Cultural expectations of marriage through time

[Xantippe]

I also recall that she implies that Mrs. Price married who she did, mostly as a way to rebel against her birth family, rather than true affection for the man himself. Very close to the Lydia/Wickham situation, I wouldn’t be surprised if the young Mrs. Price had a sailor fixation, the way Lydia and Kitty had soldier fixations. On the other hand I don’t think her sisters, who apparently married solely for financial/practical reasons, come off much better.

I also think Austen found mutual respect to be a key component of successful marriage. Not only that a wife should respect her husband, but that a husband should respect his wife. That’s certainly not the case for Mr. and Mrs. Bennett. On the other hand, in all of her endgame couples, including those with significant age and class differences, the husband does respect the wife. Darcy falls for Elizabeth but certainly doesn’t respect her at the time of his first proposal, that of course is soundly rejected.

Even Mr. Knightley, presented as mostly a wise mentor figure for Emma, does wind up at least admitting that Emma would have chosen Mr. Elton a better wife than he chose for himself. Now of course that is a no-brainer considering who Mr. E does marry, but it’s something I can’t imagine him saying at the start of the novel.

JA makes it pretty clear that Lady Bertram would have turned into Mrs. Price under the same circumstances. The three sisters are a very interesting character study. It’s quite clear that widowed Mrs. Norris does not miss her husband at all. She’s thrilled at the opportunity to further trim her budget.

I think you’re right about JA and the need for mutual respect between spouses. Mr. and Mrs. Bennet and Mr. and Mrs. Collins are examples of the difficulties of life where one spouse cannot possibly respect the other. See also Mary and Charles in Persuasion.

A motif that pops up from time to time in Jane Austen is the way that a bad spouse can drag down the “good spouse.” Mr. Bennet, for example, would probably have been a more conscientious father, had he not also needed to manage Mrs. Bennet herself. Mrs. Eliot also seems to make Mr. Eliot an even worse person than he was before.

I suspect Mr. Knightley does also respect Emma’s devotion and loyalty to her father (as inconvenient as it is for himself).

Emma’s old governess and her husband are another example of a mature couple with a good marriage.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I am sure most marriages then, as many do now, fell along a spectrum – some married purely for practical considerations, others purely for love, but most marriages fell somewhere in the middle, where both affection and practical considerations played a part in the decision to wed.

I agree with this, and hence question the assumption the OP is making that there are only 2 possible marriage models, either a “soulmate marriage” or a “practical marriage”, as if there are completely separate types of marriage with no common points at all. And that since her own marriage isn’t a “soulmate marriage” then it must be the “other” kind.

Austen herself seems to believe that neither extreme is ideal but that marriage is best entered into where there is deep and lasting affection and similarity of temperament between the parties, with some consideration for material circumstances and social standing as well.

I think another issue is how different stories seem to be more “liberal” in terms of social mobility than others. I find “Emma” to be likely the most socially conservative novel, at the end the main characters are all matched to their approximate social equals, except perhaps Frank Churchill. But I recall she did hint in private letters that he did not treat his wife that well and was likely unfaithful, though that might be more a comment on Frank’s personal character, or lack thereof.

On the other hand, “Persuasion” certainly portrays the upwardly mobile Wentworth/Croft family as superior to the vain Elliot clan. Though there is some room for ambiguity as to whether Anne made a mistake when she rejected Wentworth, or if she made the best decision at the time, since young Wentworth was a man who “spent freely what had come freely” and only really proved himself worthy of her later in life when he had suffered and matured more.

ETA: Xantippe, I don’t think Lady Elliot actually made Sir Elliot worse, it seems she tried to direct him on a better path at first, and eventually gave up and focused on her children, and then she died. Perhaps you were referring to Lady Russell?

 

[Xantippe]

I agree with this, and hence question the assumption the OP is making that there are only 2 possible marriage models, either a “soulmate marriage” or a “practical marriage”, as if there are completely separate types of marriage with no common points at all. And that since her own marriage isn’t a “soulmate marriage” then it must be the “other” kind.

