quote:So, bev, were you in love with Porter when you got married?
Let me just say that I have been more in love before. I do not particularly trust romance, it has so often led me wrong.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This might be an entirely different ball game: how important IS love to the success of a marriage?
Depends on what you mean by love. If you mean love as a feeling, then I'm not sure it's completely necessary.
If you mean love as an action performed by each spouse that underlies all interaction between them, then I think it's essential.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I said before, in generations past, there was more importance placed on making what you have work than finding something different
I don't necessarily think that this is an accurate description. In the past there was less freedom of choice and I think that this did directly affect people's attitudes towards looking around for something new. But there's plenty of evidence that marriage was not really in any sort of good shape regarding the "making what you have work" angle, but often was more in a "resign yourself to the situation because you can't expect any better" one.
There's this conception of the 50s as this Golden Age for American marriage, but the reality is much, much different. If you look at the evidence, you find that this is a view of America the way we never were. The focus on "restoring" American families to their former glory is a fool's quest as is working aginst the perceived factors that caused us to fall from this exalted state. Many of the factors that make marriage bad now were actively making marriage bad then social context and power inequalities masked them better and the film of nostalgia lets many people ignore them.
I'm a strong proponent for fixing marriage, but I don't find much out there that I believe would actually do all that much towards fixing marriage.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to point out that our definitions of "in love" may differ.
I am referring more to infatuation. I don't trust those feelings, and I think far to many people get married because of them and don't take enough time to find out if they are compatable. They decide they can't live without person X and to heck with compatability because "love will prevail" and get them through.
Then the incompatability kills the "in love" feelings, and what are they left with?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me just say that I have been more in love before. I do not particularly trust romance, it has so often led me wrong.
quote:Depends on what you mean by love? If you mean love as a feeling, then I'm not sure it's completely necessary.
If you mean love as an action performed by each spouse that underlies all interaction between them, then I think it's essential.
My definition of love includes a measure of compatability. I don't consider myself in love with someone unless there is a very real potential for a serious committment, including marriage.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd like to point out that our definitions of "in love" may differ.
I am referring more to infatuation. I don't trust those feelings, and I think far to many people get married because of them and don't take enough time to find out if they are compatable. They decide they can't live without person X and to heck with compatability because "love will prevail" and get them through.
Then the incompatability kills the "in love" feelings, and what are they left with?
Bev, I'm confused: whose side are you on? :-)
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the past there was less freedom of choice and I think that this did directly affect people's attitudes towards looking around for something new.
Or their attitudes towards commitment effected the lesser freedom of choice.
quote:But there's plenty of evidence that marriage was not really in any sort of good shape regarding the "making what you have work" angle, but often was more in a "resign yourself to the situation because you can't expect any better" one.
Then why don't we see more of the older generation getting divorced now? Especially now that children are out of the house? Why is divorce *so* much more common among the younger generations?
Their stronger value of "sticktoitiveness" seems the most logical answer to me.
I think part of the reason for many of marriage problems in the past was the inequality of the sexes--how acceptable the emotional abuse of women was. As the attitudes of men towards women have improved, the problems caused fade. Then why aren't marriages more stable than ever?
I point the finger of blame at attitudes towards commitment.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:My definition of love includes a measure of compatability. I don't consider myself in love with someone unless there is a very real potential for a serious committment, including marriage.
posted
Awww. You two are sweet, and I think it's great to see devotion like that carry on well past the honeymoon stage. [/sappy moment]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Lots of people get divorced once the kids leave, especially if they were staying together only for the kids. For example, my stepmother.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, Kat, of course it happens. That wasn't my point. I will tell you what I saw in the statistics I speak of (not having found them yet--still looking). I saw that the percentage of those divorced was higher in progressively younger age groups as compared to old.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's like the rate of antidepressant use in Utah - whatever the statistics, the reasons we attach to them tell more about ourselves than the numbers.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
checked percentages of the 2nd and third marriages in the older generation or those already divorced once?
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be interested to see those statistics, once you find them. I'd also be interested to see how many older people don't divorce out of relationships they don't like because
a) They're used to it, b) They don't want to try to find someone new this late in the game, c) They still don't think it'd be healthy for their families, d) All/None of the above?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or their attitudes towards commitment effected the lesser freedom of choice.
