest that the poster is getting hot under the collar.
Let's keep sight of the fact that this seems to be an issue where--at least the evidence at Hatrack seems to indicate--there are many "right" answers. So if we're discussing whether long or short courtships or engagements are best, keep in mind that the question naturally calls for these sorts of preferences to be expressed, and one person's preference is not a criticism of another person's choice. If I were to get offended at those who insist a long courtship or engagement is best, or at those who see a wedding, rings, etc as an unconscionable waste of money, I'd be offended at lots of people.
On the other hand, we should keep in mind when we make these pronouncements that we are primarily describing our preferences, not shedding light on revealed truths, and couch our beliefs in that sort of language.
I have no opinion on the proper length of a courtship or engagement. I dated someone for four years that I fully planned to marry, and somewhere along the line it went sour. Then I married someone eleven months after our first date, and we will celebrate our eight anniversary in about two weeks. I think there is such a thing as too little time, and even such a thing as too much, but I think the precise definitions of these terms vary from person to person.
We did the big wedding thing. That's been poo-poohed repeatedly on Hatrack over the last few days. No, I suppose getting married is not a big accomplishment. Are accomplishments the only acceptable reasons to have party? See, I kind of thought it was not celebrating our accomplishment, but sharing our joy. I wanted every friend that could possibly be there to share that moment with me, and I wanted it to be unforgettable. It was expensive, but we were fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to do it anyway. If financial considerations had made it impossible, then we would have had a more modest celebration, but we would have celebrated nonetheless. I certainly understand other people's decisions to do it differently, though. You did it differently because something else suited your circumstances and/or personalities. Not because you are a better or worse person.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well put, Icky. Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
True, I guess I did sound a bit... Hot under the collar in what I said, though I don't mean to say what others do is wrong. I had an uncle who got married drunk in a bar, got married, and lived happily ever after.
I was just trying to say... I don't understand people who engage quickly. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Um, yeah, what Icky said. Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
Well said Icarus.
I saw a story on VH1 about a musician who got married on his first date. He was out on a date. They were both drunk, and he wanted to have sex with her. She said that she wouldn't have sex until she is married. He suggested that they get married right then. They did, and they are still married. I do not think this is generally a good way to start off a marriage, but I still think it is amusing.
I think he was the youngest from the Partridge Family. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Thanks Icky.
We’re having an engagement of over a year, and spending over ten thousand dollars on the wedding and reception. I don’t think we’re being extravagant – we’ve just got a lot of people involved. There are 24 people in the wedding, and we’re paying part of their expenses. We’re inviting over 400 people and serving a full dinner. We're not having a lot of the very expensive trimmings, but even a simple dinner for that many people adds up.
The long engagement and the expense are both because we want to, as Ic said, share our joy. We picked our wedding date based on when we thought it would be easiest for our friends and families to join us. We’d have preferred earlier, but this is what worked, and it was worth it to us to wait. A marriage is not just about two people and God, it also joins our two families and, in a less formal but still real way, merges our two groups of friends. This, by the way, is the United Methodist understanding of marriage. Family and friends are included in the service, offering their love and support and praying for God to bless the marriage.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think the wedding ceremony is important as a declaration. I mean, how many times in our lives do we take formal vows in front of witnesses? When I think of that, it is awe-inspiring. And serious. Even if it's in front of a county clerk or the Elvis impersonator in Vegas.
The rest of it is a celebration of those vows and the event. It can be big or small, elaborate or simple, it's still a celebration. Circumstances are different for every couple, I think. I was the best man at a wedding involving 4 people beside the happy couple. We had take-out Szechuan and a home-made cake for the reception back in the Grad-student lounge. Great wedding.
I was best man at another wedding that had EVERYTHING, including two accordionists and enough family to fill 2 cathedrals. That was a lot of fun too. Even the duck dance.
When I look back at these two ceremonies, they couldn't be more different, and yet they both stand out in my mind as wonderful times and the bond between me and these couples has endured and grown stronger. I hope to see too many people to count at our wedding. I love crowds.
The party afterwards is because we decided that we wanted a party afterwards. We wouldn't cancel the wedding if we coudn't do the party, but the party is something we're really looking forward to. Why? Because we want to have a good time with our friends and family. I don't get to see my family enough, and Dana's family is so close that we simply MUST get together with them. Then there are all our separate and mutual friends. We love them all (you all...) And that's why we're doing it.
