A model of marriage

Simple living, extreme early retirement, being wealthy, ...
JL13
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat May 17, 2014 7:47 am

A model of marriage

Post by JL13 » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:40 pm

I was thinking about this the other day, and I'm curious to hear other's inputs. Traditional marriage in the west seems to be a combination of all of the following:

1.) Best friend
2.) Lover
3.) Roommate
4.) Biological parent to your child*
5.) Person who raises your child
6.) Real estate investment partner**
7.) Travel companion
8.) Tenant**

You can relate to people with any one or any multiple of the above list, but many expect that a marriage will be all 8. I think in theory you could have a marriage that is any combination of a few of those.

Does anyone have a successful long term relationship that contains a unique combination of these? Is the relationship stronger/more fulfilling the more areas you connect with? Are there any categories that I have left out of the model?

*it is possible to meet a divorced parent, marry them, move in, and have (some sort of) a parental role with the child

**This is a bit abstract, but if you think about it like this: If you alone purchase a residence and live in it yourself, in theory you are both landlord and tenant. If you do it with a spouse, you are each other's landlords and each other's tenants. It is of course possible to buy a house with a spouse and rent it out to others.

Cerberusss
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:38 pm

Re: A model of marriage

Post by Cerberusss » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:20 pm

I think it also depends on how old you were when you got together. When I was young and met my first girlfriend, we tried to fulfill all points on your list. When after ten years we split up, I decided I really wanted to have a somewhat different relationship next time.

So when I met my next girlfriend, I was much more individualistic. We haven't bought the house together (it's mine) and I also couldn't say that we're best friends. (I have a best friend and in some areas, I tell him more than my girlfriend). Holidays aren't necessarily together as well. Sometimes I visit a friend in a different country, but I also went to China with a friend. And she goes on weekends away with her friends too. We're very happy that way.

User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4278
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by Dragline » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:40 pm

You forgot provider, co-investor, cook, maid, handyman, driver, nurse, masseur, gofer and all the other otherwise "thankless tasks" that go along with divvying up the chores of life. ;-)

I've seen marriages succeed with only a few things on the list and other ones fail with many more boxes ticked. So I don't ever discount blind luck when it comes to relationships, because you can never know if and how someone might change in the future.

Celebrating 22 years of being hitched today. Feeling lucky and grateful.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: A model of marriage

Post by GandK » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:55 pm

Dragline wrote:Celebrating 22 years of being hitched today. Feeling lucky and grateful.
Congratulations!

@OP:

Oh, wow. Not sure this is something that a formula can be applied to. My spouse and I tend to try to meet each other's needs, whatever those may be, and we try to make enough space for each other to meet any remaining unmet needs outside the marriage.

YMMV. :D

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 8951
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: A model of marriage

Post by jacob » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:55 pm

It does indeed seem to strive to be a combination of all of those aspects and more, but I don't think that's always a wise idea. In particular, the concept of the "total package" seems to be one of those crazy ideas spawned by romanticism (NFs, I'm looking at you as the source of all crazy ideas ;-) ) which for whatever reason have been widely adopted with disastrous results. What's the divorce/long-term break-up rate again? Pretty high, no?

I think relationships get stronger the more flexible you are. Not the more categories you add. Because people change.

I have three things to add (so far):
1) Some cultures/countries are a good deal more flexible on some of these issues than others. For example, Americans seem a lot more rigid on the lover issue than the French. Vice versa on raising kids which Americans are very happy to outsource to various institutions with some pride.---I'm talking stereotype/generalities here, not looking for blowback or individual exceptions of which I'm sure there are plenty :-P
2) If (7) is expanded to "activity partner", DW and I have benefited greatly from realizing and acknowledging that just because A greatly enjoys something, it doesn't mean that B has to get dragged along all the time. In fact, dragging B along might decrease A's enjoyment.
3) I don't relate well to the concept of "best friend" but I get the point. DW and I are much more complementary ("my weaknesses are her strengths and vice versa") than we are compatible ("of the same mind/way of thinking"). We're very good at resolving disputes (why I married her). However, while this means that we're a very strong team, it does mean that we suffer as individuals because we never quite "get" each other. Conversely, two people who always get each other would suffer as a team (but perhaps not be aware of that).