The freedom of choice was limited by external economic, social, and logistical factors. There are not subject to people's attitudes (well, except in very indirect ways).
quote:Then why don't we see more of the older generation getting divorced now?
Are you asking why 80 somethings aren't getting divorced? If so, I'd say that there are a host of factors, many of them centering around there's no way it would make their lives better and many of them centering around they have learned, as I said, to resign themselves to their situation.
I've been making the argument that being or not being divorced is not a good indication of the quality of people's marriages. I don't find the argument that "They must have a good marriage and they learned to work on their problems because they're not getting divorced." to be a particularly convincing one.
In America, divorce rates are lowest in the Northeast and they are currently dropping inside Northeastern cities. These are the places where divorce and the premarital sex and everything are not as strongly socially sanctioned (unlike the worst area in the country for marriage, the South). I don't know if this is true, but I like to think that this is occuring in part because people in these areas are finally learning the real reasons why being married and staying committed are good ideas, instead of having their conception of why to stay marriage twisted by external forces.
In America, those cultures and regions that seem most vocal these issues (marriage and pre-marital sex) and most involved in sanctioning them generally have the highest rates of divorce. I'm not sure that their model is one we should be emulating.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, people do divorce once the kids are gone. I'm not sure what you are hoping the statistics will prove.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:a) They're used to it, b) They don't want to try to find someone new this late in the game, c) They still don't think it'd be healthy for their families, d) All/None of the above?
Here is why I think the "sticktuitiveness attitude" explaination makes more sense: a) "They are used to it" may be an extention of the "sticktuitiveness attitude".
b) If you are in a truly unhappy marriage, wouldn't you rather be out of it whether or not you can find someone new?
c) This also seems to be an extention of older attitudes that staying together is important and better than divorce.
Just my opinion, but what you've said here seems to support it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, I don't think those statistics are saying what you think they are. For one thing, a large section of that population are widows/widowers.
I agree with your assertion however that it's much less common among the older generation. I just don't think that this supports your point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here is why I think the "sticktuitiveness attitude" explaination makes more sense: a) "They are used to it" may be an extention of the "sticktuitiveness attitude".
b) If you are in a truly unhappy marriage, wouldn't you rather be out of it whether or not you can find someone new?
c) This also seems to be an extention of older attitudes that staying together is important and better than divorce.
Just my opinion, but what you've said here seems to support it.
I agree that all of those seem to be a condition of "sticktoitiveness" - and I feel it's more evidence that the "leap in and use your sticktoitiveness" argument is wrong, and improperly motivated.
But, again, I think this will continue coming back to that fundamental difference in perception.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure what you are hoping the statistics will prove.
I am using it as evidence that attitudes towards commitment in marriage have changed over time, and that younger generations do not value commitment in marriage as much. It isn't the ease of divorce or the opportunity that explains it. If it were, these older people would be divorced in the same percentage, if not more so, since there was an even greater gap between the sexes in generations past with the attitudes men tended to have towards women.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, It looks like now you're combining your "keep working at problems" with my "resign yourself to your situation" into sticktoitness. If so, I don't disagree with you, but I think this goes directly against your initial argument, that people learned that they needed to keep working at things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:bev, I don't think those statistics are saying what you think they are. For one thing, a large section of that population are widows/widowers.
So? The statistic addresses if they have *ever* been divorced. Divorce has been *easy* for quite some time now, you know.
quote:I agree with your assertion however that it's much less common among the older generation. I just don't think that this supports your point.
Why not? What do you think the reasons are? Of course, none of us can prove anything, we can only discuss what we think is most likely and why.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:They don't necessarily mean what you think they mean.
Sure. What do you think they mean? I figured this was an interesting topic for discussion. Maybe I should start a thread though....
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In America, divorce rates are lowest in the Northeast and they are currently dropping inside Northeastern cities. These are the places where divorce and the premarital sex and everything are not as strongly socially sanctioned (unlike the worst area in the country for marriage, the South). I don't know if this is true, but I like to think that this is occuring in part because people in these areas are finally learning the real reasons why being married and staying committed are good ideas, instead of having their conception of why to stay marriage twisted by external forces.
quote:You know that statistics always have other factors and in no way support your assertation, scientific studies are special interest driven, arguments are flawed, reasons aren't good enough, and you're biased to boot.
