What Romance Really Means After 10 Years of Marriage
nymag.com
nymag.com
So, TL;DR: don't tell me what's "healthy" and "normal". And coincidentally, I greet my cat first when I get home, and my wife doesn't mind.
That comes across a bit smug and also a bit presumptuous about the other people in the thread.
Hence, combined with what's happening, you're likely to get to a common understanding.
Yet there are huge industries of people that are advice columnists like the author, psychologists, marriage counselors, etc. The author suggests that the mundane slog of marriage is romantic. So as you reject what some consider "healthy" in this thread, some of us reject the author's definition.
Maybe her slog is healthy for her husband and her marriage. I have no idea. But I don't believe that is a reality for most marriages. For every cute old married couple who did the romantic slog together and made it; there's plenty others that didn't and got divorced. Or 100 others that didn't get married because they saw a slog coming. This notion, especially with kids, that you don't have to be husband and wife anymore after being married for some time is a problem in my opinion.
Is it beautiful that two people get consumed by kids and make it through the shit together? Sure. But it's also sad because parents get so consumed by kids that they forget to nurture their relationship which existed before. Kids learn a lot from observing that relationship. Daughters learn what a good husband is. Sons learn what a good wife is and how to respect and appreciate her. If they just watch you beaten down all the time being their slaves in their shit show - what do they learn? That they have all the control. And potentially that marriage is what they witnessed. Endless cycle.
IMO it's better for every married couple to put in a lot of effort into nurturing their personal relationship with one another than telling themselves the slog of parenting is romantic and being completely consumed by kids and externalities.
Before someone jumps in with manufactured outrage, no, I don't suggest that you ignore your partner or tolerate the lack of "romance" from their side. If that's something you (or they) need in your life, by all means, hash it out and have a mutually agreeable relationship. Just realize that some people are quite happy in other circumstances.
Your note about having a mutually agreeable relationship is very important though.
Expectations should be discussed. I think that's where it can get unhealthy - when everything changes like with kids and one person has different expectations and the communication isn't there for whatever reason. Maybe the wife assumes all is romantic and perfect despite the shit because the man doesn't raise any red flags, they've been together for a long time, and he's a good dad which she finds attractive/sexy. But men tend to not talk about feelings and expectations as much. And for many couples, it harbors resentment and dissatisfaction, often even later (15+ years of marriage) after the kids are gone. It is easy to get consumed by kids; it's an amazing thing.
I'm just saying that I think most men see romance differently from the author and both sides have to put in a conscious effort to maintain the romance, esp. with kids, or at least have a mutual understanding like you mentioned. That and I do think good things happen for everyone (parents & kids) when the husband/wife relationship has more of a focus. Too much helicoptering and slaving going on with parents these days.
I chose that despite having three good friends texting me all day to go out for drinks. Two of them are divorced and newly single. The third has been a bonafied "will never marry" womanizer his whole life who I sometimes would envy a once in a while in our 20/30's when he'd get an 8 or 9, but now it is really getting old and sort of pathetic in our mid 40's.
One thing that sticks out to me from something the womanizer friend of mine told me like 7 years ago. I tried to boost him up one night after breaking up with one of his 2 month fling (a pretty hot waitress) by saying he gets hot girls all the time so cheer up. He told me something along the lines of "yeah hot girl here, next month I'll have another but you get to crawl into a warm bed tonight with someone who loves you and you the same. I'll never have that".
That helped put things in perspective for me.
This morning she rolled over and told me to fuck her and we had passionate intimate sex and it's like nothing happened but we're still both a little hurt but won't say anything about it until the argument boils over again and I still haven't hung the new light fixture in the half-bath and I have to pack for a business trip Tuesday and I dread packing so I'll drag her into it and she'll tolerate me, barely, and I don't know what this is or if it's how it should be but it's us and we love each other more than we hate each other and it's not that we're great for each other it's just that there's some kind of intersectionality in our individual dysfunctions and so here we are.
I don't know shit about marriage and I'm glad the author is happy but I swear to fucking God that dog shit would drive me up the fucking wall so we have our thing and you have yours so let's just not judge each other or label each other's marriage.
