I'm in my tenth year of marriage with 3 kids and I can honestly say I'm much happier then when I was in my luxury appartment, living the happy single high life. It doesn't happen overnight you know.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
Which one? I'm not your marriage counselor. But talking about it is probably a good start.
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.