Cultural expectations of marriage through time

[guiltycatholic]

I’ve been married 6 years and recently I’ve been thinking a lot about how perspective impacts marriage. I don’t want to go off down the rabbit hole of same-sex marriage or other unusual issues, I’m strictly referring to sacramental marriage between Catholics. I’m curious to discuss different opinions about something because I want to impact my life with my choices for my marriage.

It seems to me there is a popular view of marriage in US culture today that says spouses are close friends who share nearly everything and find a lot of fulfilment in each other. The differences between the spouses are effaced and the lines between roles are blurred, with each spouse doing whatever is necessary to support the other spouse however he can. Traditional behavior doesn’t matter as much as the couple deciding together what works for them. Decisions go much farther than just thinking about what’s right and wrong, but must also fulfill the emotional needs of both spouses. Marriage is somewhat romantic in that the emotional content is one of the most, if not the most, important dimension. Ie, Staying with someone who doesn’t nurture your emotional needs is deemed a loveless marriage in need of serious intervention before it collapses. Spouses are soul mates who should get along well, prefer each other’s company, and be extremely compatible in their views, desires, goals, sexuality, etc. If this is not or ceases to be the case, the marriage is almost doomed. Even if they differ in some of these respects, spouses must be friends first and foremost. The only real solution to martial difficulties, aside from prayer and God’s grace, is therapy, learning to communicate better, self help strategies, mastering each other’s Love Languages, etc.

There seems to be a subtle but drastic difference in the view of marriage in other places in the world and through history. Marriage looks the same from the outside but is more focused on practicality and duty, where spouses get along well enough but aren’t necessarily friends. They live together but keep separate identities to some extent, coming together mainly for sex, family occasions, etc. Spouses generally have different and distinct roles that are not explored by the other spouse, and decisions about those roles are made by the one in that role without consulting the other much. There is nothing wrong with marriages being arranged by others who know both parties well enough. The couple learns to accept each other and adapt their lives but isn’t expected to fulfill their spouse on an emotional level. Couples often get along well, but there is not really a thought to psychoanalyzing each other specifically, just going off of a basic understanding of the opposite sex and a gradual getting to know the spouse. Expectations are more centered around roles and keeping the status quo, and each spouse learns through experience and from peers and elders how best to handle conflicts with their spouse. But conflicts aren’t as emotionally charged, rather disagreements that must be settled whether everyone is pleased with the results or not. The solution to many conflicts is not more communication, but more like a good night’s sleep, the passage of time, and just plain agreeing to disagree. Generally the one considered the leader on the subject gets the final say. Decisions are based more on objective morals than on subjective feelings of the spouse, and anything not sinful is considered fine.

There may be a tendency to romanticize the past (or different cultures) or conversely to believe that these people didn’t/don’t experience love like modern people in the US today. I’m not trying to go to either of those extremes. I realize that different personalities will make up different types of marriages, I just wanted to discuss the overall moré of the cultural norm. I’m going with a fundamental belief that human nature hasn’t changed much, ever, and essentially crosses cultural lines.

I don’t think these views are necessarily conscious, more like automatic expectations. In much the same way that growing children have always defied their parents to some extent but not in the way that’s socially accepted today. It’s not like there was a meeting where it was decided, it just sort of happened culturally.

I also realize that I just described caricatures, not perfect reality. Although I tried to use realistic examples and language.

So do you see the difference I’m talking about? If so what caused it? If you’re married which one does your marriage resemble more? What are other examples of this difference you’ve seen? Which do you think is preferable? Do you find one or the other unacceptable, or is it to each his own? How does pop culture like movies and music contribute to the problem or the solution? How does therapy and self help contribute to the problem or the solution? How does religion contribute to the problem or the solution? Does the view of marriage change from one to the other during the course of the actual marriage? Which way is our culture leaning for the future? Please discuss.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You’re overlooking the fact that cultures with this sort of marriage are very sex segregated societies in general.

