Is Marriage without Love Possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ahoyhoy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EvelynEVF said:
I think half our problem, at least in the USA, is that we have lost the ability to have opposite-sex friendships without “benefits” or suspicions thereof. If a girl wants to be closer to a guy, the only way we go about it is to date.
Click to expand...
True, it’s bad. It’s complete nonsense to think that 1-3 dates will give you anything near to positive certainty you want to marry someone - in fact, it doesn’t even warrant “forsaking all others” (what people refer to as “going exclusive”). At the same time, at that kind of stage - when the two people are basically strangers who’ve met the 2nd or 3rd time in their lives - KISSING AND ALL SUCH STUFF ARE NOT WARRANTED EITHER. 🙂 (Ekhmm… Excuse me.) Therefore, the whole dating system is flawed and the best way is to develop friendships and romantic attractions the normal, natural way. More romantic settings can be choses when one special person pops up.

And for this reason, I completely boycott the “date” appellation and don’t go on dates. I meet people.
 
chevalier said:
And for this reason, I completely boycott the “date” appellation and don’t go on dates. I meet people.
Click to expand...
If I am ever free to remarry, that’s pretty much how I plan to go about it. No dating sites, no prowling the produce aisle. Just an active social life and good friends, and if something happens, it happens. No weird artificial constructs. And no offense to those who like and use those constructs–I have friends who met online and it’s a beautiful thing for them. I’m quirky, though, and I have to be met in context 🙂
 
Yeah, but you know exactly what I mean, dontcha? 🙂

Why is it usual to get to know someone via an awkward dinner and a movie, when what would be more real-life and probably more fun would be to go sledding or have a meal with a fun group of friends, or do some church activity that both were going to do anyway? Typical dating struck me as awkward and weird when I was a teenager, and it still does now.
 
EvelynEVF said:
Yeah, but you know exactly what I mean, dontcha? 🙂
Click to expand...
No, no, I simply love logical minds! The very mention of “artificial construct”… And the rest of the phrasing… 😃 Err… Never mind. 😃
Why is it usual to get to know someone via an awkward dinner and a movie, when what would be more real-life and probably more fun would be to go sledding or have a meal with a fun group of friends, or do some church activity that both were going to do anyway? Typical dating struck me as awkward and weird when I was a teenager, and it still does now.
Click to expand...
Yup. Besides, I was brought up on traditional etiquette and swallowed a lot of books of a matching kind. As a result, I just can’t accept the idea of being so open with a stranger about the romantic open end of a meeting. “Let’s go on a date,” translates in my mind into, “let’s go watch a film and have a dinner and kiss a bit in the park if things go well.” The latter pronouncement would be utterly unthinkable (unless it’s friends who are on a familiar footing and make mockingly insolent jokes… I’ve pulled a couple in my life, but you know what I mean). I think the invitation goes too far and the acceptance gives too much in that they’re too explicit.
 
Sierrah said:
Love means something different to everyone. This is an interesting thread but I would want to know that the person I’m with will be there when times get rough…becaue they will at some point. To me that is the utlimate love. Until I find a guy that’s willing to fight through life with me I’ll remain single.
Click to expand...
I second that.
 
(OK, first off all, please forgive me if I’m resurrecting a too-old thread, but I thought the OP, if they are still listening, might find my contribution helpful.)

Mx. OP, I, too, have never had sexual attraction to anyone in all my 32 years and (though anything is possible) will likely never have it. I just don’t connect sex and romantic love in my brain. This is what is called “asexual” and I’m wondering if you aren’t as well. And, yes, I, too, can be physically but not sexually attracted to a guy, so can totally identify there.

Also, I have thought about whether, in this state, I should marry a guy, even ifI don’t have sexual attraction to him. I mean, I can be physically attracted, as I say, and can even feel deep commitment to him in a deeply loving way, willing to sacrifice and all that. It’s just the sexual part that doesn’t interest me. And, since, at least in the Catholic Church’s defnition, procreation is an essential part of marriage, I would either a) have to force myself into the act even though I don’t really like it and cause my husband not to experience the kind of please he could if I did like it or, b) ask my husband to put up with me not having sex or c) marry someone who is “ace” in the way that I am and we’d have sex anyway because it was required by the Church. (this assuming that I do ultimately decide to swim the proverbial Tiber)

Another consideration for me would be whether my “sexuality” is actually a kind of “gift” as it naturally makes me not prone to all the sin that can come with being a sexual person and whether I should force myselfto give that up if I were to marry.