I think another issue is how different stories seem to be more “liberal” in terms of social mobility than others. I find “Emma” to be likely the most socially conservative novel, at the end the main characters are all matched to their approximate social equals, except perhaps Frank Churchill. But I recall she did hint in private letters that he did not treat his wife that well and was likely unfaithful, though that might be more a comment on Frank’s personal character, or lack thereof.

On the other hand, “Persuasion” certainly portrays the upwardly mobile Wentworth/Croft family as superior to the vain Elliot clan. Though there is some room for ambiguity as to whether Anne made a mistake when she rejected Wentworth, or if she made the best decision at the time, since young Wentworth was a man who “spent freely what had come freely” and only really proved himself worthy of her later in life when he had suffered and matured more.

ETA: Xantippe,** I don’t think Lady Elliot actually made Sir Elliot worse, it seems she tried to direct him on a better path at first, and eventually gave up and focused on her children, and then she died. Perhaps you were referring to Lady Russell?**

Sorry! I meant to refer to Mr. Elton and Mrs. Elton. She definitely makes him worse.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Sorry! I meant to refer to Mr. Elton and Mrs. Elton. She definitely makes him worse.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense.

I believe one of my own cousins married more because he thought it time to settle down and have kids, rather than because he met his “soulmate”. However, this does NOT mean he married with no love for his wife at all. She is a childhood friend of his younger sister, and actually had a crush on him growing up.

Of course, my aunt and uncle were very happy when they married, since they’d known their now daughter in law since she was a child and knew she wasn’t some flaky floozy. However I realize this kind of marriage is rare these days because young people are much more mobile and their choices aren’t limited to the girl (or boy) next door.

Another of my cousins was almost engaged to a woman of a very different background, but that didn’t work out.

Most married couples who I’d want to emulate seem to have enough in common to be compatible, but enough differences to keep the marriage interesting. They also do NOT depend on each other to fill all their emotional needs. Most have a circle of same-sex friends they socialize with apart from their spouses.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Ah, that makes a bit more sense.

I believe one of my own cousins married more because he thought it time to settle down and have kids, rather than because he met his “soulmate”. However, this does NOT mean he married with no love for his wife at all. She is a childhood friend of his younger sister, and actually had a crush on him growing up.

Of course, my aunt and uncle were very happy when they married, since they’d known their now daughter in law since she was a child and knew she wasn’t some flaky floozy. However I realize this kind of marriage is rare these days because young people are much more mobile and their choices aren’t limited to the girl (or boy) next door.

Another of my cousins was almost engaged to a woman of a very different background, but that didn’t work out.

Most married couples who I’d want to emulate seem to have enough in common to be compatible, but enough differences to keep the marriage interesting. They also do NOT depend on each other to fill all their emotional needs. Most have a circle of same-sex friends they socialize with apart from their spouses.

 

[guiltycatholic]

I believe one of my own cousins married more because he thought it time to settle down and have kids, rather than because he met his “soulmate”. However, this does NOT mean he married with no love for his wife at all. She is a childhood friend of his younger sister, and actually had a crush on him growing up.

Of course, my aunt and uncle were very happy when they married, since they’d known their now daughter in law since she was a child and knew she wasn’t some flaky floozy. However I realize this kind of marriage is rare these days because young people are much more mobile and their choices aren’t limited to the girl (or boy) next door.

Another of my cousins was almost engaged to a woman of a very different background, but that didn’t work out.

Most married couples who I’d want to emulate seem to have enough in common to be compatible, but enough differences to keep the marriage interesting. They also do NOT depend on each other to fill all their emotional needs. Most have a circle of same-sex friends they socialize with apart from their spouses.