Note: Married for 9+ years at this point.

steveo73
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:52 pm

Re: A model of marriage

Post by steveo73 » Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:04 pm

Dragline wrote:So I don't ever discount blind luck when it comes to relationships, because you can never know if and how someone might change in the future.
...
Feeling lucky and grateful.
I've been married 14 years. I wonder how much comes down to luck. We used to fight a lot but now we appear to have adapted to each other and things are working well.

User avatar
cmonkey
Posts: 1452
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:56 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by cmonkey » Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:09 pm

Congrats to Dragline :)

The DW and I have been married for 5+ years now and have known each for 8+ years so we are well into our relationship. We have never really thought about any of those characteristics as being part of a standard marriage...but many of them do apply to us. The best friends label due to it being difficult to even make friends. I agree with jacob's thought on being complementary to my spouse, many of her strengths are my shortcomings. She is very creative whereas I am not. I am very strategic and she definitely is not.

Number 7 definitely doesn't apply to us. I hate traveling and refuse to do it more than at holiday time. She has traveled several times by herself and will do so again this November (free trip to Orlando with a friend).

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 3806
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by Ego » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:54 pm

Dragline wrote: Celebrating 22 years of being hitched today. Feeling lucky and grateful.
Hey, congratulations! We also celebrated our 22nd anniversary last Friday. September 1993 was a lucky month!

Yeah, I agree that there are so many more roles than those few.

WRT Jacob's point above, individuals continue to grow after marriage. There is no stasis. The direction of growth is important.

While I may not be fully engaged in every last hobby or interest of Mrs. Ego, I should at least be willing to make an effort to understand and appreciate them in some way. That doesn't mean I've got to drag her or she's got to drag me along to every activity. It does mean that I should find a way to be a little interested in something that has become very important to her, even if it is not my thing.

I don't know if this is true for everyone, but we've found that some of the most interesting, surprising and valuable growth occurs at what we believed to be our boundaries or edges.

I'm not sure how this would look from a systems perspective, but I find that a couple is either growing together - integrating - or they are growing apart. There is no stasis.

One of the most common things divorced people say is that they grew apart.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:07 am

Congratulations to Dragline and Ego!!!

I made it to 19 years in my marriage, but it was not always pretty. I also made it to 3 years in an Islamic marriage contract, also not always pretty, but totally different variety of not so pretty.

At this point in my life, I am bone tired of attempting to fulfill the stereotypical female role which requires me to be the one who is more/most concerned with security and romance, since this role does not conform well with my ENTP personality type. My security needs are minimal absent any babies in the mix, and my level of desire for romance is almost exactly analogous to my level of desire for some sort of whipped cream concoction vs. just a very good, very strong cup of coffee. Therefore, I am currently attempting to form a poly-amorous circle in alignment with system theory or the rule of perma-culture. In overly simplistic terms, the process for doing this is to make the sort of list of all functions you need/want fulfilled in relationship such as that offered by OP and expanded by Dragline, and then find/create/establish 3 sources for each need/want while attempting to have each source fulfill at least 3 wants/needs. Of course, in a system theory problem involving two or more intelligent, self-interested human elements, this is a complex, interwoven, multi-directional-vectored, web formation.

One rule-of-thumb for determining "class" has to do with how two couples arrange their seating in a car. In theory, the working class couple places both men in the front seat, the middle-class couple places one couple in front and the other in the back, and the upper-class couple splits up and swaps, because it is assumed that the married couple has most likely run out of conversation. Jane Juska, the author of "A Round-Heeled Woman: My Late-Life Adventures in Sex and Romance" placed a personal ad in The New York Review of Books which said "Before I turn 67- next March- I would like to have a lot of sex with a man I like. If you want to talk first, Trollope work for me." I am only able to slightly grok/empathize with the male desire for pure sexual variety in terms of visual cue/trigger, but my ENTP personality drives me towards a high level of desire for variety in terms of conversation and/or recreational activities/companionship. One of the scenes that pops into my mind when I am feeling fear of long-term commitment to exclusive relationship is I am sitting at the breakfast table with a man, attempting to make conversation, and he is just uttering monosyllabic grunts in response, until he finally tunes in and offers a "No" response to my suggestion for novel activity later in the day.