It isn’t really practical here where we all live, work, and go to school together, and enjoy many of the same hobbies. A wall between spouses would be artificial in this case, and also, dangerous. In a world where both sexes take part in just about everything, it would be very easy for you and your spouse to end up closer to a member of the opposite sex in your “sphere” than to each other.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

One of the primary reasons the Temperance Movement was started was because men would go to the local watering hole after work or after payday, and blow their paycheck or stay out all night and come home drunk. Generally, women did not frequent these establishments unless they were prostitutes. Then came Prohibition.

But during Prohibition, young women and young men would gather together in a speakeasy to have a good time. After 13 years of Prohibition, the young men and women grew to be adults. Prohibition was repealed, and low and behold…the bars that emerged were no longer the all male dives they had once been. Women now had a place at the bar.

So, as men and women in a given culture become more tolerant and friendly with each other, so will they become in marriages within said culture.

 

[pianistclare]

Subtle but drastic?

 

[Xantippe]

Guilty Catholic,

This is an interest subject. Some thoughts:

1. It is true that spouses can’t be EVERYTHING to each other. It’s OK to have separate friends and hobbies and go to the bathroom alone.
2. However, BEL makes some good points–a romantic friendship/partnership between modern spouses is a safeguard against the temptations of the co-ed workplace and gym.
3. Also, in a highly mobile culture such as our own, you might leave literally everything you know and go to a different area with your spouse. Under those circumstances, a close partnership between the spouses is a natural and functional arrangement.

Strict gender role division doesn’t work well when the couple is alone in a new area and each will need to ask the other for help a lot–they did not relocate with their village.

1. “the lines between roles are blurred, with each spouse doing whatever is necessary to support the other spouse however he can.”

That’s not a bad thing, as long as the spouses have enough flexibility and sensitivity to pull it off.

1. “The only real solution to martial difficulties, aside from prayer and God’s grace, is therapy, learning to communicate better, self help strategies, mastering each other’s Love Languages, etc.”

That’s actually a pretty long list of solutions.

1. I think you’re melding two separate (but not contradictory) modern views–the partnership view and the soulmate/romantic view. (I agree with a lot of people that the soulmate concept is unreasonable–and also that it undermines the idea of partnership and the spouse’s right to be a separate individual.)

I think that a romantic partnership (as oxymoronic as that sounds) is actually possible long term and is not that untraditional–it’s a sort of a melding of the Song of Songs and Proverbs 31. It’s actually kind of the vision of Proverbs.

1. “The solution to many conflicts is not more communication, but more like a good night’s sleep, the passage of time, and just plain agreeing to disagree.”

I think that’s a great idea in general, but I don’t know that I would necessarily describe it as a purely traditional idea.

1. “Decisions are based more on objective morals than on subjective feelings of the spouse, and anything not sinful is considered fine.”

I don’t know that that describes either traditional or modern practice.

There are a lot of marital issues that are a question of taste rather than morals.

1. I’d like to have a romantic partnership–but I don’t actually have the alternative of a traditionally standoffish marriage, because I don’t live in a traditional society surrounded by other women.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Subtle but drastic?

I have to laugh that this was your only takeaway.

Subtle in that the marriages look basically the same from the outside, but have a substantually different feel to them.

 

[guiltycatholic]

One of the primary reasons the Temperance Movement was started was because men would go to the local watering hole after work or after payday, and blow their paycheck or stay out all night and come home drunk. Generally, women did not frequent these establishments unless they were prostitutes. Then came Prohibition.

But during Prohibition, young women and young men would gather together in a speakeasy to have a good time. After 13 years of Prohibition, the young men and women grew to be adults. Prohibition was repealed, and low and behold…the bars that emerged were no longer the all male dives they had once been. Women now had a place at the bar.

So, as men and women in a given culture become more tolerant and friendly with each other, so will they become in marriages within said culture.

This is so interesting - never would have considered this as having played such a big a role in the development of our culture.

 

[guiltycatholic]

You’re overlooking the fact that cultures with this sort of marriage are very sex segregated societies in general.

It isn’t really practical here where we all live, work, and go to school together, and enjoy many of the same hobbies. A wall between spouses would be artificial in this case, and also, dangerous. In a world where both sexes take part in just about everything, it would be very easy for you and your spouse to end up closer to a member of the opposite sex in your “sphere” than to each other.

