quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's a pretty different mindset from mine, which leads me to believe that life is better* shared, and the more sharing, the better that better is.
As an aside, I don't think this inherently implies your conclusion that marriage is necessarily a mechanism by which two lives are made better. It's simply taken as a cultural norm in Western societies.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I am curious, though: what other things do you think would bring you equal joy as marrying your ideal partner?
First off, I think that's a trick question. I don't believe there is such a thing as an ideal partner. I can't even think what I would include if I tried to dream one up. I believe that there are a number of people out there that I could fall in love with and be happily married to. Within that number, there is probably a continuum as to how well suited each is for me and I am for them. But there are also a number of people with whom I would be an excellent match for a short term relationship, or even a longer term relationship short of marriage, who I would not be happy married to.
Secondly, the problem with making the comparison as to what would bring me equal joy is that marriage would (presumably) bring me joy for a very long duration, that is hard to match with other activities. But that's because you're lumping a whole lifetime of shared experiences under the term "marriage." So, no, I don't think that there is any one experience out there that could bring me as much joy as a happy marriage. But I think there are many experiences that combined might.
Anything that I list will sound trite. The things that bring one person joy are not necessarily the things that bring another person joy. And you have the easy fall-back of saying "Yes, but wouldn't that be better with someone to share it with?" But I have people to share my life with. I have very good friends, I have a family I love deeply, and I have romantic partners pretty much whenever I want them. Yes, that might change when I get older, but the friends and family part won't. You can say it's not the same as much as you want, I just don't see it. If it's not the same, it's close enough for me to be fulfilled and happy.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The thesis, according to the review, is that most people are going to be about as happy regardless of what happens in their life.
That's a completely unknowable thing though, isn't it? I cannot know what would have happened.
Is it completely unknowable? Take a large sample group. Large enough that there are going to be some tragedies and some unexpected wonderful events. Have them keep a diary of major events in their life, updated regularly, so they're not thinking back on it before answering the survey. Twice a year, have them take a survey asking them to rate on a scale of 1 - 10 their level of happiness. Do it for 10+ years.
If the thesis of the book is correct, their answers may spike or drop after certain life events, but should level back off to where they were before in about a year. Overall, they should be at about the same level of happiness throughout.
I'm not saying that's what they did, I have no idea. I'm just saying I think you could draw some pretty clear conclusions if that was the case.
I'm going to try to find the book, I'll link it if I can.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's true enough. I don't think that marriage is the only way to achieve that level of companionship and sharing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I don't see why that situation would end up with net more happiness in my life than if it doesn't happen.
Because there's a certain richness in the committment itself. Believe me, I was skeptical, myself, before I married Christy; we'd already been living together for three years, and I couldn't particularly imagine how things would change once we married "officially." And yet they did. There was something about the public codification of our status and dedication to the relationship -- as an entity independent of each of us, in a way -- that made a surprising amount of difference.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Believe me, I was skeptical, myself, before I married Christy; we'd already been living together for three years, and I couldn't particularly imagine how things would change once we married "officially."
If that is the case, why did you say the truth of my hypothetical seemed almost self-evident to you?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because once you've experienced the value-add of that commitment, and once you grant the assumption that you're making that promise to the right person -- which is the big risk -- and the further assumption that that person will remain the right person, then it's really a no-brainer. I can see how some people -- especially ones who place a low initial value on commitment -- might not consider it worth the risk, but this little thought experiment asks us to assume that none of the potential downsides actually apply.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Well, it's a bit of a trick question, but the trick balances out because just as there is no ideal partner, there is no ideal single life, right?
quote:But that's because you're lumping a whole lifetime of shared experiences under the term "marriage." So, no, I don't think that there is any one experience out there that could bring me as much joy as a happy marriage. But I think there are many experiences that combined might.
You're certainly right about the first...and I grant that listing even a part of the second would be difficult to say the least. Which, I have to admit, to me sort of demonstrates the point I'm trying to make. You have to stretch a bit to think of a bunch of combined experiences that could compete with an ideal (or let's say "best possible" marriage), whereas with the best possible marriage, even the crappier things in life (I believe) are better.
quote:You can say it's not the same as much as you want, I just don't see it. If it's not the same, it's close enough for me to be fulfilled and happy.