My husband and I are from the same small town where our common cultural heritage is celebrated, grew up in the same Catholic parish, and are technically 4th cousins because nearly everyone in the town is 4th or 5th generation immigrant. We knew all each other’s family and friends already. If you’re talking about similar background, race, religion, worldview, then he and I share so much in common it’s ridiculous. If you’re talking about compatibility in relationship, you get a different answer.

 

[guiltycatholic]

I agree with this, and hence question the assumption the OP is making that there are only 2 possible marriage models, either a “soulmate marriage” or a “practical marriage”, as if there are completely separate types of marriage with no common points at all. And that since her own marriage isn’t a “soulmate marriage” then it must be the “other” kind.

But I didn’t make the assumption there are only two kinds and determine mine based on process of elimination. I came here knowing all about my marriage and attempting to desribe it to the public. So I loosely divided all marriages into the catagories of those who are friends and those who aren’t. There are definitely other ways to make distinctions about marriage, and we could even go so far as to say no two marriages are alike. But that wouldnt help the conversation. In painting a picture for you, I’m trying to help you imagine what kind of marriage I’m in, since it almost definitely is not what you picture when you hear the word. It’s one where we bear no ill will towards each other but do not share friendship.

 

[Xantippe]

But I didn’t make the assumption there are only two kinds and determine mine based on process of elimination. I came here knowing all about my marriage and attempting to desribe it to the public. So I loosely divided all marriages into the catagories of those who are friends and those who aren’t. There are definitely other ways to make distinctions about marriage, and we could even go so far as to say no two marriages are alike. But that wouldnt help the conversation. In painting a picture for you, I’m trying to help you imagine what kind of marriage I’m in, since it almost definitely is not what you picture when you hear the word**. It’s one where we bear no ill will towards each other but do not share friendship**.

I guess that’s where we’re stumbling a bit, because it’s hard to find a good marriage where there isn’t some level of friendship between the spouses. (I’m defining friendship very minimally here, as mutual goodwill and joint goals–that’s not asking a whole lot of a relationship where people share a home and children together–there has to be goodwill and joint goals for the household to function at all.)

Maybe, possibly, in other times or places a good marriage without friendship might have been possible–but when one looks at those Jane Austen novels from 200 years ago, the good established marriages that she describes have a lot of what I would call friendship in them.

 

[guiltycatholic]

I think the best marriages, regardless of type, are when the spouses are in general agreement about what it should look like and both work together to make that happen. When they have opposing views about it, or one does all/most of the heavy lifting (in terms of emotional connection and relationship building, not necessarily who does the most day-to-day practical work of household living), it’s probably not going to turn out well.

(“Well” being defined as bringing both spouses closer to Heaven, not necessarily happiness or prosperity or any other earthly aspect of life.)

Well you described my marriage as the type that doesn’t turn out well. Which is a view commonly shared, but one I can’t accept since I vowed to stay committed to this marriage, and have goals of not only getting to heaven but also helping him if I can. Once the deal is done, it’s too late to say what type of person I “should” have married to be more compatible. I’m committed to a man who puts me in a position to do all the “heavy lifting” of the relationship and takes pleasure in opposing views. No malice, that’s just how we interact. It caused me lots of anguish before but I’m at a point of acceptance now. I’ve seen that when I live my life, and he lives his, a tiny part intersects and that’s all we share. That’s gotten me in touch with reality instead of continually hoping for and working toward the soulmate ideal. It seems like others would have me constantly trying new strategies even though he’s completely unwilling/unable. I simply can’t do that anymore. It’s exhausting, depressing, completely unsustainable. A Soulmate Marriage takes two.