Some good points. Do you believe living the more separated marriage would be impossible these days? Or just bad?

 

[guiltycatholic]

Guilty Catholic,

1. It is true that spouses can’t be EVERYTHING to each other. It’s OK to have separate friends and hobbies and go to the bathroom alone.
2. However, BEL makes some good points–a romantic friendship/partnership between modern spouses is a safeguard against the temptations of the co-ed workplace and gym.
3. Also, in a highly mobile culture such as our own, you might leave literally everything you know and go to a different area with your spouse. Under those circumstances, a close partnership between the spouses is a natural and functional arrangement.

Strict gender role division doesn’t work well when the couple is alone in a new area and each will need to ask the other for help a lot–they did not relocate with their village.

1. “the lines between roles are blurred, with each spouse doing whatever is necessary to support the other spouse however he can.”

That’s not a bad thing, as long as the spouses have enough flexibility and sensitivity to pull it off.

1. “The only real solution to martial difficulties, aside from prayer and God’s grace, is therapy, learning to communicate better, self help strategies, mastering each other’s Love Languages, etc.”

That’s actually a pretty long list of solutions.

…

1. It seems to me the modern view is that spouses should be almost everything to each other, besides having a hobby or two and some friends. And I don’t think the culture expects one spouse to be caretaker for the other.
2. Would this mean a more “distant” marriage is to be avoided because it can lead to infidelity?
3. This is a good point and also serves as an explanation for how spouses came to rely on each other more, since it’s a very modern phenomenon.
4. You say it’s not a bad thing for spouses to support each other without gender roles - are you of the opinion that the more separated roles where each spouse does “their part” are detrimental?
5. It’s a long list of words but they all fit into the same category of psychology, “working” on the marriage, which seemed to play a MUCH smaller role in times past. Either the specific psychologies hadn’t been discovered/popularized yet or people had no real access to them like we do today. It seems that even just a few generations ago, people simply did not psychoanalyze one another, but still managed somehow. That’s part of the mystery in this to me. I can’t picture our culture without marriage counseling, thousands of books on the subject, marriage retreats, and countless techniques that were simply unavailable to our predecessors, and yet our divorce rates are higher! I wonder if it was just that women were “stuck at home” under their husband’s thumb, like some people claim. Like divorce would’ve been just as high if it had been an option? Were people somehow more content? Did they have lower expectations from their spouse, and life in general?
6. You say the soulmate concept is unreasonable and undermines partnership and individualism - so how would you grow away from it? I’m in search of a little practical application for my life. How does one achieve a romantic partnership and maintain it, or what does it look like? Obviously you can’t write a manual here, but what does it look like in comparison to the two types I described? I should look into Proverbs again…
7. I’m not arguing whether it’s a traditional idea, just one of two types I’ve identified. Back to #5, there just seemed to be much less “fuss” over getting along in marriage and more of a focus on performance, I guess you could say. Like an old complaint might have been “she can’t cook” but now it tends to be more like “we don’t laugh together anymore.”
8. Again, not trying to argue which is more traditional and which is more modern, just that two types seem to exist and which is better, why? And yes, you said it exactly - a lot of issues are taste, not morals. And it seems like perhaps 100 years ago a man might consider it the woman’s taste on the decor and amenities of the home, for example, but today it’s more of a joint decision, almost like a moral issue would have been treated in the past. Likewise, back in the day it seems like women had little understanding of their husband’s work, for example, whereas today that would be seen as archane and demeaning.
9. Another good point, a more modern phenomenon like #3. Since we are more isolated from real-life community now than generally in the past, we have to rely more on our spouses…

I would definitely prefer the traditionally standoffish marriage for myself. Even though a part of me wants all romance and the soulmate stuff, I find my marriage is MUCH better when I’m more like the second type I described. Both of us feel more valued and loved, and we are more productive. Yet not having him as a close partner forces me into a more solitary life of handling everything alone, since there is no real community of women around me. I’ve definitely made some girl friends to survive but I can see where women of the past had an advantage in this regard.