When the sparks leave a relationship, you have two choices: put in effort to it happy and fulfilling, or leave it. Those who have a happy marriage put effort in (note that putting effort in can still leave you with an unhappy marriage, because it takes two to tango).
Additionally, love is not blind. A good marriage is probably made up of two people who are painfully aware of their partners shortcomings. I would venture a guess that the husband in the article is very aware of his wife's foibles, but has chosen to be happy in that marriage, because there's a lot in there to him happy. Ditto for the wife.
Lastly, though I don't think it was explicitly mentioned in the article, I think lots of physical affection, including but not limited to sex, is an important component of a happy marriage.
I think a lot of the divorce rate is caused mostly by a lack of understanding that the infatuation of the first year or two doesn't last. That at some point the romance is in being deeply known, surviving life together, and being able to depend on each other. This is not to say that there won't be dates, dinners, flowers, etc. But just that those things become footnotes. I suspect that our culture (in the US particularly) has so tightly bound romance with lust and infatuation, that that's what people who get divorce after divorce are constantly in search of. How sad I am when I hear "we're great friends, but we both just want something more..." Like what? Because you can totally try someone new on like a pair of socks, and in all probability, in ten years, if everything's gone well, be right back to where you started: best friends, but something deeper because you've survived together.
True romance and the fruits of it are only achieved after decades.
This article has my current feelings about my wife and my life spot on.
TL;DW: Just like sex doesn't have to be about penetration, foreplay isn't just about touching or dirty talk.
Intimacy is about sensuality and closeness. Those don't have to be anything to do with sex. For example, it's possible to experience intimacy in a completely non-sexual setting, such as a honest conversation about death. Intimacy is about the feeling of closeness to someone, not about what that closeness results in.
I think aside from skewed attitudes towards sexuality the problem with the concept of intimacy in particular is that the word is often used as a euphemism for sex -- "being intimate" usually refers to having (had) sexual intercourse.
And the word sexy is already popular in many non-explicitly-sexual contexts. Like "intelligence is sexy", "sexy car", "sexy clothes". I'm pretty sure I've described code solutions as sexy a number of times. But unless you're into mechaphilia sexy cars are not sexually attractive.
The truth is that a marriage needs as much sex as it needs, no more, no less. There are people who are perfectly happy in sexless marriages, and people who are miserable in marriages where sex isn't a problem.
The most important ingredients for a happy marriage are two people who are well sorted ou. Everything else is negotiable.
I think it would have been great for her to at least talk about their sexual frequency and how agreement of frequency is important, otherwise that lack of passion undermines everything.
I have known couples who need sex every day, and I've known couples who have rarely have sex. Both happy. Mixed it up and swapped them around? Deep unhappiness.
Stop projecting your preferences onto every other human: the amount of sex you prefer in a relationship is unlikely to be a perfect match for everybody. You especially need to be wary that if you are inclined to have a lot of sex and your partner is not, you may unwittingly be forcing them into something they are not comfortable with, and as a result making them deeply unhappy.
It's not a trope. It's just basic human understanding.
For example, men seem to be most attracted to women in their 20ties. While I acknowledge the (evolutionary) reasons for that, I also think it sucks, sometimes to the point of disavowing sex just to spite nature.
It is of course possible to pursue young women even as an older man, but there really is a tradeoff between attraction, dignity and sheer waste of effort.
Amateurs. A good night's sleep begins at 9PM for my wife and I.
Seriously, someone needs to start a support group for new parents so that normal behavior can be...normalized?
Heck, the article doesn't even require the presumption of a monogamous marriage for the points to be applicable. It applies equally well to any committed long-term relationship, no matter how many people are involved and regardless of your tax status.
I'm just saying, you don't have to follow these parts.
The article is written as a response to a question about romance in long-term monogamous marriages, so of course it sees monogamous marriages as a given.
