Cultural expectations of marriage through time

[ToeInTheWater]

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 assume you must be new to CAF but I think we need to come up with a different phrase than “soulmate marriage”. Very few people think there is such a thing as “soulmates”, the concept has been discussed before on CAF and soundly repudiated, if you do a CAF search you will find the topics.

Has anyone actually told you in real life you have to be friends with your husband or divorce? Since no one on this topic has told you to divorce. And even “friends or divorce” is different than the idea of “soulmate or divorce”.

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.

Who? I just review this entire topic and no one has stated that a soulmate marriage is positive and preferable. People have stated that SOME level of friendship is preferable. Not a “best friend” level. But you seem to think that the only 2 choices are “best friends” or “not friends at all”.

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.”

Again, who? Maybe Viki63 but I wonder if she is making decisions unilaterally without even discussing them with her husband. No one else has stated that they are in a marriage like yours. And Ubicaritas described a marriage without any friendship wrote from the POV of a child of such a marriage, who didn’t think it was at all a good idea.

English Teacher noted that traditionally people didn’t expect their spouses to meet all of their emotional needs, but that is not the same as meeting none of their emotional needs and this seems to be your situation.

Now it is true that people did not usually marry solely for romantic love but even in societies with arranged marriages, most “matchmaker” whether professional or amateur actually DID take emotional compatibility into account. Ask most people in arranged marriages and they will state the ideal is to “learn to love” the spouse. You don’t have to romantically love someone to be friends.

You state that you’re at peace, but I think that if you really were, you would not be trying to validate your marriage with this idea that “my marriage is the way Traditional marriage used to be” and there must be a whole bunch of people out there in similar marriages, and this kind of marriage works and has worked for generations.

It was also the case for generations that kings married for political reasons and openly kept mistresses, and there are many examples of such marriages but that doesn’t mean it was “normal” in terms of “something acceptable as a form of marriage”. If a woman posted that she was married to a husband who keeps a mistress, and she’s learned to accept that since culturally husbands were never expected to be faithful, I suspect she’d get a similar reaction.

Or, for that matter, if a woman being abused by her husband stated that it was traditionally the case that men were allowed to beat their wives, and therefore she is at peace at her situation, that “this kind of marriage works and has worked for generations”.

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.

But “a more distant marriage” is not the same as the type of marriage that you’re describing, that seems to describe more of a roommate situation, or even two people who are married but legally separated, than any type of functional marriage. Not all spouses are " best friends" but that is different than leading totally separate lives 99% of the time.

I think I, and others on this topic, are questioning your assumption that “traditional” marriages are anything like the one you describe. If you don’t want your assumption questioned, but simply accepted as fact, then please let me know.

 

[pianistclare]

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.

Why do you not believe you deserve better? Or your children either?

Because things may have happened in the past past, does not mean they ought to be the same. You have not described one thing that most women would consider or tolerate.
And now you’re upset with the people who have pointed this out. Why?
Did you expect a different response? How many of your close friends and relatives think this is fine?
I would think those who love you would desire more peace and at the VERY least, companionship for you.
Call me crazy

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

I think you’re asking, “Didn’t everybody used to live like this, after all?”

The answer is a very plain: No, they didn’t. You only have to read the letters exchanged between the likes of John and Abigail Adams or the last letter of Sullivan Ballou to his wife Sarah to have proof of that. The ways in which society would approve of spouses supporting each other have changed, but deep meaningful friendships between spouses have always been the ideal. What nation of people* wouldn’t *want that? The Spartans, maybe? Not Christians. Not everyone attained it and even now not every deep marital friendship is talkative or big on overt emotional exchange, but in most ages people wanted to put their spouses very high on their lists of people who had their backs.

Having said that, it has also been the norm in societies that did not tolerate divorce to bloom where one found oneself planted. Even though people were free to choose who to marry, the choices were once far more limited than they are now. Opting out of marriage was far less acceptable. Divorce was practically unthinkable, as it was often a form of social suicide. In that light, of course there were more people who were in “marriages of convenience” that fulfilled the plainly practical needs of the spouses far more than their emotional needs. There was also very little that served as marriage counselling. As with their bad hips they could not get replaced, the total lack of accommodations for the mobility-impaired, the lack of effective treatment for addiction and all the other vicissitudes of life that had no good redress, people did just suck it up and cope. Or they didn’t cope, and they just suffered.