Here's where the question becomes tricky. I am not in any way suggesting that you are unfulfilled or unhappy. I guess the question becomes...who do you value more? The friend you've had for as long as you can remember, or the friend you made last month? Unless you can honestly answer that you value them equally, it seems to me* that the romantic partners you can get whenever you want them are not going to measure up to the best possible marriage
As for the book, I would be very interested in reading it if you can find it. *crosses fingers*
*And when I say "seems to me", please bear in mind that I'm making no judgements on your life specifically. Although I'm using pronouns and such, I'm making no claims to knowledge here, except in generalities and such.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sure. But you know I've never been married. So from your position now it's self-evident, but the question as you phrased it made it seem like you thought it was self-evident to everyone. Since you not only didn't consider it self-evident before you got married, you in fact didn't think it would make a bit of difference, I don't see why you needed to ask me why I think I can be as happy unmarried as married.
And, of course, now we're in the realm of "you can't know until you've done it." There's no answer for that, of course. I believe that it was an added richness, a surprising amount of difference for you. We're different people, and I don't accept that your experience is anything more than anecdotal. *shrug*
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, are you saying it's impossible to have that kind of a connection and commitment to another person *without* something that very closely resembles a marriage?
Or that you can't have that with multiple partners?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You have to stretch a bit to think of a bunch of combined experiences that could compete with an ideal (or let's say "best possible" marriage), whereas with the best possible marriage, even the crappier things in life (I believe) are better.
Who said I had to stretch? I said I wasn't going to list them out, because what I would consider wonderful experiences might not mean anything to you. I can think of dozens of things that qualify, for me, but I'm not going to put them out there for you (read: anyone) to pick apart.
quote: I guess the question becomes...who do you value more? The friend you've had for as long as you can remember, or the friend you made last month? Unless you can honestly answer that you value them equally, it seems to me* that the romantic partners you can get whenever you want them are not going to measure up to the best possible marriage
*laugh* Are you serious? I have friends who I've had forever that are okay friends, fun to hang around with and everything, but who I would not consider part of my "inner circle." And I've made friends with whom I bonded instantly, and immediately started sharing everything with. Really bad comparison.
It strikes me, though, that I didn't make myself clear with my statement about romantic partners. You seem to be taking it as if I want one, I go out and get one, for a temporary relationship. I do not enter relationships expecting them to end. (fling /= relationship, for the purposes of this statement.) I give each relationship my all, and try my best to have it succeed. If it doesn't, I usually want to stay single for awhile. As soon as I decide I want a relationship again, I usually have one. I know part of that is because I meet society's current definition of attractive, part of it also is because I am a happy person ( ) and people usually enjoy being around me. That translates into being able to date pretty much whenever I want. If my boyfriend dumped me tomorrow, I know at least three people who have made it plain they would like to date me if I become available. I wouldn't, because I think dating on the rebound is a bad idea. But I also have no doubt that as soon as I wanted to date again, I could.
quote: As for the book, I would be very interested in reading it if you can find it. *crosses fingers*
Well I can't look when I keep responding to all y'all's interesting posts.
twinky, thanks, but I don't think so. It was a book by a psychologist, I'm pretty sure. The one I linked is probably it. The one reader review certainly isn't positive. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, are you saying it's impossible to have that kind of a connection and commitment to another person *without* something that very closely resembles a marriage?
Or that you can't have that with multiple partners?
I think you perhaps can have it with multiple partners, but you can't have it without public promises of lifelong commitment.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. Unfortunately, I have nothing more erudite to say on the matter. I don't know how i feel about that yet.
edit: okay, for further clarification, are you saying that it's impossible to be truly committed and/or close to someone unless you stand up in front of other people and make it official? that somehow the very act of calling it official makes it more meaningful?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Who said I had to stretch? I said I wasn't going to list them out, because what I would consider wonderful experiences might not mean anything to you. I can think of dozens of things that qualify, for me, but I'm not going to put them out there for you (read: anyone) to pick apart.
Fair enough. I'll just reply with my wondering what wonderful experience you would have as a single (or, at least, unmarried) life that you wouldn't also be able to have in the "best possible" married life (and to be clear, by that I mean that of married lives, I'm talking about the best possible). I would think that list would be considerably shorter, but I can certainly understand your reticence. I'm pretty much the same way in that regard.
quote:*laugh* Are you serious? I have friends who I've had forever that are okay friends, fun to hang around with and everything, but who I would not consider part of my "inner circle." And I've made friends with whom I bonded instantly, and immediately started sharing everything with. Really bad comparison.