 

[pianistclare]

I have to laugh that this was your only takeaway.

Subtle in that the marriages look basically the same from the outside, but have a substantually different feel to them.

Well, it stopped me reading, soooooo

 

[Xantippe]

1. “My wife doesn’t understand me!” used to be the mating cry of the cheater.

I think there might have been a good deal of truth to that in past times when men and women did occupy different worlds, but I think it is less and less plausible, especially when spouses met at school when doing the same thing or at work doing the same thing or via a shared hobby. I think there’s a lot more common ground via shared experiences than there have been at certain points in the past–so there’s the potential for husbands and wives to understand and value each others achievements more.

1. There are going to be certain responsibilities that split fairly naturally by gender–but at the same time, it’s also very natural to help one’s spouse.

I don’t think people usually have the luxury of choosing their family model–it tends to be chosen for one by circumstances.

1. Modern spouses are much more dependent on each other than in many other times and places, and hence, maintaining the spousal relationship is more important.

Also, I suspect that people did study their spouses–particularly people in unhappy marriages who needed to learn how to work around their spouse. One problem I think we have in this discussion is that we’re comparing past times when people kept their problems to themselves to the current day when a lot of people let it all hang out.

The divorce rate is way down from 1980. Have a look:

washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/23/144-years-of-marriage-and-divorce-in-the-united-states-in-one-chart/?utm_term=.3f3ac3abd73c

Note also the mid-1940s divorce spike, which should moderate our nostalgia about the Greatest Generation.

1. The problem with the soulmate idea is of the other person as being EVERYTHING to one and perfectly in tune with one’s every need or desire–which is just not sustainable or realistic–and it’s also extremely selfish. I think that’s quite distinct from just plain romantic love, which is more respectful of the other’s unique identity and the fact that there is more to them than just catering to our every whim.

I don’t know how to suggest moving away from the soulmate idea, other than saying that the person that we love is a person in and of themselves. He isn’t just for** me**–he is himself, and lovable and valuable without me.

1. I think that “can’t cook” still comes up. “We don’t laugh anymore” type stuff is in addition to that, not instead of.

 

[guiltycatholic]

I see people getting divorced because of their differences. They simply don’t get along like they should, they fight too much, disagree on too many things, have different goals and different lifestyle choices. Neither is usually morally wrong, or at least no more so than the other, but sometimes it eventually leads to infidelity, addiction, and other moral problems. There are just irreconcilable differences. They’re not happy. Sometimes I feel this way in my marriage. Everyone acts like the only solution is to work on it, to talk about it, to resolve it, to go on retreat, attend a seminar, read a book, go to counseling, etc.

Yes, it’s possible to spend all this time and effort and money trying to fix it, but why not just do your best and then ignore it? And, yes, it’s “possible” to get divorced, but what is there to gain? I mean, what if instead of obsessing over it or divorcing, people just went on with their life? As if they were “divorced,” except they still fulfilled their duties to one another? Just tried to get along in a general way, lived up to their roles in the marriage, gave themselves to one another sexually (not selfishly) and went about their business otherwise? Why am I the only one who thinks that doesn’t sound so bad? Am I robot?

Obviously, if all us married couples could be best friends and soulmates, it would be great. And I understand some couples just click that way. But honestly I’m tired of working toward that all the time. I’m sick of all the psycho babble, even in the name of religion. I’d rather each of us be free to just do our own thing and remain married, staying faithful and still working on ourselves to be good Catholics, all of that.

I’m not talking about a truly separate life living in different places, where you never see each other or have conversations. I just mean you aren’t particularly friends and your marriage is mainly dutiful. Why is this seen as such a horrible fate? It seems like it used to be common and now it’s anathema. I’m wondering why it got to be that way, or if y’all just think I’m crazy.

And as much as I like the idea of it, it’s actually difficult for me to put into action. I feel like everything is cause for alarm in marriage now. You haven’t felt like friends in a long time? Big problem! When I googled trying to find info on how this big change happened, I was flooded with “signs your marriage is over” and the like. I feel like all my life has been conditioning to marry my best friend. To choose a spouse based on who’s a good friend, first before considering anything else.