Don’t look to the marriages of the past to find the way through your difficulty. Don’t try to convince yourself that it isn’t really a difficulty. You cannot lie to yourself about that. If it weren’t difficult, after all, you wouldn’t be here.

Look to the Cross. The message of the Cross is definitely NOT that difficult things or even objectively horrible things do not happen to decent people who did nothing to deserve them. The message of the Cross is NOT that God permits bad things to happen. The message of the Cross is that it is the will of God to transform the worst that life can throw at us into the best that life can offer, if we are willing to trust Him. Even death, met with trust in God, leads to victory. Put your hope in that. Row away from the rocks, complain to Heaven as the psalmists did, when you have a complaint, ask that the cup of suffering may pass you by, do the things that people do in all practical sense to make a difficult way better, but in the end always put your trust in God and seek to do God’s will. That is always the ticket, because then it will not matter if your way is typical or atypical. When God is all that matters to you, all the rest becomes irrelevant, and in a good way.

 

[EasterJoy]

PS Perhaps it goes without saying, but Christian spouses must normally assume that love of their spouse is their life work. How to do it and how not to do it is a question to answer in prayer, but whether or not to do it is not a question.

From the Catechism:

Marriage under the regime of sin

1606 Every man experiences evil around him and within himself. This experience makes itself felt in the relationships between man and woman. Their union has always been threatened by discord, a spirit of domination, infidelity, jealousy, and conflicts that can escalate into hatred and separation. This disorder can manifest itself more or less acutely, and can be more or less overcome according to the circumstances of cultures, eras, and individuals, but it does seem to have a universal character.

1607 According to faith the disorder we notice so painfully does not stem from the nature of man and woman, nor from the nature of their relations, but from sin. As a break with God, the first sin had for its first consequence the rupture of the original communion between man and woman. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations;96 their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust;97 and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work.98

1608 Nevertheless, the order of creation persists, though seriously disturbed. To heal the wounds of sin, man and woman need the help of the grace that God in his infinite mercy never refuses them.99 Without his help man and woman cannot achieve the union of their lives for which God created them “in the beginning.”

 

[guiltycatholic]

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.

The massive debt is no secret. We know about each other’s credit. We lead pretty separate lives but we know each other’s business.

 

[guiltycatholic]

I’m not really new to CAF but I’m not on here all the time. You’re right, I think a lot of the problem is in the terminology. The word “soulmate” conjures up a different image for different people so we end up arguing semantics more than discussing the gist of what I brought up. I did a cursory search before posting, but without knowing what to call it, I had a hard time finding related posts.

Everyone I know in real life assumes we are friends, because they’ve met the guy and know how great he is. Anytime I bring up any of our issues (which usually isn’t to mutual friends because… awkward) people give advice on how we should work more on the marriage. (I’m feeling like a broken record here, lol) No one on this thread has told me to divorce but many of you have alluded to the hopelessness of continuing my marriage as it is, and I know that the change you’re calling necessary is impossible for us, since I’m the only one interested in change. Again you’re arguing the difference between the exact meanings of the terms “soulmate” and “friend.” People can easily have different definitions for these words so that’s a source of endless debate.

I can’t go back through every post now but offhand, I remember the guy who just got married said a soulmate marriage is positive and preferable. l don’t think that there are only 2 choices, I just loosely divided marriages into two categories, those who are friends and those who aren’t. It’s a spectrum, and there are other ways to divide marriages. I don’t say that my husband and I aren’t friends at all to any extent, I say we’re not close friends, best friends or soulmates. We do talk to one another, have sex, live together, share children, etc. Much more like marriage used to be before the soulmate expectation became popular.

I think there were one or two who mentioned they are in a marriage similar to mine, one acknowledging her husband doesn’t talk deeply, etc. I agree, I don’t think anyone has said it’s preferable, least of all me, but sometimes it’s the reality. I know some in person who are less friends than I and my husband, though.

Not expecting your spouse to meet “all your emotional needs” is another area where I feel you’re hung up on semantics. My husband does meet some of my emotional needs. We’re married and he’s faithful. He sticks around despite my health problems and the necessity of NFP, which many men today would not. He provides financially for the family since I stay home. I never said he doesn’t meet any of my emotional needs nor that I expect him to meet them all. Perhaps you feel there is a definite line that determines exactly how many needs must be met?