Anyways, my experiment with establishing the poly-amorous model is going fairly well so far, given that I really have few guidelines to help me. I am having some problems I didn't fully anticipate, along the lines of difficulty with juggling, but I am not experiencing some other problems that I thought I likely would. For instance, I thought I might have to take a more dominant stance than I prefer but that hasn't happened at all. One huge positive is that I am not experiencing any feelings related to jealousy, entrapment or resentment which I have sometimes experienced in the past when I was being held and holding somebody else to extensive, exclusive contract. YMMV!!!

User avatar
chenda
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm

Re: A model of marriage

Post by chenda » Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:41 am

Meh, cohabiting (married or otherwise) always strikes me as far more trouble than it's worth. Relationships where you live part are much easier on both parties, imo.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:49 am

@chenda: I don't think cohabitation or domestic-partnership is any more onerous than any other factor in relationship. I haven't always lived with a sexual partner, but I have never lived by myself. Most people who are difficult to live with either fall into the widely-defined category of "doesn't clean up after self" or the widely-defined category of "tells you how you should clean up after yourself." I have developed somewhat less tolerance for the second variety, as in "If you interrupt me while I am reading to tell me exactly how I should load the dishwasher one more time, I will likely stab you with a fork." vs. "Dishes in the sink again. Messy, messy chipmunk children. (sigh)"

zarathustra
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:15 pm
Location: OR

Re: A model of marriage

Post by zarathustra » Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:25 pm

I am not a fan of that idea of trying to find someone to fill all desired roles, as listed in the OP, because I find it to be quite illogical and damaging.

I've come to realize that flexibility, as jacob suggested, allows me to thrive and be the best partner I can be. In fact, the more flexible, the more "love"-feelings I am capable of feeling for the right people and the more open/liberated I become with them. I am very sensitive to anyone trying to limit my "freedom", at least . . . outside of the bedroom lol. ;)

This year I have been strictly enforcing a "poly" experiment now that I'm back from my travels. It is going really well, though I did lose my first partner after he realized he didn't want to share. However, I'm meeting and enjoying some really interesting and wonderful people and being able to really just focus on who they are, what they have to offer, and what we "make" together; not what I'm trying to get out of them or if they would fit into some long-term monogamous-type relationship or fulfill a ton of checklist items. As a result, I've had some rich and unexpectedly satisfying experiences sexual and otherwise. It's kind of like zen-dating. I'm being in the moment.

So it's a little early to tell for sure, but so far so good.

I suppose if you aren't good at being alone or really love being independent/alone, this sort of strategy at romantic partnerships wouldn't work.

I am still open and would love to find a solid long-term partner, if compatible, to have a marriage-like relationship but I'm not sure marriage is the thing for me. I'm also not sure cohabitation is for me either.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:06 pm

@zarathustra

Totally echo your "zen-dating" feeling with the poly experiment. One of the reasons I decided to try it was that I had the thought "I have run clean out of conventional romantic narrative." I have been fairly frequently finding myself in a sort of sensual fugue state recently because I am not thinking about "What's next?" Also, I do want to do some medium-term traveling in the medium-term future, so I don't want to form any kind of relationship that would require anything more than friendly written communication from me to maintain on terms of contract.

One rather amusing "problem" I've encountered dealing with more than one dominant type, is directly conflicting advice on matters that are or should be strictly in my realm of interest. Two of the men I am seeing are experts in the realm of construction/renovation and they both immediately, independently informed me that the vacant house I am considering buying needs a new roof and it will cost me $3000, but one of them is strongly encouraging me to buy it, and the other is communicating the opposite.

zarathustra
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:15 pm
Location: OR

Re: A model of marriage

Post by zarathustra » Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:05 pm

what about when one finds a mark on you he did not leave? ;)

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:56 am

@zarathustra: lol- Could happen, but not necessarily. I'm not currently playing with any overt Dominants. I use the term dominant rather loosely to describe anybody who, for instance, looks/vibes kind of like Robert Shaw as Quint, exhibits serious skill/muscle in the operation of winches and straight-up instructs me "Never cut your hair." or somebody who looks/vibes kind of like a cross between Barack Obama and Nathan Owens and says "I am going to put you to work." the minute after I walk in his door, and gives me cause to worry that the practice of dressing myself up like hip-hop-Barbie might result in a popped-out-of-socket leg. I'm meeting a possible third for coffee this afternoon; super-cute, intellectual, eclectic Buddhist with goatee; maybe sort of like a cross between Bruce Willis and one of the Owen brothers? If that doesn't work out, I'm thinking maybe somebody younger who already has a primary partner for balance. Dunno, mostly playing it by ear here.