So? Discuss what those factors might be. I am providing evidence. I am not going for solid proof, it's not possible. My stats are better than your nothing.
What does it matter that I am biased? So are we all. Pit your bias against mine. That is what discussion is for.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
erosomniac, there may be valid reasons for choosing to live together before marriage, but reducing the chance of divorce is not one of them. Statistically speaking, people who live together for 1-4 years prior to marriage are more likely to get divorced than couples who don’t live together. After 3 years living together the gap starts to narrow, and after 5 years or so there isn’t any difference in divorce rates. But at NO point are the divorce rates lower for people who lived together prior to marriage.
(Speculation ahead )One reason might be that most couples living together aren’t really in a “trial marriage.” For example – one of the top areas of marital conflict is finances, and many (most?) couples living together don’t combine their finances. They share expenses, but they still each have their own income, their own bank accounts, and decide how their own money is spent.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:erosomniac, there may be valid reasons for choosing to live together before marriage, but reducing the chance of divorce is not one of them. Statistically speaking, people who live together for 1-4 years prior to marriage are more likely to get divorced than couples who don’t live together. After 3 years living together the gap starts to narrow, and after 5 years or so there isn’t any difference in divorce rates. But at NO point are the divorce rates lower for people who lived together prior to marriage.
First: I'd like to see the statistics in question - please post a source.
Second: Even if the statistics are as you say they are, I have not, at any point, suggested that living together before marriage is for everyone. I've simply suggested that it is a viable option for many people, and that labelling the lifestyle as "socially irresponsible" is as blanket a statement as saying that everyone who goes into a marriage WITHOUT living together first is doomed to misery because they didn't spend enough time figuring out if they have compatible living habits beforehand.
There's no way we're ever going to know which system is "better," because there are too many mitigating factors that influence how people live their lives, how they choose their life partners, and what a marriage means to them. There will never be one person that can truly provide a definitive answer to this question, because once you've elected one option, you've effectively ruled out the possibility of exploring the other.
quote:(Speculation ahead )One reason might be that most couples living together aren’t really in a “trial marriage.” For example – one of the top areas of marital conflict is finances, and many (most?) couples living together don’t combine their finances. They share expenses, but they still each have their own income, their own bank accounts, and decide how their own money is spent.
I think you're partially correct, in that there are several financial decisions that a married couple makes that a couple living together in preparation for engagement/marriage typically doesn't (like financing the education of a child, or purchasing a house).
But in my living-together relationship(s), we looked at everything as a matter of joint expense. Major purchases on the part of either person were well discussed beforehand, and that discussion included the impact it would have on the other person. There has to be an understanding of give and take, obviously, but that's another one of those compatability issues you need to understand before a marriage (and one I don't think requires living together beforehand).
Further, many (most?) married couples I know don't combine their finances, either - at least, not to the extent of mixing capital. In the majority of marriages I can think of, the participants maintain seperate bank accounts, seperate retirement funds, and seperate investments. They also decide how their own money is spent: even in major decisions like purchasing a family car, financing a house or saving money for the future of a child, the issue is well discussed so there won't be any misunderstandings about what each person is expected to contribute.
[Edit] To clarify, when I talk about people living together, I'm still talking about people who are living together in preparation for or in anticipation of engagement/marriage, not people who do not intend to get married, or people who are unable to for legal reasons.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the majority of marriages I can think of, the participants maintain seperate bank accounts, seperate retirement funds, and seperate investments.
Seriously? I don't know any, in either my parents' or my own generation, that do not mix their finances.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously? I don't know any, in either my parents' or my own generation, that do not mix their finances.
Seriously. I think all other things being equal, this is a matter of choice. All other things NOT being equal, you could call it a measure of safety or insecurity, depending on which side of that fence you want to fling dung from .
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a horrible idea. Why not mix finances? You can keep cards in different names in order to make sure both people have credit, but why the separate financial lives?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think it's a horrible idea. Why not mix finances? You can keep cards in different names in order to make sure both people have credit, but why the separate financial lives?
...why a horrible idea? To take up the dung flinger, this is one of the hugest problems when it comes to divorces: the seperation of combined finances.