Did you expect her to add a paragraph like "Hey, maybe if you can't find romance in a monogamous marriage you're just not made to be monogamous or married and that's fine too"? Do you expect articles on programming best practices to contain similar paragraphs ("Hey, maybe if you don't like fizzbuzz you're not really into programming and should try hardware instead.")?
The article is about a specific problem and tries to tell people 'everything is okay, you just need to accept that things change' while this may not the solution many long term relationships need.
The author does not have a healthy husband/wife relationship to me. Based on what she wrote - it's all about her and her husband is along for the ride.
> But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should.... He acts like he doesn’t even notice that I should be locked away forever and ever in some bad, drafty place that serves only American cheese.
She knows she's not doing a lot of things she should as a wife, but then she writes about how she appreciates how he falls in line. It sounds like he's a way better husband than she is a wife. That's not healthy and might not be sustainable.
> You and your spouse are slogging through the slop of survival together. And it’s romantic. Mark my words.
That's a fairy tale rationalization.
You can determine that this woman is a bad wife on the basis that she spends a few minutes talking to her dogs when she first gets home? Give me a fucking break.
* * *
Edit: Calling herself mentally unstable and suggesting that her partner should chastise her and that she deserves to be locked in American cheese hell for being a dog lover is obviously a joke.
As for running sick to the bathroom, passing out, cracking her ribs on the bathtub on the way down, and spewing bloody diarrhea all over the floor... that doesn’t make her a bad spouse, only a sick one. I’m sure her husband was far more concerned about her health and safety than he was about cleaning up shit, and I’m sure she would do the same for him.
> That’s when I notice my husband. He missed Mommy, too. But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should. He doesn’t smirk. He doesn’t roll his eyes. I am clearly unstable, but he makes no sounds to this effect. Instead, he hugs me and smiles and says, “How was your day, baby?” He acts like he doesn’t even notice that I should be locked away forever and ever in some bad, drafty place that serves only American cheese.
> My husband was not happy about this scene. But he handled it without complaint.
Did you read the article?
And why shouldn't he be unhappy about finding his wife passed out, with cracked ribs? Should he be complaining at her for having been sick and fallen? Because, as far as I can tell, you seem to think she did that just to inconvenience her poor, long-suffering, hen-pecked husband.
It's life, dude. Shit — sometimes literally — happens. Keeping score over that kind of thing is a pretty much guaranteed ticket to misery, IMO.
Unless I'm off, she didn't say "But my husband doesn’t yell WHAT THE HELL? at me like he should" because she thought that's an normal response to her dog greetings; but rather because she knows he's chop liver with regard to attention.
Life is a mess. Find someone that is willing to handle the mess with you.
I believe that people reading this article /before/ getting married and having kids, and agreeing with each other that they see the world in likewise fashion, will end up staying together in a solid and constructive relationship. Having the " traditional" view of romance that Hollywood portrays is more likely to end up in divorce.
If you act out of self-aware point scoring you'll never understand why. Also, the woman is being self-deprecating throughout the whole article, did you not notice that?
My practical question here is if you live that way, how do you avoid getting screwed over by opportunists?
My ethical question is wouldn't a society based on this principle create inequality through winners becoming bigger winners, because they're the ones who can most afford to give stuff away without expecting a return (whether it is money, emotional energy, or anything else)?
Which one? I'm not your marriage counselor. But talking about it is probably a good start.
If you want my honest, non-expert answer, making relationships transactional means making them closer to business arrangements. Maybe that's what some people are comfortable with, but I prefer when my personal relationships are a little more spontaneous and free. So, for me, relationships shouldn't be transactional.
How do you stop getting screwed over? I'd say it comes down to trust. Trust is something that builds up over time. The more you trust someone the more you can give without expecting something in return. Trust is based on support, but it's not something you have to actively track, it's something you feel (or don't feel). When trust starts to breaks down, that's the time to either work on it together or cut your losses.
As someone who lives this way I find it pretty easy: you develop an instinct for people like that and don't deal with them.
If you make a mistake do deal with them and they screw you over... oh well. I don't worry about it, and it isn't something that has ever had a negative effect on my life.
And I was responding to the question of how I came to believe that the husband might be the better partner.