 

[Xantippe]

Well you described my marriage as the type that doesn’t turn out well. Which is a view commonly shared, but one I can’t accept since I vowed to stay committed to this marriage, and have goals of not only getting to heaven but also helping him if I can. Once the deal is done, it’s too late to say what type of person I “should” have married to be more compatible. I’m committed to a man who puts me in a position to do all the “heavy lifting” of the relationship and takes pleasure in opposing views. No malice, that’s just how we interact. It caused me lots of anguish before but I’m at a point of acceptance now. I’ve seen that when I live my life, and he lives his, a tiny part intersects and that’s all we share. That’s gotten me in touch with reality instead of continually hoping for and working toward the soulmate ideal. It seems like others would have me constantly trying new strategies even though he’s completely unwilling/unable. I simply can’t do that anymore. It’s exhausting, depressing, completely unsustainable. A Soulmate Marriage takes two.

Nobody has been talking about a soulmate marriage in this thread in any sort of positive way–I’ve certainly never seen one in the wild, at least not between two people that have been married a long time.

I know you think that you are accepting your situation, but you sound really depressed and miserable. There must be some aspects to your life that can be improved, and I strongly suggest that you improve them as soon as you can, whether it be diet, exercise, more socializing with female friends, reaching out to your more functional family members, improving your family’s economic situation, deepening your spiritual life, etc.

Whatever your current situation is, there are aspects of it that can be improved using the resources that you have available.

Good luck!

 

[guiltycatholic]

I have what I call a practical marriage.
I married for love (twice) but that infatuation eventually fades, and we don’t live in Hollywood movies. So you have to replace it with something, and I think that’s respect.

My first marriage ended because of abuse.
The second is still going strong after 5 kids and 23 years. I’m my husband’s caretaker medically, because he’s disabled and can’t deal with medications, dressing changes, and doctor appointments. When it gets really difficult I look at the crucifix on the wall and remind Christ that I"m doing it for him.

But my husband is a nice guy. We have little in common except adventure movies, which we sometimes watch together. (Chuck Norris, anyone?) He plays pool with his friends, I go to Bible studies and pursue my hobbies. We take care of kids and grandkids together.

But the main thing is we treat each other with respect, and have done so from the beginning, most of the time.
The soulmate type of marriage is not realistic. And being friends is nice, but I’m not sure what that means. Being able to play cards together? Enjoying movies or dinner out occasionally? Guys don’t generally enjoy talking about deep emotional things, so why push it?
Respect, that’s the key.
I hope that helps a little.

.

Thank you for perspective!
Maybe you have to be actively in this type of marriage to understand? People like to tell me that “men not talking deeply” is a stereotype - when in fact it is my reality and that of countless other women.
Respect. How do you manage to maintain respect? Any tips for me? This is an area that’s sometimes difficult for me. (Not talking about basic human respect, which isn’t difficult) How do you earn respect? How do you maintain respect, especially as caretaker which adds another HUGE dimension to marriage.

 

[pianistclare]

But that’s the point isn’t it?
Most of us simply cannot imagine the kind of marriage you describe.
It doesn’t fit the model in any culture.
It’s more of a room mate set-up. I also can’t fathom why

1. you think it’s ok
2. you think this sets a good example for your kids
3. why you came asking for (name removed by moderator)ut, when you clearly are turned off to the notion that something is amiss and needs tending to.
   Perhaps your husband is unwilling to seek counseling. But you should go.

Good luck, but I fear you will spend many more unhappy years trying to (as a dear friend says) “square the circle”.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Feel free to take comments with a grain of salt, as I’m not married, but as it seems not everyone is familiar with Pride and Prejudice. I am a big “Austenite” and I certainly do NOT think she meant to portray the “practical” Charlotte’s marriage to the buffoonish Mr. Collins as obviously superior to “love marriage”. Quite the contrary. It was meant to be a *negative * commentary on society, that a woman of the era had so few options. Elizabeth Bennett, the heroine, is horrified by it, and even her Pollyannish sister Jane can only say that she hopes that Charlotte feels “something like respect and esteem for our cousin”.