Believe me, I would love to spend my life with someone else who is a kind of “kindred spirit” to me, as it were, but, again, the sex as a part of that marriage could, as I have stated, by problematic.

Another thing is, I have no desire to desire sex; I’m perfectly happy the way I am, so it’s not something I’d wish to “correct”, unless, of course, the Church would consider my current state as “disordered” and therefore necessary to “correct”.

I’d actually thought of posting one or more threads on asexuality after having read what is already here to address these kinds of issues.

OP, please note, I am not saying whether or whether you are or aren’t asexual. Heck, I wouldn’t even say that about myself, as anything’s possible, but, for the time being, I am assuming and therefore identifying as such.

So, yeah, I found this thread for obvious reasons to be fascinating, though I was originally looking for threads on the ethicality of so-called “political marriages”.
 
From Screwtape letters, in which C.S. Lewis reminds the reader that romantic love is the product, not the pre-requisite, for a holy and obedient marital relationship:

Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as “one flesh”. He did not lay “a happily married couple” or “a couple who married because they were in love”, but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes “one flesh”. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of “being in love” what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear, and desire which they call “being in love” is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because “being in love” does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemy’s designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. In other words, the humans are to be encouraged to regard as the basis for marriage a highly-coloured and distorted version of something the Enemy really promises as its result. Two advantages follow. In the first place, humans who have not the gift of continence can be deterred from seeking marriage as a solution because they do not find themselves “in love”, and, thanks to us, the idea of marrying with any other motive seems to them low and cynical. Yes, they think that. They regard the intention of loyalty to a partnership for mutual help, for the preservation of chastity, and for the transmission of life, as something lower than a storm of emotion. (Don’t neglect to make your man think the marriage-service very offensive.) In the second place any sexual infatuation whatever, so long as it intends marriage, will be regarded as “love”, and “love” will be held to excuse a man from all the guilt, and to protect him from all the consequences, if marrying a heathen, a fool, or a wanton.
 
Fiddler on the Roof, likewise, reminds us that romantic marital love has been, for most of the history of of the West, regarded to be the product of marriage rather than the prerequisite for the marriage:

(Tevye) Golde…Golde, he’s a good man.
I like him. He’s a little crazy, but I like him.
And, er, what’s more important, Hodel likes him.
Hodel loves him.
So what can we do?
It’s a new world, Golde. A new world. Love…
Golde… Do you love me?
(Golde) Do I what?!?
(Tevye) Ssh! Do you love me?
(Golde) Do I love you?
(Tevye) Well?
(Golde) With our daughters getting married
And this trouble in the town
You’re upset, you’re worn out
Go inside, go lie down
Maybe it’s indigestion.
(Tevye) Ah, no, Golde, I’m asking you a question. Do you love me?
(Golde) You’re a fool.
(Tevye) I know. But do you love me?
(Golde) Do I love you?
(Tevye) Well?
(Golde) For 25 years, I’ve washed your clothes
Cooked your meals, cleaned your house
Given you children, milked your cow
After 25 years, why talk about love right now?
(Tevye) Golde…The first time I met you
Was on our wedding day
  • I was scared – (Golde) I was shy
    (Tevye) - I was nervous - (Golde) So was I
    (Tevye) But my father and my mother
    Said we’d learn to love each other
    And now I’m asking, Golde
    Do you love me?
    (Golde) I’m your wife
    (Tevye) I know. But do you love me?
    (Golde) Do I love him?
    (Tevye) Well?
    (Golde) For 25 years, I’ve lived with him
    Fought with him
    Starved with him
    25 years, my bed is his
    If that’s not love, what is?
    (Tevye) Then you love me?
    (Golde) I suppose I do.
    (Tevye) And I suppose I love you, too
(Together) It doesn’t change a thing
But even so
After 25 years
It’s nice to know
 