But, seriously, the temptation to grab the two moms and Dana's mentor and just get hitched some night when the moon is full has been VERY, VERY strong.
This waiting business stinks.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I can't even imagine, Bob. We've got 8 days and...jebus christmas. o_O
*excited about bobndanafest*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:A marriage is not just about two people and God, it also joins our two families and, in a less formal but still real way, merges our two groups of friends. This, by the way, is the United Methodist understanding of marriage. Family and friends are included in the service, offering their love and support and praying for God to bless the marriage.
I love that.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:and spending over ten thousand dollars on the wedding and reception
And the only reason that doesn't seem outrageous to me is because I know you are both responsible mature adults who know exact what your financial situation and limitations are.
But I have had young friend in the past who spent so much money on the wedding (due to peer pressure or family pressure or whatever) that they BEGAN their marriage deep in debt, which just added to the strife of adjustment to having someone around 24/7.
For some people, with limited finances, I think it is best they limit the ceremony, and focus more on the marriage AFTER the ceremony. There are enough obstacles the way it is.
Farmgirl
[ December 30, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, you know, in a lot of families, the bride's parents pay for all the wedding stuff . . .
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
And many can't. My daughter already knows that when she decides to tie the knot, Mom isn't going to have much to help her out there..
FG
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's fine. My parents would not have been able to help us at all.
EDIT TO ADD: The reason I bring it up is that, in our cases, it really didn't have anything to do with looking at our finances, and so the expense of the wedding was not, in my mind, irresponsible in the way many people keep saying. (And if ten thousand would have seemed outrageous to you . . . )
[ December 30, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think a big wedding/reception is at heart a financial decision, and the wisdom of it can be judged along those lines.
You balance what you will get out of the wedding with what it will cost you. The benefits include the fun, the importance of tradition to you, the sense of sharing, and the memories everyone will have. The costs include the money actually spent, which has a different value to you if you're borrowing it or depleting your house fund or whatever.
People spend that much money on serious vacations, or that much extra on car features they don't need, or on a bigger kitchen or bathroom. If you can afford a big wedding, it's as legitimate a discretionary expenditure as any other.
Going in to debt, or not paying off existing consumer debt, to do it is nuts, though.
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:For some people, with limited finances, I think it is best they limit the ceremony, and focus more on the marriage AFTER the ceremony.
Somewhat part of our decision about ceremony. We personally couldn't afford a big ceremony, nor would we want to because the money could be made for much better use in the marriage AFTER the ceremony.
We don't judge others people's weddings, folks do what suits them and makes them happy.
My family also has zero money to go around right now. My father is still going through the divorce with my mother (she made an appeal to the judge's decision and my father now STILL can't refinance the house and get the equity to get out of debt and is up to his ears now). So my father can't go because he can't afford NOT to work.
My grandfather is dying, and my family in Florida is taking care of him. They don't know if he'll die tomorrow or hang on another six months. There's no money, as it's being sunk into my father's divorce proceedings and my grandfather's medical costs. One aunt and one uncle down there also are working with my grandparents, so they have to stay in Florida.
My uncle in Maine just finished his last round of chemo! (It didn't metastasize, he has a great prognosis now). Another uncle in Texas is having back problems.
Money is an issue, as is time, as no one knows when everyone can get together. The family's decision was that it would be cheaper and better for everyone concerned to do our wedding as we have planned, and then travel to see them when things have settled. They're happy. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: My uncle in Maine just finished his last round of chemo! (It didn't metastasize, he has a great prognosis now).
You didn't tell me that! That's WONDERFUL! Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Re: wedding costs
Me and my fiance wanted to have a thrifty wedding, but when you add that we also wanted our fairly large families (~50/family) to partake, and maybe 30-50 friends (all these numbers include spouses, long-time boyfriends/girlfriends, etc.), plus the fact that the wedding industry professions know they've got you over a barrel, ten grand is easy to reach (and is less than we have budgeted). You start with 2 grand for a photographer, 500-1000 for a DJ, officiant for another 500, flowers, dresses, tuxes for at least another grand, and we haven't even gotten to renting out spaces for the ceremony or reception, or even the food!