Very few relationships are exactly 50/50 but if you aren't concerned with trying to be an equal partner (which requires some level of scoring) then you're probably the worse partner.
The wife's role? This is what I mean about seeing relationships as business arrangements. If that's how you want your relationships to be, that's fine with me, go for it, but that's not what I'm interested in. To me, when you strip away everything around it to get to the core, a relationship is about spending more time with someone you enjoy spending time with. People are complex, if you can only enjoy a fake role-based version of them you're missing the bigger picture.
As for one-sided relationships, they aren't healthy, but I really think you're stretching what you found in the article in order to suggest that this is what's being written about. As I said before, you'll not understand it if you look at relationships as point-scoring. Plus, the article wasn't meant to be '10 point plan' kind of article, it was about painting a picture of how romance evolves as time goes on, it's a narrative-style piece rather than a do's and don'ts of relationships.
>"Very few relationships are exactly 50/50 but if you aren't concerned with trying to be an equal partner (which requires some level of scoring) then you're probably the worse partner."
If scoring works for you, fine, but I prefer to give without expecting something in return, which I can do most easily with people I trust.
Yes, both parties have a role in keeping the romance alive. I meant it as the "responsibility/duty" definition. It takes two to tango.
Do parents not have roles in a family either? Maybe you don't like the terminology because it sounds business like, but we all have roles in relationships. The definition applies several ways - the part you play in the relationship and your responsibilities.
It means being conscious of your own contributions so you know what to expect in return. If you were just interested in what you contributed you wouldn't need to keep track of your past, seeing the opportunities in the here and now would be enough.
>"If you don't do any scoring, you can easily become complacent"
I'm struggling to think of an example I can give you that shows an alternative to your current view on relationships is possible. What I'm talking about is a subtle difference, but something I personally think is an important one. It's not so much about particular actions per se, but more about the motivations behind those actions.
This is the best example I could think of to share with you, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3vwe0OlKhM
>"Yes, both parties have a role in keeping the romance alive. I meant it as the "responsibility/duty" definition. It takes two to tango."
Perhaps it'll help if we look at what these roles are. What are the roles you're referring to?
>"Do parents not have roles in a family either?"
In the early years, parents have a role because their kids depend on them for guidance and survival. Once the kids reach adulthood the relationship can change into one closer to friendship. That's been my experience.
In a relationship with a partner, this is different. Both partners choose to be in the relationship. It's mainly about the chemistry between the two people, how they energise and comfort each other. However, this doesn't really feel like 'effort' in the sense of duty, or at least it doesn't have to. Consider the difference between play and work, both require effort, but they feel completely different. That's really what I'm trying to get across.
Regarding the roles for maintaining the romance - it can differ on the relationship. From the article, it seems the husband's role and contribution is to be a good dad, a good team player and attentive to her idiosyncrasies. She appreciates that and finds it sexy and attractive. That's his role in maintaining the romance. I'm not sure of her role for maintaining the romance; she doesn't get into it. But they both play parts in the success or failure of romance, regardless of their definition.
Regarding the video - I like it and can relate; Thanks for sharing.
Some good stuff from the video:
> Feeling obligated means, you don't feel responsible for that, but others are demanding that from you > If you feel obligated to somebody.... today or tomorrow you will take revenge on them..... You won't be able to handle ... somebody demanding part of you and sitting inside of you nagging > Go for completion as early as possible. Let you be free from all obligations
Both my wife and myself have actually found ourselves at times putting obligations on ourselves when there's no reason to. That can cause stress and impact our relationship. And once in awhile we do make each other feel obligated to do things. Sometimes her pushing me to an "obligation" to go out with her after dinner during the week to meet a new business acquaintance.
I don't like obligations pushed on me and it has gotten me in trouble with my wife. I've had conversations with her and let her know that it feels like she is demanding things from me, not asking and that since I run several companies I usually just want to go home and spend time with her relaxing; that's all. I also expect her to check with me before trying to organize these types of events because that's just courteous. She's been very good with understanding that and I do the same with her. We're going on 10 years so we've gotten way better at discussing these things and also being more mindful of each other.