The thing that is important is whether or not it is important to you and the person you propose to marry. If they want to know your feelings for them, you need to disclose that honestly. You can’t lie and say he or she makes you excited when that is not true. Having said that, these emotions are not necessary for a valid attempt at marriage, provided there is no deceit. That isn’t a “lower” form of marriage, either. It is the actions you choose that elevate your marriage and make it virtuous, not the presence or absence of emotions you don’t control.
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Another consideration for me would be whether my “sexuality” is actually a kind of “gift” as it naturally makes me not prone to all the sin that can come with being a sexual person and whether I should force myselfto give that up if I were to marry.
Click to expand...
That could be the case, actually.
Believe me, I would love to spend my life with someone else who is a kind of “kindred spirit” to me, as it were, but, again, the sex as a part of that marriage could, as I have stated, by problematic.
Click to expand...
There’s no ‘rule’ that says there needs to be a whole lot of it, just that the marriage must be open to procreation. Open to procreation doesn’t mean totally crazy about procreation. 😉
Another thing is, I have no desire to desire sex; I’m perfectly happy the way I am, so it’s not something I’d wish to “correct”, unless, of course, the Church would consider my current state as “disordered” and therefore necessary to “correct”.
Click to expand...
A couple thousand saints would probably need to have been disordered and in need of correction if that were the case, so I don’t find it likely. 😃 My personal opinion is that people who can and will procreate just to have children (i.e. the intended purpose of marital relations) but feel no desire whatsoever to do it just for fun, might actually be quite close to the condition from before the Fall.

By contrast, not wanting children and/or being mentally unable to find peace with the idea of having marital relations even for that purpose, that could be a sign that one’s not called to marriage.

And there’s a whole lot of people who aren’t called to marriage.

(As well as married people who have little interest in sex other than for having children.)

I’d actually thought of posting one or more threads on asexuality after having read what is already here to address these kinds of issues.

OP, please note, I am not saying whether or whether you are or aren’t asexual. Heck, I wouldn’t even say that about myself, as anything’s possible, but, for the time being, I am assuming and therefore identifying as such.

So, yeah, I found this thread for obvious reasons to be fascinating, though I was originally looking for threads on the ethicality of so-called “political marriages”.
 
Well, another issue is, in fact, the issue of children, for me and likely for the OP.

Being asexual, I (and possibly the OP) are, by definition, (possibly?) not open to life.
 
chevalier said:
That could be the case, actually.

There’s no ‘rule’ that says there needs to be a whole lot of it, just that the marriage must be open to procreation. Open to procreation doesn’t mean totally crazy about procreation. 😉

A couple thousand saints would probably need to have been disordered and in need of correction if that were the case, so I don’t find it likely. 😃 My personal opinion is that people who can and will procreate just to have children (i.e. the intended purpose of marital relations) but feel no desire whatsoever to do it just for fun, might actually be quite close to the condition from before the Fall.

By contrast, not wanting children and/or being mentally unable to find peace with the idea of having marital relations even for that purpose, that could be a sign that one’s not called to marriage.

And there’s a whole lot of people who aren’t called to marriage.

(As well as married people who have little interest in sex other than for having children.)

I’d actually thought of posting one or more threads on asexuality after having read what is already here to address these kinds of issues.

OP, please note, I am not saying whether or whether you are or aren’t asexual. Heck, I wouldn’t even say that about myself, as anything’s possible, but, for the time being, I am assuming and therefore identifying as such.

So, yeah, I found this thread for obvious reasons to be fascinating, though I was originally looking for threads on the ethicality of so-called “political marriages”.
Click to expand...
Hmm, then, perhaps I shouldn’t marry, even though I would like to spend the rest of my life with someone with whom I have kindred ties, as it were, to truly love each other and share our mutual love of life together? That is indeed a rather strong desire with me.