Of course, I live in an expensive part of the US (Boston metro), where the average cost of a wedding is ~18k, so it may be different elsewhere.
-Bok
EDIT: I'd add that the UMC view of marriage is also quite similar to the one I was brought up with in the UCC (Congregational).
[ December 30, 2004, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
We spent $800 on my first wedding and it was lovely. Obviously, with such a small budget it wasn't elaborate, but it was very pretty -- it was winter and we rented a city owned ski lodge that cost $25/hour. The music was done by a friend. The food was catered by a friend. The dress was one I wore to prom when I was a senior, and the other outfits we made. The flowers were the single greatest expense. We bought the cake from Costco and it was excellent.
We spent $6K on my second wedding and it was beautiful. We had it professionally catered, rented a much more expensive hall, and had a DJ who taught swing dance moves. It was a lot of fun and the food was excellent. I think my favorite moment, however, (from the reception) was the little girl who came up to me and said I looked just like a princess. (Which I look back and think is funny because I *was* a Princess in the SCA at the time of my first wedding.)
I have come to the conclusion that I like inexpensive weddings, just because of the creativity I see in making elegance economical. I've seen some really fun ideas. One wedding was catered by Subway and they had redhots on all the tables. The couple was young and very energetic, so it was a romp of a party. Weddings are so much fun. Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
Our parents are helping out with my wedding, which will be this July. I expect costs to be in the $10,000 range. 200 guests @ $20 per plate is only $4000, add another $3000 for photographer/DJ/video, and I'm not sure how much we're spending on flowers and cake and stuff. I was always under the impression, and this may be true only or the Midwest(I'm in Wisconsin), that bridesmaid and groomsmen paid for their own dresses and tuxes, respectively.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Just getting me to my husband cost $1400. Paying for my cats as well added another $1000 or so. Shipping my stuff over adds $2500. That's a heck of a lot of money, and there's no wedding ceremony, reception, whatever yet.
Fahim couldn't get into Canada - his visa application was refused, so that was a no go.
Add to the fact that my parents would not be invited, and I wouldn't want most of my relatives there, and I'd rather just do things on a very small scale. . . And his parents disowned him when we got married, so what are we left with?
I've always wanted small. I never wanted to deal with the family politics and stress that goes along with it. Or the anger or criticism or condemnation or . . .
Eloping, given the family I'm a part of, was a wise decision on my part. Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
Quid,
I don't blame you for paying it, but $1000 to fly 2 cats is a rip-off.
Of course, this is coming from someone who paid $100 to fly 2 gerbils and a cat across country (in separate containers, of course).
Rain
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:Fahim couldn't get into Canada - his visa application was refused
Out of curiosity (I'm not marrying any Canadians just yet), did he file a special coming-to-get-married-type application, or a general one? Cause either way, it sucks, but if it was the former, that's like saying, we're not letting you marry our citizen, so get lost.
I actually looked into getting a Canadian tourist visa but it's even more complicated than getting a US visa, so I'm letting it go.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: I was always under the impression, and this may be true only or the Midwest(I'm in Wisconsin), that bridesmaid and groomsmen paid for their own dresses and tuxes, respectively.
Traditionally this is true. But we have wedding party members coming from all over the country, and they have to take time off work to be here in addition to paying their travel expenses. We decided we didn’t want to make them buy or rent clothes on top of that.
We don't have an unlimited wedding budget. My parents gave us a set figure that they would pay, we're paying everything else ourselves and we won't go into debt to do it. We prioritized the things that are important to us (friends and family) and are making up for it by being frugal in other areas.
[ January 01, 2005, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
This has been a very interesting thread...thanks to everyone who posted their opinions. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Fahim tried getting a regular tourist visa. He figured that if he tried for a fiancee type - and I'm not even sure if Canada has them - he'd get rejected for sure.
Yep, $1000 for cats is a ripoff. Sorta. They did take very good care of my furballs. Watered them. Petted them. Talked to them. My furballs came through in very good shape. So who am I to complain? Plus there were two stopovers in separate countries on the way, and those countries all demand their cut. Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
Several of my posts this morning have alluded to the fact that our early marriage was very hard. But something a guy friend once told me always stuck: Some things just work better with two people, and life is one of them. My husband and I have always been notable to those around us for looking forward to marriage from a very young age. We see marriage as the solution, not the problem.