The other thing I am thinking is that it will probably work out better if my dominant partners have their primary turf in different zones. Like if I lived with a partner that would be zone 0, walking distance zone 1, biking distance zone 2, less than hour by car/train zone 3, more than an hour by car/train zone 4. So, far I have one in zone 1 (1.5 miles) , and one in zone 2 (13.5 miles) and the third will likely be in zone 3 (44 miles, but near to my kids and mother, so on my regular rounds) Then when I travel this winter I can maybe get another in zone 4.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: A model of marriage

Post by GandK » Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:46 pm

This thread reminds me of this TED talk: Esther Perel: The secret to desire in a long-term relationship (19 minutes)

With regard to the much-maligned element of romance... most of the greatest moments of my life were romantic ones. Maybe it isn't necessary to everyone's happiness, but there is no way I'd want an intimate lifelong relationship in which romance wasn't a (the?) central element. However, since the things I thought were romantic at 16 wouldn't even make the list 25 years later, I agree that the ability for the relationship to change along with the people who are in it is at least as important. :)

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:08 am

@GandK:

The thing you need to recognize is that you are smack dab in the middle of a happy romantic narrative. When you are in that state, the irrationally motivating chemicals of romance seem to have been an appropriate driving force. It's also true that time will lend the perspective from which one can flip through the slide file of happy romantic events from the past and separate them from whatever train wreck or slow, fade and decline was to follow. For instance, I can still pull up the straight-out-of-chick-flick scene in which I am standing in a snow-storm at the age of 19 and my BF is putting his mittens on my hands. I would also concur that what counts as romance changes both with maturity and the accumulation of responsibilities and years of ballast in a boat of particular relationship. Different people have different life experiences. Where I am now is an odd place where I am well past ingenue and even well past responsibility-laden feminine maturity. When I was in your phase of life, I thought the most romantic scene in all of literature was the one in "Persuasion" where Captain Wentworth approaches and lifts the bothersome child off of Anne's back, even though he is still angry with her.

Now, I find myself in this odd phase of life where I feel almost like a crone psychologically, yet I am still reasonably youthful and attractive in appearance. But, the funny thing about being in the crone phase of life is that it can also feel like being a child again, because all that weight of responsibility is gone and you don't even anticipate having to plan for a future in which you may take it on, such as when you are in the ingenue phase of life. Most of the men I date are mature, intelligent and have been around the relationship block a time or 12. Therefore, I feel a bit justified when it irks me if one of them does something like send me a text that says "Sweet dreams, baby" after short acquaintance. Hmmm, I'm probably not doing a very good job of explaining this. Okay, like yesterday, I met a man for coffee and after very quick exchange of words such as "Asheville, ecological biology, Saul Bellow, cute, hawt/hot", we determined that we were both harmless nerds and attractive, so we decided to go for a hike since the weather was perfect. Then I used the word "poly-amorous" and it did not deter twice-divorced him from making out with me on a variety of benches throughout the park. Then he realized that he lost his keys, so we had to circle around and check all the benches, which turned a 7 mile hike into a 14 mile hike, meanwhile at about mile 10, one of my other lovers texts to invite me over for sherbet, champagne, grapes and Kill Bill 2, and I was mildly bummed out to have to decline even though the guy I am hiking with is super cute and amusing. He was also very apologetic for all the extra hiking, although I really didn't mind, so at the end of the evening he said "So,are you in love with me yet?" and we both just cracked up laughing. The third man I am seeing is teaching me how to sail and wants me to accompany him to a friend's wedding on Friday. Anyways, it is possible to have a very, very good time enjoying companionship and sexual interaction with a number of people, just slightly across the line from the realm of romance. I don't even know if the adjective "casual" is perfectly apt, but casual sex and non-monogamous or non-committed relationships do not necessarily have to be the equivalent of a drunken, junk food drive-thru. In fact, I think what tends to sometimes make them less than enjoyable is the belief, true or false depending on where you are in life, that you should be looking or striving for something more than pure sensual delight, fun companionship or erotic exploration in the moment.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: A model of marriage

Post by GandK » Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:12 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:In fact, I think what tends to sometimes make them less than enjoyable is the belief, true or false depending on where you are in life, that you should be looking or striving for something more than pure sensual delight, fun companionship or erotic exploration in the moment.
I think this - our difference in perspective - is less of life experience and more of fundamental paradigm difference. From our own perspectives we are each doing the most natural thing in the world; from the other's perspective we are each in a prison of sorts.