>"I'm not sure of her role for maintaining the romance; she doesn't get into it. But they both play parts in the success or failure of romance, regardless of their definition."
..., I agree.
Glad you liked the video too.
What you're missing is that you're only seeing one self-deprecating side of the story. You're assuming it's painting a full picture when it clearly isn't trying to.
They look so happy together.
There's definitely romance in having endured it all together.
It's one thing to poke fun at yourself talking to your dogs and passing out while leaking from both ends, it's another to list your spouse's character flaws when they're not relevant to the story.
Saying either of them is the better partner based on this article is like touching an elephant's trunk and insisting it's a snake.
She can't say what her husband finds is romantic because she isn't her husband.
She knows she's not doing a lot of things she should as a wife, but then she writes about how she appreciates how he falls in line.
Exactly.
Isn't it interesting that the things she could do better are minor things like greeting her husband before her dogs, and he indulges these foibles.
Perhaps he has no foibles she has to indulge. Or perhaps she is wise enough not to air them in a public forum?
It sounds like he's a way better husband than she is a wife.
It sounds to me like she appreciates her husband a lot.
> But once you’ve been married for a long time (my tenth anniversary is in a few months!), a whole new kind of romance takes over.
So I disagree; she's not just telling her story. She's trying to tell a narrative that this is how it is and that it's romantic. That being in the slog and not investing personal time in the husband/wife relationship is romantic. Everything she described could occur between two good friends. She writes nothing about how a wife might do her part to keep the romance going. She just describes how her husband keeps her version of romance going. There are two sides to everything.
Just recently I was out with a bunch of guys that have been married 15+ years, all with kids. 5/6 of them basically complained about not being appreciated (gratitude/attention/sexually) and being unhappy. Their wives are completely consumed by kids and they're not putting enough time and attention into the husband/wife relationship. It's sad. Just because you hit 10 years doesn't mean it's going to be sustainable for both parties. You don't just fall in line with the slog, esp. with kids and call it romantic. It takes hard work and great communication for the husband and wife to have a healthy, romantic marriage. Sometimes you have to say your needs/expecations aren't being met and you want to find a way to meet them despite the slog of everyday life.
I'll agree with the author that women see romance differently than men; that's precisely my point. I have a problem with the author pushing advice about keeping the romance alive in marriages that doesn't consider both parties. Both parties either have to see eye to eye on their definitions or understand the other side's perspective. I know that if I do extra chores around the house, my wife will get turned on and we'll both reap the benefits. If I see her doing chores, that doesn't turn me on. That's how we're wired. But let's not pretend like both sides see it the same way.
Men - pitch in more on tasks, be a better team player and indulge the mundane with your partner to be more romantic. I agree with the author here. Men can do more here. Women - author doesn't talk about this at all. Basically it's still the more Hollywood romance stuff. Most men are not going to see romance as the slog she describes. That's an illusion.
Personally, it's not all the way it's cut out in this article, but the article hits on some of the key points. If you play your cards right, there's still romance of the traditional kind too, but it takes planning, surprises, and commitment to pull it off.
I do have 2 kids and will marry soon (living together for >10 years now), so I can believe that one could dissolve herself completely in family life and what she calls romance. I just could not bear the thought of "this is all". For me, family is where I thrive and relax and love, but it can't be the answer to all questions, can't be the self-serving means to an end.
~shudders~ Good thing we can each do our own thing.
I think we can all agree that it is nicer to have an atmosphere where you can share your opinion without your work being attacked by strangers.
That is, it is equally legitimate — or illegitimate — for someone to call another person's lifestyle "positively abominable" as it is for a third person to be all, "Eww, WordPress," at the first.
In fact, I'm pretty sure highlighting that fact was the point of that comment.
I fully agree that that was the point of that comment.
Marriage, yawn. No. Marriage is not the factor. The factor is the moment you consider each other 'together'. In 2017, the decision of wether you are together or not is not anymore 'marriage'. That hegemony, as dictated by [Christian] religion, is gone.