I'll confess that in year five my husband made a career choice that I didn't agree with and that has caused a lot of stress. But it's been 10 years of that now and I'm starting to accept it.
quote: I truly think that no one should get married or live together or have sex until they have been dating for at least a year.
Sometimes I would think about the fact that we had sex after spending 3 weekends together. If it weren't in the context of marriage, I would think that's rather fast. But knowing him as a friend prior was good for me. Like someone else mentioned, people put on a show in the context of courtship that they don't in the context of friendship.
After my parents' marriage which had a lot of abuse and enmeshment, I despaired of ever really knowing what someone was like. Fortunately for me it worked out. If it hadn't worked out (read, it turned out he was an abusive jerk), I wouldn't have hesitated to end it.
It's difficult, as a survivor of abuse, to sometimes know what my real feelings are. The marriage endured many years of me casting all men as pigs, and cloaking myself in the all women are saints martyrdom. I think that, more than anything else, is the thing that could have broken us.
Finally, I'll agree and my first dreadfully long post showed, that length of engagement doesn't really matter. Cost doesn't really matter. Maybe it's all just a big crapshoot. If it weren't, why would trust be necessary?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, Vid, where in Wisconsin are you? There's a largish clump of Hatrackers in south-central WI, and we'd love to meet you.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Wow.
TomDavidson the Social Host.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually surprised that Joe is surprised by that. Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Next you'll be starting a hug thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I hug people in person. I do NOT hug them over the Internet.
Actually, I'm more into handshakes in person, for that matter. I think I broke Bernard's heart a little when he ran toward me, arms spread open for a hug, and I stuck my hand out like Eisenhower.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom thinks the Internet has cooties! Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Tom, you may not give Internet hugs, but you do Internet smilies. Worse, I tell you, worse.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Just for Elizabeth: Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
The only time I use smilies, is when I would usually make some sort of vocal impression (intonation) when speaking. As for hugs, I'm not a hugging kind of guy either Tom . (See right there, I would have said that in a manner that would have reflected that I was agreeing with Tom, and and trying to laugh with him, because I think I'm funny -- and that one is for me thinking I'm funny. )
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
*laugh* I don't know how much help I'd be, considering the brilliant talents who've already offered you their services -- but if you need me, I'm in. Drop me a line and I'll send you my phone number, if you don't have it already.
[ January 02, 2005, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
No, I know my B, Tom. He understood. And when I tell him that, he'll be glomping you on a regular basis.
Bernard and I, as many of you know, got engaged nine months after meeting each other, and there was an intense physical attraction when we first met, but there was also an intellectual attraction too. We were close friends before we started 'dating', and I still consider him one of my dearest friends. The 13th of this month will be the 15th month we've been engaged, and next month will be our two-year anniversary.
I'm not terribly fond of kissing and telling, so I won't, but I'm sure many of you can accurately guess how far Bernard and I gone. I will tell you that he is every part the gentleman when it comes to our personal life, though--he was shaking like a leaf when we shared our first kiss. He was afraid he'd do something wrong, or hurt me.
I don't really have that much of a problem with being engaged for this long, although I am anxious to have a wedding ring on my finger (partly because that also means I'll be with him). We don't have the money or the education to start a life together right now, and we also have some things we need to work out on our own first: security issues and my depression to name a few. We also need to figure out a lot of things, among which include where and how to pay for the wedding, how to tell our families (namely telling his he's marrying a white 'cracked southern belle'--his words, I might add), and other *minor* problems. (a few we already worked though--he wanted an outdoor wedding, I a church one. so we're having a church wedding and an outdoor reception... weather permitting)
Although we're far apart, whenever it gets slightly hard, I just think of my great-grandparents, who had a long distance relationship in the '20s. I have the phone, internet and airplanes while they just had the post and horrible roads between Memphis and New York. Makes it a lot easier to deal with.
And to the 'getting married to get laid' thing...
"No body gets married to get sex! Getting married to get sex is like buying a 747 for free peanuts! If all you want is peanuts, there's a lot more cost-efficient ways to get free peanuts." -- Jeff Foxworthy
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Does that tell you anything?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
FG.
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
No, I know my B, Tom. He understood. And when I tell him that, he'll be glomping you on a regular basis.