To me that spells disaster. Just 6 years of marriage has taught me there’s WAY more to marriage than friendship, and oftentimes you don’t even spend that much time together anyway once you have a family. Sure, you might be able to laugh and talk for hours, but what good is that when all you actually have time to do together is raise children, manage money, run a household, hold down steady employment, etc.

It’s only been a few years but I feel more sure every day that friendship is in fact one of the least important aspects of marriage, and that going into marriage expecting friendship is setting yourself up for heartache and frustration. Like I said, it comes naturally to some couples and there’s nothing wrong with that. But I’m talking about the rest of us. I know I’m not the only work-weary spouse out there.

I’m tired of hopeful expectation that my husband will truly connect with and understand me, that he will prioritize time with me, that he will share a lifestyle and goals with me… and being disappointed. I kept searching for a way he might understand… we read the book but he still doesn’t. We’ve been going to therapy and he still doesn’t.

I’m tired of working on myself for years, changing my tone, my expressions, wording things so he will receive it well, wondering if I should compliment him more, do him more favors, buy him more surprise gifts, touch him more, partake in his hobbies more. I’ve tried all the things but I still can’t get inside his head, and I still get blindsided by an argument over something I thought was innocuous.

I wouldn’t have been so emotionally distraught over our arguments, where they escalate to so much anger and pain, if I had just known early on that we don’t have to be friends. My own experience proves it’s true at least in the short term. But even as I write that I feel like it’s going to catch up to me - somehow marriage doesn’t work this way! You’ve got to marry your friend, stay friends at all cost, and you should be growing closer as friends! That’s more important than anything, study says!

So I’m trying to look back into the reality of the past, but that’s hard since I wasn’t there. Or even other cultures today. Why did it seem to work back then? How is it that people who met on their wedding day can last a lifetime, yet “best friends” who marry often divorce within 5 years? Why can I watch old black and white movies and almost exclusively see couples depicted more like coworkers than friends? Yet every modern romance of any kind only depicts lovers and friends, or they’re in trouble? Obviously these are just the movies, but I think they reflect real life and cultural norms. You can tell the view of women has drastically changed since those days, even if the movies aren’t perfectly accurate. I think the same holds true with marriage.

I guess I’m looking for permission to be a dutiful wife in a “loveless” marriage (even though I think being a dutiful wife precludes love, and that avoiding the emotional drama is actually more loving) and I need advice on how to accomplish it without distancing too much. Hopefully someone knows what the heck I’m going on about and can give me advice from personal experience.

 

[pianistclare]

The only thing that matters is what’s going on in YOUR marriage.
Have you seen a marriage counselor or spoken with your priest?
If your spouse won’t go, go alone.
You need real life help and compassion.
And real world advice.

I’ll pray for you.

 

[Xantippe]

In your shoes, I would want to be very sure that I wasn’t falling into depression.

Get yourself to a doctor and do an evaluation. Depression is a cunning beast–and it’s very bad for children to have a depressed mother.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Modern spouses are much more dependent on each other than in many other times and places, and hence, maintaining the spousal relationship is more important.

Yes! This exactly! How did this happen and why? Is it a good thing? Because I think it’s been detrimental on my marriage personally, so I’d like to try the more distant approach. But maybe that “went out of fashion” because it’s unsustainable, or detrimental. Or maybe marriages were never really distant in the first place and I’m imagining a shift. Or something else I’m unaware of.

I understand what you mean about not getting to choose a family model–but really, when we choose a spouse we choose our general circumstances too, for the most part, barring unforseen disasters, etc. And anyway, together or separately you either change your circumstances or you don’t. That’s the boat I’m in, because I feel this shift is possible but not sure if it’s wise.