The “learning to love” is precisely what I’m talking about. My marriage is one of love as a choice, a learned behavior, a tempered acceptance; in other words, not what is typically characterized as friendship.

I’m not trying to validate my marriage, I’m trying to discuss marriage cultural norms without having my marriage picked apart or attacked for what it is. I’m not trying to say that “my marriage is the way Traditional marriage used to be” - I’m looking at the historical reality that marriage was not formerly viewed like it is now. I’m not trying to say that there must be a whole bunch of people out there in similar marriages. I said I know my marriage is uncommon and unacceptable in the US today.

I am so glad you brought up kings marrying for political reasons, husbands keeping mistresses or openly cheating, physical abuse, etc. That’s more of what I was wanting to discuss. How were these previously acceptable ways of life changed into what it is now? It used to be a stereotype that men could do as they pleased and their women had to basically put up and shut up. Now in the US today it’s usually the reverse - the woman and her emotional needs run the whole entire relationship and husbands are expected to change to fulfill her instead. That’s the stereotype based on cultural norm, not to say the reality of every single marriage. I am so interested in how/why this cultural shift took place.

You may see my husband and I as roommates, but we are in fact husband and wife living in a more distant marriage. I’m not sure what your line of specialty is, but you seem to be presuming you know everything about my marriage or marriage in general, or that you speak for others on this thread. No need to tell me what others think, just you. I make no assumptions about marriage in general, but I do have knowledge about my marriage in particular. I have not referred to my marriage as traditional. But you probably should accept as fact the facts I’m telling you about my marriage.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Why do you not believe you deserve better? Or your children either?

Because things may have happened in the past past, does not mean they ought to be the same. You have not described one thing that most women would consider or tolerate.
And now you’re upset with the people who have pointed this out. Why?
Did you expect a different response? How many of your close friends and relatives think this is fine?
I would think those who love you would desire more peace and at the VERY least, companionship for you.
Call me crazy

I’m not sure where you got your impression on what I feel I and my children “deserve.” I have been talking about the reality of marriage through time, not about what anyone deserves.

He’s not abusing me or anyone in the family, we’re just not close. The reactions I’m getting from a couple people here are proving my point of how phobic our culture is of any marriage where the spouses aren’t soulmates. A more distant marriage is akin to abuse. Spouses who are okay with being distant is outrageous. If I simply accept that were not friends, people say I’m not getting what I deserve. I don’t think marriage was viewed in terms of what the wife and children deserved, prior to a certain point in history.

I’m also not understanding where you get the impression that I’m upset with anyone. A few people seem to be getting upset with me, which is truly bewildering to me, but I’m not upset at all - this is what I started this thread for! It’s unfortunate that tone and expression can’t always come across in writing, although I’m doing my best to get it across.

All of my friends and family think my life and marriage are fine. They have no idea how close or distant we are or how this affects me daily. I can tell them about incidents but I think people naturally assume everyone’s marriage is a lot like their own.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I don’t have enough time to go through all your points, but you do seem to be amending some of your earlier comments were not quite accurate.

The “learning to love” is precisely what I’m talking about. My marriage is one of love as a choice, a learned behavior, a tempered acceptance; in other words, not what is typically characterized as friendship.

Then I’d submit that perhaps your definition of friendship is also very different from that of other posters.

I am so glad you brought up kings marrying for political reasons, husbands keeping mistresses or openly cheating, physical abuse, etc. That’s more of what I was wanting to discuss. How were these previously acceptable ways of life changed into what it is now? It used to be a stereotype that men could do as they pleased and their women had to basically put up and shut up. Now in the US today it’s usually the reverse - the woman and her emotional needs run the whole entire relationship and husbands are expected to change to fulfill her instead. That’s the stereotype based on cultural norm, not to say the reality of every single marriage. I am so interested in how/why this cultural shift took place.

You actually think that husbands cheating on and abusing their wives was “previously acceptable” as a way of life? Really?

I make no assumptions about marriage in general, but I do have knowledge about my marriage in particular. I have not referred to my marriage as traditional. But you probably should accept as fact the facts I’m telling you about my marriage.

I am not challenging the facts about your own marriage.

What I AM challenging is the idea that you should be teaching your own children that your marriage is completely functional and fine just as it is, and they should expect to have a similar kind of marriage themselves.