Not that Austen’s work supports marrying for mere infatuation, note the Bennetts actually DID marry out of this and turned out to be very incompatible. Most of her heroines make matches that include love, but are also make sense practically. It also seems she became more “liberal” for lack of a better word as her writing career progressed. Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, Emma; in all these books, the heroines marry men who’d be considered pragmatic matches but certainly there is love there as well. But Persuasion involves a woman who earlier refused an “imprudent” match and later regrets it; and the heroine of Mansfield Park loves who she does, for reasons that have nothing to do with pragmatic considerations (otherwise she’d have married the other guy who offered her financial security instead of defying everyone who pushed her to marry him).

So, I certainly don’t get the idea that she thought along the lines of “romantic love is an illusion, it’s just infatuation, doesn’t really exist or last, and people should choose marriage partners for practical considerations first and foremost”. Indeed, she herself made the opposite choice than that of Charlotte Lucas Collins. She refused a marriage proposal that was essentially her last chance to escape being a “spinster”.

But even if Austen meant to portray the Collins marriage positively, she was writing in a society where men and women had very different “spheres” in general and rarely interacted with each other outside somewhat artificial social venues such as a ball. That’s certainly NOT the case in modern society.

I also think it is a false dichotomy to suggest there are only two types of marriage, a “Soulmate marriage” where the couple fulfills 90-100% of emotional needs for one another, or a cold “Practical marriage” where the couple functions essentially as business partners with sexual benefits, that respect each other, but that’s it.

I think there is also a big difference between the concept of “Soulmates” and the concept of “best friends”. I think it’s unrealistic to expect a spouse to meet all of one’s emotional needs. I can also think of prior CAF topics that asked “is your spouse your best friend” and while most answered affirmatively, a sizeable minority did not. But that didn’t mean the spouses weren’t friends at all.

However, I’m not sure if “failure” to have a “best friend” type relationship means the only alternative is to embrace a “practical” business partner type relationship. I also smell some “sour grapes” here as well.

I don’t think anyone has expressed that a simply practical marriage is superior to a soulmate marriage. Just that they do exist, which is largely denied by those who don’t have my problem. Most people assert that you are either friend or divorced, which isn’t true for me and I’m on the lookout for ways to thrive.

I can’t speak in generalities for everyone, but in MY life, my husband and I have very different spheres and rarely interact with each other outside somewhat artificial social venues. That’s exactly my position.

I’m not sure what you mean by sour grapes. Don’t know what that means. I just responded to another comment about the “false dichotomy” because that’s not what I’m creating. I’m describing the reality of my marriage in a public forum. I have to try to describe it since it’s not the “typical” marriage. So it comes down to semantics whether you want to say soulmates, best friends, or whatever. The point was for people to understand the gist - marriage where there is love but not real friendship. We live together but rarely see each other. We don’t share common friends or hobbies. We serve at Mass together when possible, otherwise I’m alone with the children. Right now we have to avoid pregnancy for health reasons, but topically sex is another point where our lives intersect. Other than that, well there isn’t much in the way of conversation. There’s small talk 3 or 4 times per week. There are outings together to run errands, attend dances on occasion, etc. People act like this isn’t a marriage at all, but it is mine. Like anyone in any marriage, I need support.

 

[AiyanaS]

Nobody has been talking about a soulmate marriage in this thread in any sort of positive way–I’ve certainly never seen one in the wild, at least not between two people that have been married a long time.

They do exist “in the wild” lol, however like with any relationship it takes respect, commitment, communication and work. My friend had a soulmate relationship, her and her husband knew they were meant for each other the second they saw one another, and they married on there one year anniversary of being a couple. There marriage was difficult, the husband had terrible medical issues that first came up 2 - 3 years into there marriage and was a recurring event there entire 10 years of marriage. Come to find out he had a rare autoimmune disease that attacked every system in his body, took 3 years to diagnose too, almost killed him many times. She stuck by him though and they were a very close couple. There marriage only ended because my friend’s husband passed away suddenly after a routine surgery, no warning

 

[guiltycatholic]

Nobody has been talking about a soulmate marriage in this thread in any sort of positive way–I’ve certainly never seen one in the wild, at least not between two people that have been married a long time.