The most common advice on this forum (on any topic) is to logically examine one's own needs, to thoughtfully extract the most meaning from one's activity, and to purge from one's surroundings anyone/anything that does not contribute to one's own life satisfaction or fit neatly within one's chosen life framework. And it is said that bothering about others' opinions, or others' needs, or social expectations, or anything illogical is pointless. Romance is, at bottom, a social dance. You do this, I do that. It is therefore... what? Pointless? A little dishonest? Immature? Illogical?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry sometimes. :lol:

I am limited by my desire to fit into a social framework (NF). This is my prison. But what rationals (NT) frequently fail to understand is that their need for logic - for things to make sense and to be efficient - is equally imprisoning from the POV of the rest of us.

Imagine, if you will, not being bothered at all when people act irrationally... or when you do. Making sense is no longer necessary. Like Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, your inner landscape on every topic - work, love, sex, whatever - is both freakish and whimsical. And imagine believing that people, not books, hold the key to everything. Imagine that the patterns you seek for a successful existence can be found not in applications of reason to your own life, but in applications of compassion to every life. Imagine that you can retrieve happiness on demand by giving happiness to others. In this universe, you deposit good deeds and kindness all day long in a sort of psychic gumball machine, and whenever you do so, it dispenses joy. Sometimes an intoxicating amount of joy. To the extent that logic even exists in this place, it is a tool to improve the lives of yourself and others. Equally... this is an important point. You don't get to focus on yourself and your needs to the exclusion of others, or act without considering others, because here you're all connected. Maybe even chained together. But in a good way. Fuzzy handcuffs.

This is what being an NF feels like. You are imprisoned by social structures, yes. But you are also completely free from logical structures, other than when you use logic to communicate with logic-oriented humans (who likely won't understand/respect you otherwise). Rightness isn't about being correct, it's about being just. And nothing needs to make sense. Ever. And people who insist that it should are slaves to reason, and you pity them.

I'm sure that this sounds every bit as desirable to NTs as being stuck at a neverending slumber party for 8-year-old girls. But to someone who lives her life inside this frame of mind, dissecting my needs independent of the needs of others is unthinkable. Maybe even impossible. And because romance is a social language, and social language is how I communicate both within and without, romance cannot be disregarded. Doing so turns a relationship into a series of transactions. It feels utterly heartless. To me.

Don't misunderstand me: I don't think you are wrong at all. In fact, I'm sure you're doing right. I love my NT friends because of their residence in the Tower of Logic, and I cherish the advice they give me. I always assume that you guys are right and turn to you first for advice. About facts. And about formulas. And about the best way to accomplish any given task. But never about relationships. Human interaction is where NFs live and breathe.

So I can't join you in your tower on this issue. Because fuzzy handcuffs. Plus you have no psychic gumball machine. And although your path may well lead to your own version of happiness, it sounds like a giant drag to me to slice and dice my relationships the way that you guys do. I'd much rather be inefficient but crazy in love. And I'm happy to report that after 10 years of unbelievably messy, irrational, in-no-way-sensible marriage... I am. :D

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:09 am

@GandK:

I truly do grok what you are saying now, except for the use of the word "efficient" in any way applied to my functioning - lol. "Rational" is the better term, and it is quite true that from my perspective in the moment, I definitely do not want to be either one of the drunks or the designated driver in the crazy car of romantic love or passion or high-level limerence. However, it's not the case that I don't feel strong social connection. I want to do kind, caring, loving things for all of my family and friends, including my lovers. I just don't necessarily consider indulging in or being indulgent towards feelings of romantic love to be a kindness, and I think that allowing others as much freedom as possible in their own behavior can be a great kindness. I want to manifest love or like as a simple verb of caring gestures or gifts. I'm mostly just being nerd-silly when I write as though everything is a matter that can be modeled on financial trade. I'm very easy-going, generous, and cuddly in real life. I feel like my relationship towards my current lovers vs. a monogamous long-term romantic partner is almost exactly analogous to my feelings or behaviors in relationship to the kindergarten children I've been teaching vs. my own young child. Like my feminine nature is now being manifested one level further up in the tribal or community vs. the nuclear family unit and that is appropriate for my phase of life. I care for a child and then I go home. I make love to a man and then I go home. I am my own home now. Something like that.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 1870
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: A model of marriage