That’s the implication of your earlier comment that:

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.

Since now you are claiming actual abusive marriage was “previously acceptable”, then would you also say that about abusive marriages today? That “while unpopular today, a more abusive marriage was once the norm and produced generations of “normal” children who went on to have the same kind of marriages.”

Would you advise an abused woman to just go find a support group of other abused women and not see a counselor or even a priest? I find this chilling.

BTW: I think you can’t expect people not to discuss your marriage when your “facts” about what marriages used to be like, are based on your own marriage. Not historical documents, not popular literature from a prior era, nothing except your own speculations.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m not sure where you got your impression on what I feel I and my children “deserve.” I have been talking about the reality of marriage through time, not about what anyone deserves.

He’s not abusing me or anyone in the family, we’re just not close. The reactions I’m getting from a couple people here are proving my point of how phobic our culture is of any marriage where the spouses aren’t soulmates. A more distant marriage is akin to abuse. Spouses who are okay with being distant is outrageous. If I simply accept that were not friends, people say I’m not getting what I deserve. I don’t think marriage was viewed in terms of what the wife and children deserved, prior to a certain point in history.

I’m also not understanding where you get the impression that I’m upset with anyone. A few people seem to be getting upset with me, which is truly bewildering to me, but I’m not upset at all - this is what I started this thread for! It’s unfortunate that tone and expression can’t always come across in writing, although I’m doing my best to get it across.

All of my friends and family think my life and marriage are fine. They have no idea how close or distant we are or how this affects me daily. I can tell them about incidents but I think people naturally assume everyone’s marriage is a lot like their own.

What did your marriage vows look like. Was it a nuptial Mass?
And do you think they are being honored?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

He’s not abusing me or anyone in the family, we’re just not close. The reactions I’m getting from a couple people here are proving my point of how phobic our culture is of any marriage where the spouses aren’t soulmates. A more distant marriage is akin to abuse. Spouses who are okay with being distant is outrageous.

Just to clarify - I am not personally stating that “a more distant marriage is akin to abuse” and I don’t see where anyone else on this forum stated that. Nor did anyone state that spouses who are okay with being distant is outrageous.

If you had just described your marriage without making any claims about what marriage must have been like “historically” but just stating “I’ve accepted this is how my marriage is because I can’t change my husband” then I think the response would have been much different.

If I simply accept that were not friends, people say I’m not getting what I deserve. I don’t think marriage was viewed in terms of what the wife and children deserved, prior to a certain point in history.

Perhaps not in secular society, but since you are a Catholic, have you every thought about God’s plan for marriage? You have not mentioned that at all.

Just because kings kept mistresses and the secular society approved, doesn’t mean He did. Same for husbands who are abusive. Just because sinful behavior and broken relationships are common, that does not make it normative, at least not for Him.

 

[Xantippe]

BTW: I think you can’t expect people not to discuss your marriage when your “facts” about what marriages used to be like, are based on your own marriage. Not historical documents, not popular literature from a prior era, nothing except your own speculations.

Yeah.

Guiltycatholic, you have been pretty light on offering historical documentation for your views.

 

[Xantippe]

The massive debt is no secret. We know about each other’s credit. We lead pretty separate lives but we know each other’s business.

If your husband is engaged in financial shenanigans and is unwilling to control his spending, there will come a point where your family hits the wall.

It just isn’t feasible long term for a couple with a modest household income to lead separate lives under the same roof. At some point, either bad things start happening or they get it together.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Well, I wasn’t really asking if everybody used to live like this, but I did want to see if anyone would acknowledge that it used to be much more common and there’s nothing wrong with it. And mostly I wanted to know how those who lived like this did it in a holy way. Maybe shed some light on how it unfolded, which might shed light on my marriage.

Of course there have always been soulmates, but I wonder if ANY of them matched our current expectation for marriage. A series of love notes doesn’t equal an emotionally fulfilled marriage. Again, I never said it was what I prefer, and I wanted to distance myself because I don’t like being soulmates with my husband. I wondered, since it’s my cross to bear, how do I accept it? How have others throughout history accepted it, since it was much more common than it is now, for all the reasons you list? How, practically, did they accept it? But instead of those answers I get people telling me how much it’s damaging my children. Lol! I see a lot of people “not coping” by getting divorced or just suffering, but I don’t see many who bloom where they’re planted, which is what I’d like to do instead. I fully agree it’s difficult, which is why I’m searching for support.