I do realize there was marriage counseling back in the day, too, and probably since people were more religious, they spoke with their priests more. I know it was very taboo to see a counselor then, not like today, even though some of the taboo remains. But you’d think with the epidemic of divorce within the past 50 years and empires of Marriage Help out there today… how did people cope at all without it, unless they didn’t have the same problems? You couldn’t turn on Dr Phil and see this stuff, it was all secret. You couldn’t Google it or talk on CAF. And yet the divorce rate was much lower. Maybe only because divorce was not considered an option? So how did they cope? Is distancing after several years of marriage just a normal thing that I’m going through that everyone goes through?

People of the past keeping problems to themselves makes it hard to learn from the past. I wonder how realistic my view of the past is because of it, and if my dream of having the more distant marriage is actually realistic or feasible today. All the marriages around me in my life are fairly disfunctional or just plain unhappy, so I feel like there’s nothing to go off of.

I never knew there was a divorce spike in the 40s. I’m definitely talking way prior to the 1980s. I mean historically, like since the dawn of time. But as recent as the 40s, everything just seems SO different in regards to marriage.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Ok, and I’m open to what y’all have to say, but seriously this is exactly what I was just taking about. The answer to EVERY problem, especially marital problems, is more “working on it” - seek professional help! Psychoanalysis! Self help books! Seminars! Medical/psychological conditions!

I’m exploring the possibility of chilling out about it. Accepting that we’re not friends and it’s ok. Finding a dutiful fulfilment from him, and a hodgepodge of resources like other family and friends to make up the emotional difference.

So I guess the consensus so far is that emotional attachment and friendship is, in fact, the basis of a good marriage. And without it, I should be seeking psychological treatment. I’ll be interested in further comments if anyone joins in.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes! This exactly! How did this happen and why? Is it a good thing? Because I think it’s been detrimental on my marriage personally, so I’d like to try the more distant approach. But maybe that “went out of fashion” because it’s unsustainable, or detrimental. Or maybe marriages were never really distant in the first place and I’m imagining a shift. Or something else I’m unaware of.

I understand what you mean about not getting to choose a family model–but really, when we choose a spouse we choose our general circumstances too, for the most part, barring unforseen disasters, etc. And anyway, together or separately you either change your circumstances or you don’t. That’s the boat I’m in, because I feel this shift is possible but not sure if it’s wise.

I do realize there was marriage counseling back in the day, too, and probably since people were more religious, they spoke with their priests more. I know it was very taboo to see a counselor then, not like today, even though some of the taboo remains. But you’d think with the epidemic of divorce within the past 50 years and empires of Marriage Help out there today… how did people cope at all without it, unless they didn’t have the same problems? You couldn’t turn on Dr Phil and see this stuff, it was all secret. You couldn’t Google it or talk on CAF. And yet the divorce rate was much lower. Maybe only because divorce was not considered an option? So how did they cope? Is distancing after several years of marriage just a normal thing that I’m going through that everyone goes through?

People of the past keeping problems to themselves makes it hard to learn from the past. I wonder how realistic my view of the past is because of it, and if my dream of having the more distant marriage is actually realistic or feasible today. All the marriages around me in my life are fairly disfunctional or just plain unhappy, so I feel like there’s nothing to go off of.

I never knew there was a divorce spike in the 40s. I’m definitely talking way prior to the 1980s. I mean historically, like since the dawn of time. But as recent as the 40s, everything just seems SO different in regards to marriage.

1. Because spouses nowadays primarily have help from each other, not other people. Those other people–who are what made the old model work–are missing. Without those people, it’s not really feasible to attempt to live that life.
2. No, distancing after several years of marriage isn’t normal.

Taking your spouse off the pedestal is normal, but being distant isn’t.

1. Previous generations were a lot better at keeping secrets than ourselves.

 

[Xantippe]

Ok, and I’m open to what y’all have to say, but seriously this is exactly what I was just taking about. The answer to EVERY problem, especially marital problems, is more “working on it” - seek professional help! Psychoanalysis! Self help books! Seminars! Medical/psychological conditions!

I’m exploring the possibility of chilling out about it. Accepting that we’re not friends and it’s ok. Finding a dutiful fulfilment from him, and a hodgepodge of resources like other family and friends to make up the emotional difference.