I'm also drawing a blank as to the benefits of combining your finances. I can't think of anything you can accomplish with a joint bank account that you can't with seperate ones.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one thing, you don't keep track of who is paying for what. Everything goes into the same pot. You can discuss who pays what bill, or you can put everything in the same pot, pay the bills, and then discuss how to spend the extra. That sounds like a much more pleasant conversation.
I can think it is a horrible idea without you comparing me to what you compared me to. Please.
I also think it is a bad idea to live your married life in a way designed to make your divorce easier. Talk about jinxing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to agree with the "once married, finances together" crowd. I have a couple of married friends who keep their finances separate, and it seems like she (the student of the pair) is always "borrowing money" from him. I can't think of a worse way to encourage inequity in a relationship than to have to borrow money from your spouse.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Family account, for bills, household expenses, savings, etc. All regular income dough gets dumped there.
Separate accounts for spouses, if desired, where individual monies can be stored for specific purposes. Money I make from my writing or money I get for presents or other other-than-work-paycheck money goes into my personal bank account, and that pays for my toys and books and movies and surprise, let's-eat-out dinners, that sort of thing. This way I have some cash I don't have to account to anyone for and I don't have to siphon off family money for personal items.
Of course, then I have to actually earn it somehow, but that's a different thing...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:...why a horrible idea? To take up the dung flinger, this is one of the hugest problems when it comes to divorces: the separation of combined finances.
Keeping "separate finances" doesn't help with financial settlements in most divorce cases in many states. Any money you earn during marriage is counted as a marital asset, whether you are keeping "separate finances" or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Separate accounts for spouses, if desired, where individual monies can be stored for specific purposes. Money I make from my writing or money I get for presents or other other-than-work-paycheck money goes into my personal bank account, and that pays for my toys and books and movies and surprise, let's-eat-out dinners, that sort of thing. This way I have some cash I don't have to account to anyone for and I don't have to siphon off family money for personal items.
That's workable, but it's not separate finances. It can even be done simply by allocating a certain amount each month to "whatever spouse A wants" and "whatever spouse B wants."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can think it is a horrible idea without you comparing me to what you compared me to. Please.
...huh? I didn't compare you to anything. If you're thinking I called you a dung flinger, I was speaking of a "dung flinger" as an object I would use to fling dung. Hence "taking up the dung flinger" was a comment directed at myself, not at you. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
quote:I also think it is a bad idea to live your married life in a way designed to make your divorce easier. Talk about jinxing.
quote:1) Why plan your marriage around what would happen with divorce in mind?
This is why I said this:
"All other things NOT being equal, you could call it a measure of safety or insecurity, depending on which side of that fence you want to fling dung from ."
Like I said, fling the dung if you want - people who think like me call it a measure of safety, people like you call it a sign of insecurity, or a sign that you shouldn't be getting married in the first place, or whatever you want to say about it. It's the same reasoning that applies to the original question: I feel like living with someone before getting engaged is essential for me, and you feel differently.
quote:2) Maybe you're drawing a blank is that the accomplishment is insubstational. Two bank accounts: Mine and hers. One bank account: ours. Seems inconsequential, yet I think its often all the little things that add up to make a marriage work.
We just have to agree to disagree. There are certainly things that I will purchase with my life partner that will give me that warm fuzzy "this is ours" feeling, but I don't feel sharing a bank account is necessary.
quote:I tend to agree with the "once married, finances together" crowd. I have a couple of married friends who keep their finances separate, and it seems like she (the student of the pair) is always "borrowing money" from him. I can't think of a worse way to encourage inequity in a relationship than to have to borrow money from your spouse.
I can see that being a problem, but I would never marry someone still in school, because I think part of being ready to get married is being financially independent.
I don't mean to imply that there is anything wrong, demeaning or ignoble about being a full-time housewife or otherwise contributing less to the family finances, but if/when I get married, I want to be equally involved in the rearing of our child and the managing of household tasks.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Keeping "separate finances" doesn't help with financial settlements in most divorce cases in many states. Any money you earn during marriage is counted as a marital asset, whether you are keeping "separate finances" or not.
Not if you sign the right pre-nup, but again, another place we'll have to agree to disagree.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