I know you think that you are accepting your situation, but you sound really depressed and miserable. There must be some aspects to your life that can be improved, and I strongly suggest that you improve them as soon as you can, whether it be diet, exercise, more socializing with female friends, reaching out to your more functional family members, improving your family’s economic situation, deepening your spiritual life, etc.

Whatever your current situation is, there are aspects of it that can be improved using the resources that you have available.

Good luck!

No marriage is perfect but I’ve read several people in this thread say that a soulmate marriage is positive and preferable, and I know several couples in real life who interact like best friends and claim that title. It’s just not my marriage and I know it’s not the way marriage looks for everyone.

The wonderful thing is the peace and joy I’m now ironically experiencing after accepting that we aren’t friends. It relieves so much pressure. I was really depressed and miserable before, constantly wondering why we weren’t friends, trying to “make it work” according to the standards of friendship. I was always trying to change myself or ask my husband to make modifications to achieve friendship. To work on communication skills, try love languages, implement relationship advice. It only recently occurred to me that marriage based on friendship is a relatively “new” more-western idea. Since the beginning, a lot of marriages looked like mine, and still do in many places. This relieves me so much! It’s been wonderful to hear from those on this thread who are in this type of marriage like mine and aren’t merely “surviving.”

This acceptance has enabled me to improve my life in so many ways. I no longer feel trapped. I no longer wait to make joint decisions together, I just go ahead and do what I know is best without discussing it. When we need something, I buy it without seeing if he’s ok with it. When I want to go somewhere, I get a babysitter and go, without seeing if he has plans. When it’s dinnertime, I cook what I want and eat with the kids, instead of trying to cook something he likes and wait until he’s ready to join us. When I’m sleepy, I go to bed without him, and in the morning I wake up and start my day without him. We’re separate, but he’s happy and I’m happy. I no longer bend over backwards trying to meet his expectations or please him, I just do what works. It’s working like I never could have imagined - I always assumed he’d be upset or feel ignored if I did these things, but instead he’s hardly noticed at all. He takes me for granted less, and I resent him less.

But I’m also aware of my faults and weaknesses, and I recognize that if I’m not careful this could step over into selfishness and only ever doing what works for me to the exclusion of anyone else, or turning into spite if we’re in an argument. It could also lead to total separation if done in the wrong spirit, where we fade from even civil interaction. It could lead to infidelity if I start to rely on extra-marital companionship. There’s a whole host of dangers to look out for, just like in any marriage, but some are more unique to this type of marriage. So I’m in search of a support group of sorts. Catholic, anti-divorce, anti-infidelity, etc. People who get marriage but get it from this perspective and won’t constantly suggest things like “you must have a real conversation every day” “make sure you’re in agreement on all financial matters” “eat together every meal” “always present a united front for the children” “get counseling if he seems distant” etc. I’m holding out hope that I will find that tribe, no matter how pessimistic others may be.

 

[Xantippe]

No marriage is perfect but I’ve read several people in this thread say that a soulmate marriage is positive and preferable, and I know several couples in real life who interact like best friends and claim that title. It’s just not my marriage and I know it’s not the way marriage looks for everyone.

The wonderful thing is the peace and joy I’m now ironically experiencing after accepting that we aren’t friends. It relieves so much pressure. I was really depressed and miserable before, constantly wondering why we weren’t friends, trying to “make it work” according to the standards of friendship. I was always trying to change myself or ask my husband to make modifications to achieve friendship. To work on communication skills, try love languages, implement relationship advice. It only recently occurred to me that marriage based on friendship is a relatively “new” more-western idea. Since the beginning, a lot of marriages looked like mine, and still do in many places. This relieves me so much! It’s been wonderful to hear from those on this thread who are in this type of marriage like mine and aren’t merely “surviving.”