So I guess the consensus so far is that emotional attachment and friendship is, in fact, the basis of a good marriage. And without it, I should be seeking psychological treatment. I’ll be interested in further comments if anyone joins in.

The reason I mentioned depression was that I’m hearing a lot of hopelessness in what you are saying.

If it turns out that you are depressed, seeking treatment for depression would be an important component in being able to chill and be dutiful. If you’re not taking care of yourself, there’s no way that you can do that at all successfully.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I see people getting divorced because of their differences. They simply don’t get along like they should, they fight too much, disagree on too many things, have different goals and different lifestyle choices. Neither is usually morally wrong, or at least no more so than the other, but sometimes it eventually leads to infidelity, addiction, and other moral problems. There are just irreconcilable differences. They’re not happy. Sometimes I feel this way in my marriage. Everyone acts like the only solution is to work on it, to talk about it, to resolve it, to go on retreat, attend a seminar, read a book, go to counseling, etc.

Yes, it’s possible to spend all this time and effort and money trying to fix it, but why not just do your best and then ignore it? And, yes, it’s “possible” to get divorced, but what is there to gain? I mean, what if instead of obsessing over it or divorcing, people just went on with their life? As if they were “divorced,” except they still fulfilled their duties to one another? Just tried to get along in a general way, lived up to their roles in the marriage, gave themselves to one another sexually (not selfishly) and went about their business otherwise? Why am I the only one who thinks that doesn’t sound so bad? Am I robot?

Obviously, if all us married couples could be best friends and soulmates, it would be great. And I understand some couples just click that way. But honestly I’m tired of working toward that all the time. I’m sick of all the psycho babble, even in the name of religion. I’d rather each of us be free to just do our own thing and remain married, staying faithful and still working on ourselves to be good Catholics, all of that.

I’m not talking about a truly separate life living in different places, where you never see each other or have conversations. I just mean you aren’t particularly friends and your marriage is mainly dutiful. Why is this seen as such a horrible fate? It seems like it used to be common and now it’s anathema. I’m wondering why it got to be that way, or if y’all just think I’m crazy.

And as much as I like the idea of it, it’s actually difficult for me to put into action. I feel like everything is cause for alarm in marriage now. You haven’t felt like friends in a long time? Big problem! When I googled trying to find info on how this big change happened, I was flooded with “signs your marriage is over” and the like. I feel like all my life has been conditioning to marry my best friend. To choose a spouse based on who’s a good friend, first before considering anything else.

To me that spells disaster. Just 6 years of marriage has taught me there’s WAY more to marriage than friendship, and oftentimes you don’t even spend that much time together anyway once you have a family. Sure, you might be able to laugh and talk for hours, but what good is that when all you actually have time to do together is raise children, manage money, run a household, hold down steady employment, etc.

It’s only been a few years but I feel more sure every day that friendship is in fact one of the least important aspects of marriage, and that going into marriage expecting friendship is setting yourself up for heartache and frustration. Like I said, it comes naturally to some couples and there’s nothing wrong with that. But I’m talking about the rest of us. I know I’m not the only work-weary spouse out there.

Can’t it be both? Can’t you have a romantic, best friend marriage but still stand by your vows when the inevitable hard times come and you don’t particularly like each other?

My husband and I joke that no matter what’s wrong, sticking it out is way easier than breaking up, rebuilding our lives, and finding someone else and then getting to this level of intimacy and comfort with the new person. But there’s a lot of truth in the joke.

From the sounds of it, there’s nothing really keeping you and your husband from having a good marriage. You’re both committed and you’re raising a family. If right now you’re in different places, that’s fine. If you stick it out and keep this life you have together, the odds of you eventually growing together are infinitely higher than you finding a stranger and building something better from scratch (hence, divorce rates are even higher for second marriages).

And if you’re never best friends, who cares? It’s no one’s business but yours and from the sounds of it, you’re both happy, your home is stable, and you’ll have someone looking out for you as you age (and so will he). You’re doing the right thing.