Well, let me be more specific (although I thought my intent was pretty clear, I didn't state it precisely). If you have two friends of, let's say, an equal level of emotional closeness, who do you value more? The one who's known you for a month? Or the one who's known you for a decade? If you say that given that (admittedly abstract) comparison, you would still say "both, equally", I'll take you at your word, but for me personally that's a pretty foreign perspective.
I didn't take you to mean temporary relationships, I was again viewing it kind of generalized. By that I mean, if you look at any given relationship, taken from a random person totally at random, chances are that relationship isn't going to endure a lifetime. Thus, you were in effect talking about temporary relationship, not that that's what you entered into them looking for. Should've been clearer there, too.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got married after 3 years of dating, and the before and after of the ceremony were exactly the same to me. No profound new level of commitment or extra happiness, just the same level of awesome that we had before. So for me, being married was no different.
Several years later, Bad Stuff happened, and we're no longer married, so if you want to add your own assumptions to the mix, I leave that to your imagination, although I prefer you not presume to know the circumstances
After, I was much happier single than married, so I submit my experience as a contradictory data point.
For further reference, I'm getting married later this year, and I expect things to be Totally Awesome from this point forward, but I don't expect that society's opinion of my legal status will make a lick of difference to my internal state of mind.
A further aside: if marriage does indeed make one significantly happier than being un-married with the same person, that really sucks for same-sex partners in America.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you have two friends of, let's say, an equal level of emotional closeness, who do you value more? The one who's known you for a month? Or the one who's known you for a decade? If you say that given that (admittedly abstract) comparison, you would still say "both, equally", I'll take you at your word, but for me personally that's a pretty foreign perspective.
Honestly, that's abstract enough to be meaningless to me. I can't answer it, because the idea of my relationships with any two people being close enough to the same to be able to make that comparison is completely foreign to me. People are unique, my relationships with them are unique, and I will say that I haven't found "time" to be a value-added aspect of a relationship.
quote: By that I mean, if you look at any given relationship, taken from a random person totally at random, chances are that relationship isn't going to endure a lifetime.
Sure. Same goes for marriages, you know. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh and I are talking about if there's necessarily a difference between the happiness you get by being legally committed to one person vs. having a series of relationships of varying lengths. He said that if you're not married, any given relationship is most likely not going to last a lifetime. I pointed out that the same is true if you are married. It might last the lifetime of one participant, but then the surviving member is not married anymore, and has to make decisions about if they are going to remain single, begin dating again, and/or get married again. Obviously, the age the surviving partner is when they are widowed (Is that gender neutral? Do I need to add or widowered? That looks funny.) plays a role in the decision, as does if there are children and numerous other factors. Surely you've read the articles about the hot dating scenes in many retirement communities? And about how many seniors are choosing to live together without the benefit of marriage the second time around because they don't want to combine their estates and have to have elaborate legal documents prepared to make sure their respective heirs are protected?
So, for 50% of the people who's marriages end in the death of one spouse, their marriage did not last a lifetime. (I think the number of people who die at the same time as their spouse is probably small enough to be statistically insignificant.) Add in the divorce rate, and my statement to Rakeesh and my statement is perfectly accurate.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's missing the basic point that marriage chooses one of a crowd and makes him or her special, and that connection more often than not lasts until one of the two dies. A marriage creates a shared life, and (generally) most non-marriage relationships are individual lives coming together and apart.
An exception would be for couples who stay together but who never have the ceremony, but that reinforces the point rather than diluting it. Senior couples who live together but do not get married are avoiding intertwining their lives and all that that means, including finances and descendants.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's disagreeing that that is a basic point, actually, not missing it. In fact, I believe that's what I've been doing for my last several posts in this thread.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. I'm disagreeing that that is a basic point to the conversation Rakeesh and I were having at the moment. Sorry.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
okay, then we disagree. I think that marriage relationships are different from other, less permanent, less committed relationships. If another relationship is as comitted, permanent, and entangling as a marriage relationship, then they are married in all but name.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Different, sure. I won't argue different. I'm arguing that happily married is not by definition better and preferable to happily not married. Or, if you prefer, happily married /> happily single.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:After, I was much happier single than married, so I submit my experience as a contradictory data point.