**This acceptance has enabled me to improve my life in so many ways. I no longer feel trapped. I no longer wait to make joint decisions together, I just go ahead and do what I know is best without discussing it. When we need something, I buy it without seeing if he’s ok with it. When I want to go somewhere, I get a babysitter and go, without seeing if he has plans. When it’s dinnertime, I cook what I want and eat with the kids, instead of trying to cook something he likes and wait until he’s ready to join us. When I’m sleepy, I go to bed without him, and in the morning I wake up and start my day without him. **We’re separate, but he’s happy and I’m happy. I no longer bend over backwards trying to meet his expectations or please him, I just do what works. It’s working like I never could have imagined - I always assumed he’d be upset or feel ignored if I did these things, but instead he’s hardly noticed at all. He takes me for granted less, and I resent him less.

But I’m also aware of my faults and weaknesses, and I recognize that if I’m not careful this could step over into selfishness and only ever doing what works for me to the exclusion of anyone else, or turning into spite if we’re in an argument. It could also lead to total separation if done in the wrong spirit, where we fade from even civil interaction. It could lead to infidelity if I start to rely on extra-marital companionship. There’s a whole host of dangers to look out for, just like in any marriage, but some are more unique to this type of marriage. So I’m in search of a support group of sorts. Catholic, anti-divorce, anti-infidelity, etc. People who get marriage but get it from this perspective and won’t constantly suggest things like “you must have a real conversation every day” “make sure you’re in agreement on all financial matters” “eat together every meal” “always present a united front for the children” “get counseling if he seems distant” etc. I’m holding out hope that I will find that tribe, no matter how pessimistic others may be.

I would hesitate to describe what you are talking about as a traditional form of marriage.

It might be the right thing for you to do in your particular situation, but I would not describe it as “traditional.” Heck, even roommates often check in with each other and consult each others preferences more than you and your husband do with each other.

While what you are doing may work for you right now, in the long run, you’re going to be less effective than a couple where there are actual checks and balances in place. Right now, you are doing your thing and he is doing his thing. If either of you decides to do something stupid and destructive, there’s no family system (like a budget or a mandatory check-in over $50) to stop it from happening.

As your kids get older and your lives get more complicated, I suspect this is going to work less and less well for you. The lack of cooperation may put homeownership out of reach for you, or render it a burden.

My husband and I are older than you and have much older kids and own a house, and even with a pretty solid household income, we simply wouldn’t be able to survive economically with each of us doing our own thing and not checking in with the other. I find that (even with “just” three kids) the financial margins are getting finer and finer. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, no doubt, but we have very little margin for error for the next 4-8 years.

Even just from the economic point of view, your plan is very problematic.

 

[guiltycatholic]

But that’s the point isn’t it?
Most of us simply cannot imagine the kind of marriage you describe.
It doesn’t fit the model in any culture.
It’s more of a room mate set-up. I also can’t fathom why

1. you think it’s ok
2. you think this sets a good example for your kids
3. why you came asking for (name removed by moderator)ut, when you clearly are turned off to the notion that something is amiss and needs tending to.
   Perhaps your husband is unwilling to seek counseling. But you should go.

Good luck, but I fear you will spend many more unhappy years trying to (as a dear friend says) “square the circle”.

I specifically didn’t come asking for marital advice, which is always “get counseling even if he won’t” and other things I’ve done in the past with little success.

I came asking for perspectives on historical marriage versus modern marriage, knowing full well that my marriage dynamic isn’t accepted in the US today but once was. I was interested in how things have changed and why, so I could gain some insight and practical application to my life. While unpopular today, a more distant marriage was once the norm and produced generations of “normal” children who went on to have the same kind of marriages.

It’s ok that you find my marriage unacceptable. It took me years to accept it, and you just found out about it. I did spend years trying to square the circle (love that phrase!) and now I can finally stop, resting in the knowledge that my marriage is ok as it is, with room for growth.