Also, what is being described doesn't necessarily take 10 years of marriage. From what I gathered you're (madly) in love for max 2 years, and then (right before those 2 years are passed) the hormones produced and amounts of them change in amount and it becomes a different kind of love. A caring kind of love. With sometimes references, filled with nostalgia, to those first 2 years. I would describe it as 2 years of wild fun, and then that forms the basis of getting the thing to work between the two of you.
Also, the following specific statement:
> Because until you feel absolutely sure that you won’t eventually be abandoned
Is interesting because people are going to die eventually. There are 4 possibilities here: 1) Your significant other dies first 2) You die before your significant other does 3) You die together 4) You split up (called divorce in case of marriage) before one of you or the both of you die. Of note here to #1 and #2 is that women on average live longer. Of note of #3 is that this is highly unlikely, but it does happen, usually in the form of accidents.
Why is this relevant? Because apart of option #3 (which is very rare) there's going to be a time where you are alone once more. You don't know the details about this beforehand. For example, you don't know who is going to live alone. You don't know when this is going to happen. You don't know how you are going to die, or how your partner is going to die. Because of this its not concrete, and hence ignored.
It does however mean that you can never feel absolutely sure that you won’t eventually be abandoned which contradicts the quoted sentence.
I'm aware of a different theory. A relationship (and a friendship) is a balance of plus and minus. There are things you like about each other, and there are things you don't like about each other. The good is a long list. The bad are things you can handle. If something happens which you want to put on the bad list, you need to make it up with things on the good list. From what I read, it has to be 10:1. For some people the fuel is gone, and they part ways while for others they feel so sure the balance is good they realise they're not going to part by force of incompatibility.
Meanwhile, you get those references of nostalgia which retrigger the hormones from the first two years.
Maybe others don't, but in my categories the latter implies at least deliberacy, if not malice.
I don't see it as either one way or the other.
They share similarities, but I agree they also have differences. Intention is an example of a difference. Deaths, as by disease, is generally not predictable.
What they have in common is both are on first glance painful, and negative. That's a matter of coping and adapting. Human beings don't do that beforehand though.
That's not romance. That's illusions. She's welcoming trouble with that attitude.
UPD: Apparently not anymore if she left that minefield and lives in healthy marriage.
I recommend against projecting this depressing anecdotal evidence on the whole world though. As a counter-anecdote, most of my long-married friends seem to respect and get along pretty well with their spouses.
I don't know any couple who belittle or control each other, and certainly don't disrespect each other. If I did, I'd recommend they get the hell away from each other as quickly as possible.
Romance is not about pleasing one person at the expense of the other, it's about two people who love each other exploring the mystery of that love.
I've been with my partner for over 7 years. She's my best friend. We respect each other, and if one of us thinks the other one is not taking our own needs into account we talk about it and compromise.
The fact that your friend has chosen to prioritise his wife's feelings over his career is his choice. If he hasn't made it gladly and freely, then he needs to get out.
There are plenty of unhealthy relationships among married couples because of traditional views that "marriage is forever" and if you get a divorce, you're a failure. Luckily where I live these social pressures have become much weaker and this experience seems to be less common than a few generations ago.
This has nothing to do with marriage (or any other committed long-term relationship) itself, however. Of course these relationships are about compromises but it's highly subjective what compromises you are willing to make and what compromises you can make without being unhappy.
In a healthy relationship both partners should care about the mental and emotional well-being of the other. That also includes preventing the partner from compromising where they shouldn't and being respectful enough to their needs to tell them if things can't work out. It doesn't sound like that happened in the relationships you describe.
It's actually pretty common for women to seem more "controlling" in relationships. This doesn't even have anything to do with feminism, the trope of the "henpecked husband" has been around for a long term. But that's not a problem in itself.
Also, behaviour that could seem condescending to outsiders can actually be part of a healthy relationship as long as both partners have a shared understanding of what they are comfortable with and in what context. It can be very difficult to determine whether a relationship is healthy or not if you lack the full knowledge of these dynamics.