Except that we're assuming that you're marrying the "right person" in this hypothetical, so your situation can't apply.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:After, I was much happier single than married, so I submit my experience as a contradictory data point.
Except that we're assuming that you're marrying the "right person" in this hypothetical, so your situation can't apply.
In that case, you can't tell if anyone married the "right person" until both partners are dead, and perhaps not even then, so the hypothetical seems kind of silly to me.
"The happiness that I imagine I might have in a relationship that lasted until my death is greater than the happiness that I imagine I might have if none of my relationships last until death."
Why do you feel such a need to assert that your purported happiness is better in some (quantifiable?) way than anyone else's? There's a distinct lack of corroborating reports from the departed.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you feel such a need to assert that your purported happiness is better in some (quantifiable?) way than anyone else's?
I don't, personally. It's not like I'm walking up to my single friends and saying, "Are you happy? Not as happy as I am." But by the same token, I think it is NOT the case that someone who is happily married is "merely" as happy as someone who is single, all else being equal. There is indeed a value-add in the act of marriage itself.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In effect, you just did what you're saying you don't do.
I'm also not sure why you think there's some kind of absolute happiness scale on which a marriage always causes an increment.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not. Which is another reason why I think perpetuating the idea that people* would be happier if they were married is silly.
*In general. I'm not saying this holds true for specific people. If, for instance, what a person wants most in life is a traditional family with lots of kids, of course they'll be happier married.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do the words "lots of kids" and "traditional family" and "most" modifiers have to be in your description to be true?
What about "If person wants in their life to share that life with and be mutually committed to someone they love, then they'll be happier married."
What I find to be sillier is to say that a happy marriage has no value beyond easing the work of raising children.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At any given moment, agreed. However, I think - I know this is opinion and I have no studies to back it up but I really do think - that very, very few people go through an entire life never wanting that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to put it another way -- just because everyone might have, at one time, wanted a close, committed relationship with someone else, does NOT mean that NOT getting it is going to decrease their happiness. That is, there are other ways to be happy, and marriage and commitment to a suitable person is not the only answer.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many ways to be happy. Has anyone said that there isn't?
However, if a happy marriage is something that someone wants, while there are many ways to be happy, getting a pet is not precisely the same thing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, to put it another way -- just because everyone might have, at one time, wanted a close, committed relationship with someone else, does NOT mean that NOT getting it is going to decrease their happiness.
Absolutely true. However, I don't see how you could possibly argue that being in a happy, lifelong relationship with someone -- whether you call it marriage or not -- could possibly decrease happiness. If we don't grant the possibility that the relationship ceases to be happy, we're looking at an absolute net benefit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do the words "lots of kids" and "traditional family" and "most" modifiers have to be in your description to be true?
What about "If person wants in their life to share that life with and be mutually committed to someone they love, then they'll be happier married."
What I find to be sillier is to say that a happy marriage has no value beyond easing the work of raising children.
I was giving an example. I didn't say that was the only situation in which a specific person might be happier married. And I didn't say a traditional marriage holds no other value. What I said, again, is that "you would be happier married" is not a statement that I believe applies in general.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone has said "you would be happier married" in this thread at all. I know I haven't.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, you said happily married > happily single > unhappily single > unhappily married. How is that not the same?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you're arguing that being in a happy marriage significantly increases one's happiness, OVER that of someone who is perfectly happy and NOT in a marriage. I just don't see how that statement can be anything but completely anecdotal and based on opinion.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
ElJay, give me some credit for NOT advocating that everyone run out and get married as soon as they are legal. What do you think I meant?
When you add in my previously stated qualifiers (that this is over a lifetime and not for any one given moment or even decade in a life), then I do believe that. It's a long life (hopefully). I think the exceptions to that general rule for experiences over a lifetime are miniscule.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and people usually enjoy being around me. That translates into being able to date pretty much whenever I want. If my boyfriend dumped me tomorrow, I know at least three people who have made it plain they would like to date me if I become available. I wouldn't, because I think dating on the rebound is a bad idea. But I also have no doubt that as soon as I wanted to date again, I could. 