 

[guiltycatholic]

I would hesitate to describe what you are talking about as a traditional form of marriage.

It might be the right thing for you to do in your particular situation, but I would not describe it as “traditional.” Heck, even roommates often check in with each other and consult each others preferences more than you and your husband do with each other.

While what you are doing may work for you right now, in the long run, you’re going to be less effective than a couple where there are actual checks and balances in place. Right now, you are doing your thing and he is doing his thing. If either of you decides to do something stupid and destructive, there’s no family system (like a budget or a mandatory check-in over $50) to stop it from happening.

As your kids get older and your lives get more complicated, I suspect this is going to work less and less well for you. The lack of cooperation may put homeownership out of reach for you, or render it a burden.

My husband and I are older than you and have much older kids and own a house, and even with a pretty solid household income, we simply wouldn’t be able to survive economically with each of us doing our own thing and not checking in with the other. I find that (even with “just” three kids) the financial margins are getting finer and finer. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, no doubt, but we have very little margin for error for the next 4-8 years.

Even just from the economic point of view, your plan is very problematic.

For 6 years I have checked in with him, but he has not and will not. This separate marriage thing is not my first choice or my natural way of being in relationship, it’s something I’ve had to adjust to because of his habits.

Home ownership is already out. I can keep up with my current plan and end up not having a house, or I can try to force a budget that he’ll never work with, and end up not having a house. Nothing is gained either way, or even if we did manage to get a house because of my budgeting alone, it will only come as a huge burden in more ways than financially. I’m much more comfortable with renting - it’s a system that was designed for people like us who prove too irresponsible. One day we may have a house but that can only happen when he’s willing to change too. Budgets in marriage don’t work when only one person is on the budget.

I’m ok with significantly less than the American dream - not owning a house, not paying for kids college, etc. My husband makes good enough money to live on and I’d on track to keep promoting, and I forced a retirement plan upon him that’s an auto-system so he can’t derail it without a lot of effort.

I would say the economic factor of our “separate” marriage is possibly least impactfull. That’s because he’s the spender and would be spending regardless anyway. The only change is that now I’m also spending when necessary. I’m very practical and conservative so it’s actually a benefit because now I buy the things we need before he can blow that money on “toys.”

 

[Xantippe]

It’s going to be harder to keep this up as the kids get older and more expensive–and that will happen even just during the K-12 years.

This is kind of an awful thing to have to say, but make sure that you do at least yearly checks of your credit report and your husband’s credit report to make sure that there aren’t any large new loans or credit cards that you don’t know about. It’s not uncommon in the sort of situation you describe for there to be massive secret debt.

For 6 years I have checked in with him, but he has not and will not. This separate marriage thing is not my first choice or my natural way of being in relationship, it’s something I’ve had to adjust to because of his habits.

Home ownership is already out. I can keep up with my current plan and end up not having a house, or I can try to force a budget that he’ll never work with, and end up not having a house. Nothing is gained either way, or even if we did manage to get a house because of my budgeting alone, it will only come as a huge burden in more ways than financially. I’m much more comfortable with renting - it’s a system that was designed for people like us who prove too irresponsible. One day we may have a house but that can only happen when he’s willing to change too. Budgets in marriage don’t work when only one person is on the budget.

I’m ok with significantly less than the American dream - not owning a house, not paying for kids college, etc. My husband makes good enough money to live on and I’d on track to keep promoting, and I forced a retirement plan upon him that’s an auto-system so he can’t derail it without a lot of effort.

I would say the economic factor of our “separate” marriage is possibly least impactfull. That’s because he’s the spender and would be spending regardless anyway. The only change is that now I’m also spending when necessary. I’m very practical and conservative so it’s actually a benefit because now I buy the things we need before he can blow that money on “toys.”

 

[Xantippe]

I am glad to hear that you have taken homeownership off the table.