You suggest to do things that people do in a practical sense to make a difficult way better, which is what I’m doing by accepting it for what it is. I put my trust in God by no longer trying to change facts or deny the problem. We aren’t friends, and it’s ok. Because I have Jesus, friends, family, hobbies. I seek to do his will rather than living to please my husband or fit a current social norm. And this is why I wanted specifically Catholic support.

I am completely unconcerned with whether or not my marriage is typical or atypical - I know there have been others like me (no matter how much some people deny it) and I seek to learn from them, but I’m finally at peace despite being “different” from the other marriages I see. Before accepting the reality of the “problem,” I had no peace because I needed it to change and I was willing to do anything to make it change. Now I know it won’t change and I just want to find a way to carry that cross best. Do it without sin, despite the difficulty and advice of those who think marriage must be friendship at its core, who tell me that despite the peace I am experiencing, I actually have no peace.

It helps tremendously to see other couples who have made something wonderful from a distant marriage, and learn from their example. I’m swimming upstream in a major way, with hardly any support from our culture. As little support as marriage gets today, a marriage not based on friendship gets even less. Even here among Catholics, I get accusations and judgements instead of support. Rather than accept what I say at face value, well meaning people psychoanalyze me and jump to conclusions about my husband, when they’ve never met either of us. Why not trust me that we’re not friends and it’s ok? Why not congratulate me for identifying and being so eager to bear this cross? Why not offer any ideas about people they know who have made it work well? People seem like they want to debate me about whether my marriage actually is distant, and the only solution is to make it “un-distant.”

I have hope I haven’t had in years because I was able to accept reality and see it clearly, which is probably the only reason I can keep responding to those who just don’t get it. Without such a sure foundation in the truth I think I might have given up and declared myself a failure because no one else agreed. It also helps to keep in mind that those who see my post here are by no means a cross section of the general public or representative of wisdom.

 

[guiltycatholic]

What did your marriage vows look like. Was it a nuptial Mass?
And do you think they are being honored?

Nuptial Mass, and yes the vows are being fulfilled, albeit not in the way I imagined.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Yeah.

Guiltycatholic, you have been pretty light on offering historical documentation for your views.

I didn’t provide documentation because my views aren’t based on any specific document. More common knowledge, expressed so eloquently by both English Teacher and Easter Joy. I can’t cite which document taught me that women didn’t generally work outside the home or vote, etc. but it’s something I know and so does everyone else. I think it’s pretty widely accepted that marriage was once seen as more permanent and less a matter of personal compatibility. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that’s part of what my original post asked, whether or not other people saw it that way. A few do, and a few seem to think it’s always been exactly as it is now.

 

[guiltycatholic]

Not sure which comments you observe I’m amending, but I have added more comments to make it more clear what I mean.
And I agree everyone differs on the definitions of several specific words this thread has come to focus on. Hence my attempt to explain what I mean by these terms.

Yes I actually think that husbands cheating on and abusing their wives was previously acceptable as a cultural norm, partially because of old ladies I’ve talked to. They talk like, “Back then you didn’t question your husband if you knew what was good for you.” And I think anyone could agree that while infidelity these days is often seen as a deal breaker and reasonable grounds for divorce even in Catholic circles, there was a previous time when it was expected to be weathered. Not celebrated, just a matter of fact. I think it’s a lot like corporal discipline of children was once accepted and expected; today it’s called abuse. That’s the kind of “abuse” I’m talking about, not intensive-care kind of abuse. I don’t believe that men inflicting serious physical harm to their wives was the norm. But definitely things that would be considered abusive today. I do think that just because something is socially unacceptable today doesn’t make it morally wrong. From what I’ve always heard, women used to “have a place” and were expected to stay in it. I don’t think this is necessarily wrong as long as the husband was loving.

My marriage is at least as functional as the other marriages I see, and I can’t control my children’s expectactions for their possible future marriages anymore than anyone else can. I think considering the circumstances, my children are much better off seeing us sick it out together with as much love as we can rather than giving up. Unfortunately I can’t gift them the perfect father, be the perfect mother, or present the perfect marriage. I can only try to find what works in my life.