Post by GandK » Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:14 am

7Wannabe5 wrote:I am my own home now. Something like that.
We would make good roommates. I'm sure of it. :D

7Wannabe5
Posts: 2545
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:18 pm

@GandK: I'm sure we would make good roommates too. My current and frequently in the past very compatible housemate is my NF sister. Unfortunately, although it has also been my experience that NFs make excellent lovers, I am not currently available for any sort of group menage ( please, also convey my regrets to your husband -jk- ;) situation, due to the fact that I am finding the task of forming a poly-amorous circle of men about as challenging as adopting pit-bulls from the Detroit pound. I was contemplating baking all of them loaves of zucchini bread this morning, but then I remembered that they are all supposed to be on low-carb diets, so they are all getting lemon squash soup instead.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 3806
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by Ego » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:18 am

A few weeks ago I stumbled upon the Gottman Institute and signed up for their Marriage Minute email. Twice a week they send a short research based message....

Our goal is to teach you one thing each day that will deepen your friendship, allow you to use conflict as a catalyst for closeness, and enhance the romance in your marriage.

I think it would be useful for those in a marriage and those considering it.

https://www.gottman.com/the-marriage-minute/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman


Today's was particularly interesting....

You don't have to solve your problems
Research shows that almost 2/3 of marital issues are unsolvable. We call these perpetual problems.
Psychologist Dan Wile says, "When choosing a long-term partner, you will inevitably be choosing a particular set of unresolvable problems.”
Sam is clean and organized. Jessica is messy.
Susan wants sex twice a week. Jake wants it twice a month.
Kris wants to have a baby. Stacey doesn't want to have children.
Despite what many therapists will tell you, you don’t have to solve your problems for your marriage to thrive.
The key is to dialogue about your problems. Otherwise, your conflict will become gridlocked. Gridlocked conflict leads to resentment.
Happy couples don’t sweep problems under the rug. They use them as an opportunity to understand each other better over time.

User avatar
FBeyer
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:25 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by FBeyer » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:09 pm

Ego wrote:... Kris wants to have a baby. Stacey doesn't want to have children.
Despite what many therapists will tell you, you don’t have to solve your problems for your marriage to thrive.
The key is to dialogue about your problems.
- Stacy I would love to have children. I really feel like my life would be empty if I never had any.
- Yeah I know Kris, but I don't want that responsibility. I treasure my own freedom above all in the world.
- Oh! Okay then, I'm glad we had this conversation.

*lives happily ever after*

I don't get how dialogue solves anything for anyone. Solutions, by definition solve things. I 100% do not understand what that mail is trying to say in regards to unsolvable problems. Dialogue and getting shit cleared as soon at it bugs you, I totally get. Talk with each other and find out what makes the other person tick, something I wholly expect to change over time, but unsolvable issues solved with dialogue? Color me flabbergasted, I don't get it!

User avatar
Dragline
Posts: 4278
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by Dragline » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:32 pm

You can dialogue over what to have for dinner and anything trivial or that allows each to have his/her own way in due time.

But some stuff is not fixable, unless one side just capitulates -- which can work just fine if the capitulator doesn't really feel that strongly about the issue.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 3806
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: A model of marriage

Post by Ego » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:09 pm

FBeyer, that's a good point. If I were to guess I'd say it has to do with the fact that as relationships grow they become stronger and more valuable to each partner. Talking is the medium (in both senses of the word) that feeds that growth. At some point the relationship reaches a point where it is more valuable to the partners than their individual wants. So, Stacy relenting to Kris's desire or Kris to Stacy's is secondary to the relationship they built. Together they can find the best solution for both. While the solution may not be both person's ideal regarding children, they strive for the ideal for their relationship.

ERE attracts those who value independence, which can be a very good thing. But there is such a thing as needing too much independence where capitulation (as dragline put it) is impossible.

Post Reply