On the other hand, as you say, I have no sexual desire and would have no desire even to engage in the act, even once. Furthermore, I am not quite of the temperament that enjoys children, if I am entirely honest about it. It’s not that I think they’re horrible people or anything. AS I say, I just don’t have the temperament for it. I am very introverted and reserved and even, some would say, mature and grave, not to the point of being cold. I am just not the type to being all light and energetic and running around and all that. I am also a very complex personality/mind (not to be vain; I truly think this of myself) and it is difficult for me to relate to especially young people.

So, yeah, perhaps you are right. Perhaps I am not called to marriage, not perhaps primarily because of the asexuality issue (though that could be a part of it), but, even independently of that, because my temperament simply does not fit the bill.

Other thoughts?
 
Of course marriage without love is possible. Many people in the past had arranged marriages or marriages of convenience. Political alliances have been forged by marriages.
 
Sunbreak said:
Of course marriage without love is possible. Many people in the past had arranged marriages or marriages of convenience. Political alliances have been forged by marriages.
Click to expand...
True.

Romantic love was also not unknown. Among the ruling classes it was well known that a lot of the men kept mistresses on the side.
 
MysticMissMisty said:
Well, another issue is, in fact, the issue of children, for me and likely for the OP.

Being asexual, I (and possibly the OP) are, by definition, (possibly?) not open to life.
Click to expand...
When a concrete opportunity presents itself within the context of marriage, people have been known to discover an enthusiasm for sex that they didn’t know they had.

That does not mean that marriage automatically gives people a sex drive they didn’t have. If anything, people often don’t have the sex drive after marriage that they imagined they would have before they married. This is even true among people who cohabitate. It is one of those tricky things that are hard to predict.

What people should **not **do is assume that the sex drive they have today will never change. If that were to happen to someone, he’d be more unusual than not. Someone who makes the decision to vow himself or herself to a celibate life has to understand this, as do those who vow themselves to marriage. You cannot depend on your personal biology to keep your promises for you. Only self-mastery and fidelity can do that for you.
 
Musician said:
I do not think that getting married without feeling quite romantic is advisable. It certainly isn’t fair to the spouse not to be loved in a romantic way.
I’d be devastated if my husband did not really love me passionately.
Click to expand...
^This.

I know that people’s feelings change, but without the strong bond from the beginning, I can’t imagine what would really hold a couple truly together.

Seems to me that marital love that lasts has the roots of something truly special and unique from all others that keep the tree growing even if its chopped up, pruned back, or looses limbs. It can grow back as long as its got roots that are alive and have access to the food it needs to grow.
 
AnneElizabeth said:
^This.

I know that people’s feelings change, but without the strong bond from the beginning, I can’t imagine what would really hold a couple truly together.

Seems to me that marital love that lasts has the roots of something truly special and unique from all others that keep the tree growing even if its chopped up, pruned back, or looses limbs. It can grow back as long as its got roots that are alive and have access to the food it needs to grow.
Click to expand...
👍
 
chevalier said:
…

And there’s a whole lot of people who aren’t called to marriage.
…
Click to expand...
Curious chevalier, why you think/say that. ? Do you mean just now at this time in history and in this culture (there are a lot of unmarrieds than usual at this time) or do you mean like throughout history, or as in the church would deem only a few people called to marriage? In past history, in all places on earth and all eras, most people got married and had kids. So I’m curious about your thoughts on that statement.
 
😃 As someone who, from the age of about 12 to the age of about 35 confused unrequited lust, fuelled by self-indulgent day-dreaming with love and thrived on ‘the chase’ …

…I nearly missed out on the most amazing man I’ve ever met because he was too interested in me before I’d had time to bemoan the fact he hadn’t done any of the following:
  1. Blown hot and cold
  2. Flirted with me…
  3. Then flirted with other women
  4. I never turned up somewhere hoping to see him and he wasn’t there!
  5. He always returned my calls promptly!
  6. Been unavailable
all of which would allow me to spend too much time building up a picture of him in my head as some complicated, fascinating, amazingly good catch who would (obvs!) me totally accepting of my Catholic faith but a black belt in ‘luuurve’ once we married and giving myself a jolly good rush of ardrenalin every time his name was mentioned.

👍 I’m glad I found someone who actually showed me what real love is! Marriage without infatuation is entirely sensible! Marriage without love in the proper sense is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top