I would not be in a place to advise an abused woman, so I’d probably just refer her to a counselor. But in the meantime I’d commend her for her willingness to see that it doesn’t have to mean her marriage is over, that I’ve known other couples who have worked through it, that compassion for even the “monsters” among us is a good thing, and that finding support from other abuse victims past and present would probably be helpful.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I am completely unconcerned with whether or not my marriage is typical or atypical - I know there have been others like me (no matter how much some people deny it) and I seek to learn from them, but I’m finally at peace despite being “different” from the other marriages I see.

I am not denying the existence of marriages like yours. But is the reason you started this topic only to reach out to “others like me” and get practical tips? Or did you actually want to have a discussion about “cultural expectations of marriage through time”

Even here among Catholics, I get accusations and judgements instead of support. Rather than accept what I say at face value, well meaning people psychoanalyze me and jump to conclusions about my husband, when they’ve never met either of us. Why not trust me that we’re not friends and it’s ok? Why not congratulate me for identifying and being so eager to bear this cross? Why not offer any ideas about people they know who have made it work well? People seem like they want to debate me about whether my marriage actually is distant, and the only solution is to make it “un-distant.”

Now I’m confused. Before you stated you didn’t walk to talk about your marriage. Now you want ideas “about people they know who have made it work well”?

I didn’t provide documentation because my views aren’t based on any specific document. More common knowledge, expressed so eloquently by both English Teacher and Easter Joy. I can’t cite which document taught me that women didn’t generally work outside the home or vote, etc. but it’s something I know and so does everyone else. I think it’s pretty widely accepted that marriage was once seen as more permanent and less a matter of personal compatibility.

But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that’s part of what my original post asked, whether or not other people saw it that way. A few do, and a few seem to think it’s always been exactly as it is now.

You keep expecting us to accept, at face value, your false dichotomies – who in this topic has claimed that marriage has “always been exactly as it is now”? You have even claimed that it was “acceptable” for men to cheat on and abuse their wives. Well, I’m sure abuse was more common. I’m not quite sure if cheating was or not. And certainly such behavior wasn’t seen as an automatica death knell for a marriage. But I’m not sure we can assume such behavior was ever considered normative, even if not considered as much of a transgression against norms than it is now.

I do think that just because something is socially unacceptable today doesn’t make it morally wrong. From what I’ve always heard, women used to “have a place” and were expected to stay in it. I don’t think this is necessarily wrong as long as the husband was loving.

What I find curiously lacking in your approach to this topic is any mention of God’s plan for marriage.

Unfortunately I can’t gift them the perfect father, be the perfect mother, or present the perfect marriage. I can only try to find what works in my life.

At least you are admitting your marriage is not perfect.

As for your theoretical advice to an abused woman, so it seems you would not even consider advising her to protect herself. That is extremely dangerous and shows how skewed your experiences have made as you as to what marriage is supposed to be.

 

[pensmama87]

I didn’t provide documentation because my views aren’t based on any specific document. More common knowledge, expressed so eloquently by both English Teacher and Easter Joy. I can’t cite which document taught me that women didn’t generally work outside the home or vote, etc. but it’s something I know and so does everyone else. I think it’s pretty widely accepted that marriage was once seen as more permanent and less a matter of personal compatibility. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that’s part of what my original post asked, whether or not other people saw it that way. A few do, and a few seem to think it’s always been exactly as it is now.

One problem with “cultural knowledge” is that it’s frequently accepted as truth when it’s not true, or was only true in a specific time or place, not more generally.

Your example about working women actually illustrates that quite well - we talk about “women staying at home,” but we’re talking about something that was really only possible for a select group of women (nobility and only very recently the wealthier middle classes). For nobility, the men did not “work” either - the estate was their job.

People of more modest means have always relied on multiple sources of income, even if much of the business done by the woman took place in the home. Again, though, that was also typical of men, even if their spheres were a bit wider.

 

[guiltycatholic]

ToeInTheWater, ok, I thought you were equivocating a more distant marriage to abuse since I’ve been talking about a more distant marriage and you brought up abuse.

The reason I got the impression “be friends or divorce” is because when I say I’m married but not friends, people say it can’t be done and I need to get to work on becoming friends with him if I want it to work. If we’re not friends it’s not really a marriage but a dysfunctional sham. These aren’t direct quotes, this is my impression. And not just from this forum but sort of from everywhere. It seems that the only logical conclusion is be friends or divorce, because marriage without friendship is impossible.