I will say this about counseling: it doesn’t always work, but when it does it’s a godsend. We did 4 or 5 sessions a few years ago after he went into remission from cancer. During his illness, we went from best friends and lovers to caretaker/invalid. We needed some help putting things back on track. But as far as glamorized (and expensive) marriage advice from self-up gurus and the malcontent lifestyle goes, that’s just childish.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Can’t it be both? Can’t you have a romantic, best friend marriage but still stand by your vows when the inevitable hard times come and you don’t particularly like each other?

My husband and I joke that no matter what’s wrong, sticking it out is way easier than breaking up, rebuilding our lives, and finding someone else and then getting to this level of intimacy and comfort with the new person. But there’s a lot of truth in the joke.

From the sounds of it, there’s nothing really keeping you and your husband from having a good marriage. You’re both committed and you’re raising a family. If right now you’re in different places, that’s fine. If you stick it out and keep this life you have together, the odds of you eventually growing together are infinitely higher than you finding a stranger and building something better from scratch (hence, divorce rates are even higher for second marriages).

And if you’re never best friends, who cares? It’s no one’s business but yours and from the sounds of it, you’re both happy, your home is stable, and you’ll have someone looking out for you as you age (and so will he). You’re doing the right thing.

I will say this about counseling: it doesn’t always work, but when it does it’s a godsend. We did 4 or 5 sessions a few years ago after he went into remission from cancer. During his illness, we went from best friends and lovers to caretaker/invalid. We needed some help putting things back on track. But as far as glamorized (and expensive) marriage advice from self-up gurus and the malcontent lifestyle goes, that’s just childish.

^ This.

Also, I’d like to add something here from a somewhat different perspective, that of a child of a marriage like the “traditional” one you describe. Forgive me if it sounds a bit emotional–dad died last week, so as you might imagine, I’ve been thinking a lot about this.

My parents realized very early on in their 30 years of marriage that they really couldn’t stand each other. They hadn’t talked about a lot of very important topics prior to (or even after) getting married; they didn’t find emotional fulfillment in one another; they weren’t even friends. They maintained a veneer of cordiality, each finding emotional fulfillment in work and friendships, for my entire life, though sometimes either or both would snap and be pretty nasty. They stayed together because in their circles (conservative/traditional Catholic) That’s What You Do–and that was pretty much it. However, living as they did in the modern world and moving cross-country in their middle age, they had no support system of the kind described elsewhere in this thread, either.

For us kids, it was horrible. It completely warped our views about relationships, both marital and otherwise. I remember being about 15, for example, and visiting an older, married couple’s house. When the husband got home from work, he kissed his wife. We’re talking a brief peck here, no more–a perfectly reasonable greeting between spouses! However, I was disgusted and horrified to a degree that might have been acceptable if they’d had sex in front of me: as far as I was concerned, this was disgusting! Vile! How dare they!

I don’t remember my parents being physically affectionate with one another even once. Ever. Not so much as a hug or a kiss.

I do remember about 2-3 times when I was really acting up as a teen (well, by my standards–read, depression) and I overheard them talking together about me. They were, to a very limited extent, acting like a husband-and-wife team. It’s hard for me to describe how happy that made me, even though they were talking about how to punish me for bad behavior: I felt like my parents were a family, like they were acting together for the betterment of us kids, and that was so rare that it stunned me as much as gladdened my heart!

I don’t want that for my kids. I want them to have parents who work hard together to build a strong, warm family environment, parents who genuinely love and respect one another.

Your posts remind me of a scene from “Fiddler on the Roof”–have you ever seen it? Tevya and Golda sing a song, “Do You Love Me?”, in which they talk about how their marriage started as a traditional arranged marriage, but became a marriage of love. It seems to me that like that, marriages should improve, not grow more distant. It’s a really lovely scene, and I say that as someone who detests nearly all musicals on principle. Watch it, and think about it. What’s the worst that happens if you and your husband work through some of the psychology-ish stuff, learn how you best say “I love you,” etc? Would it be so terrible for him to learn that while you appreciate his fixing the kitchen sink, it would knock you head over heels if you helped with the dishes, or for him to learn that even after X decades of marriage, it would make you weak in the knees to get flowers?