I’m sure if I’d said different things, the response would have been different. But I didn’t want marriage advice. I wanted to discuss my perception and others perceptions of the way marriage is viewed currently and how it was viewed before, about gender roles and other stuff like that. It fascinates me and somewhat applies to my marriage, too. I think people’s impressions of the past are nearly as important as the actual past. And it’s amazing how our collective perception of the past can change as time goes by. I’ve always been intrigued by that saying that the victors get to write the history books. I think a lot of prejudice goes into our perceptions of the past. I think it’s extremely interesting to debate with other Catholics, where you won’t get a lot of nonsense coming in about gender fluidity and it turns into an equal rights debate.

I felt that by coming here I would be getting more views about God’s plan for marriage. I keep wondering and praying about what his plan is for my marriage specifically. This is the most peace and joy I’ve experienced in marriage so far, which leads me to think it’s part of his answer. I thought I’d bring it to the group and get insight and (name removed by moderator)ut. I was prepared for a portion of some size to disagree on the basis of their own experience, since I know I’m in the minority. I was hoping for a little more debate about marriage and gender, etc.

I agree normal doesn’t mean good. I wasn’t advocating for abuse or infidelity. But I feel it’s undeniable that views on those subjects have changed dramatically within the past 100 years, let alone the past 100 centuries. I think back to a time when women were seen more as goods, people were commonly bought and sold even by their parents and it wasn’t something that was done only by those considered to be evil. Even the Bible, where it doesn’t condemn slavery, accepts it as the norm and commands slaves to be obedient to their masters. That’s the sort of difference I’m talking about, nothing malicious.
Just the social norm. Things that seem shocking and against human dignity now were once commonplace. My special interest is this effect within marriage.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

ToeInTheWater, ok, I thought you were equivocating a more distant marriage to abuse since I’ve been talking about a more distant marriage and you brought up abuse.

I am still concerned, though, that your advice to an abused woman would essentially be the same as advice to a woman who is merely in a “more distant” marriage.

The reason I got the impression “be friends or divorce” is because when I say I’m married but not friends, people say it can’t be done and I need to get to work on becoming friends with him if I want it to work. If we’re not friends it’s not really a marriage but a dysfunctional sham. These aren’t direct quotes, this is my impression. And not just from this forum but sort of from everywhere. It seems that the only logical conclusion is be friends or divorce, because marriage without friendship is impossible.

But this is your impression, no one has actually ever said it to you either in RL or on CAF. Also, you explained to me that when you say “not friends” you don’t mean “no emotional connection or love at all”, but are you actually explaining that to people in real life.

I wanted to discuss my perception and others perceptions of the way marriage is viewed currently and how it was viewed before, about gender roles and other stuff like that. It fascinates me and somewhat applies to my marriage, too. I think people’s impressions of the past are nearly as important as the actual past. And it’s amazing how our collective perception of the past can change as time goes by. I’ve always been intrigued by that saying that the victors get to write the history books. I think a lot of prejudice goes into our perceptions of the past. I think it’s extremely interesting to debate with other Catholics, where you won’t get a lot of nonsense coming in about gender fluidity and it turns into an equal rights debate.

So do you accept that perhaps your own perception of what is “common knowledge” about what marriage was like in the past, might not actually be correct?

I felt that by coming here I would be getting more views about God’s plan for marriage. I keep wondering and praying about what his plan is for my marriage specifically.

I am happy to hear that you are.

This is the most peace and joy I’ve experienced in marriage so far, which leads me to think it’s part of his answer. I thought I’d bring it to the group and get insight and (name removed by moderator)ut. I was prepared for a portion of some size to disagree on the basis of their own experience, since I know I’m in the minority. I was hoping for a little more debate about marriage and gender, etc.

It may be true for your marriage but so far it seems few people are stating “yes that’s true, I have a marriage just like that!” That doesn’t mean people are denying your report of what your marriage is like.

I agree normal doesn’t mean good. I wasn’t advocating for abuse or infidelity. But I feel it’s undeniable that views on those subjects have changed dramatically within the past 100 years, let alone the past 100 centuries.

There have been changes, but I think that the changes, at least for “Western” society are not quite as dramatic as you assume.