| « | Grrr! |
»
|
|
Saturday, March 04, 2006
On Marriage Part 2
Not long ago, a discussion thread at Dr. Helen Smith's site spurred your Curmudgeon to discourse on today's incentives and disincentives toward marriage, as seen by a single man. The essay drew some notice and some commentary, much of which was of the "yes, of course, but why did you have to say so?" variety. As it was congruent in fundamentals with an earlier piece that delved into the great tensions being inflicted upon single women by our popular culture, your Curmudgeon expected nothing else.
But your Curmudgeon would never have expected to see anything like this "Contract of Wifely Expectations." Or for that matter, this "response," which your Curmudgeon hopes was jocularly meant.
Travis Frey, the author of the "Contract of Wifely Expectations," plainly had some issues with trends in female self-assertion. Perhaps Jennifer, who wrote the second document linked above, has comparable issues with men. Frankly, your Curmudgeon doesn't want to know. Rather, he'd like to grapple with the attitude expressed in those documents.
Note the singular: attitude. For there is only one, perhaps the most maritally destructive attitude ever to manifest itself:
To marry is to enter into a contractual bond. For most of human history, that bond mandated that each of the contracting parties subordinate his personal priorities to those of his family: his spouse, and whatever children they might produce. This was particularly significant as regards the husband, who was obligated to assume whatever risks and hardships were required to protect and provide for his wife and children, and who was forbidden to seek other sex partners regardless of his satisfaction or lack thereof with his marital life. To default on those terms was to expose oneself to social odium and legal hazard.
Until quite recently, the notion that a married adult might demand to be released from his marriage on the grounds of "irreconcilable differences" would have been laughed out of the Solar System. Granted, much has changed in recent years, but despite the new fragility of the marital state, the rationale for requiring the permission of a judge to dissolve the contract remains as it was: to enter into a marriage was to assume certain obligations, and one may not simply renege on freely assumed obligations simply because it suits him.
Given recent trends toward the destigmatization of non-marital relationships, one might reasonably think that the argument for treating marriage seriously, and not to be dissolved for light and transient causes, would be stronger than ever. Of course, this has not been observably the case. Rather, a marriage is regarded as an easily entered, easily exited arrangement, without attendant obligations to which one must be faithful.
Marriage has come to be regarded as a form of recreation: "playing house" for adults.
To him who's recreating rather than answering to a set of responsibilities, obviously what matters most is what he can get out of it. He need put no thought to any other consideration. When it stops being fun, he ceases to do it.
To him who's contemplating a form of recreation, it will naturally occur to him to assess what he can get out of it before he takes it up. If certain preliminary arrangements are likely to make it more fun than it would otherwise be, he'll be inclined toward them. The "marriage contracts" linked near the top of this essay are examples of the sort of thinking this produces.
It is your Curmudgeon's contention that the attitude he's described, and the behavior that flows from it, together account for the failure of most marriages that fail. A prospective spouse who views the institution and the other party entering into it as mere adjuncts to his personal pleasure and comfort is highly unlikely to commit himself to it in any significant way. His marriage and his life with his spouse and children will be little more than a diversion from his workday. When it ceases to please or starts to chafe, he'll discard it with an air of righteous displeasure.
Yet endless studies and opinion surveys indicate unambiguously that marriages in which the spouses do regard themselves as committed, and do consider themselves obligated to one another and their children, are the happiest and longest-lasting by category. The spouses live longer, prosper better, enjoy one another's bodies and company more, and have better relations with their children, both long- and short-term. There could be no greater irony than this.
Only willfulness could avoid the conclusion that significant marital commitment, including a conscious pledge by each spouse to fulfill his traditional marital obligations, is the linchpin of marital success in every dimension. Not only is the reasoning above too simple to require any depth of analysis; the examples of contrary notions, available from everyday life, are uniformly and stunningly tragic.
Why, then, does the "me-centered" approach to marriage persist? Oughtn't such persons to be breeding themselves into extinction?
Possibly they are. Among other data, it appears that persons with a traditional view of marriage are producing more progeny than persons without that view. Certainly their marriages are lasting longer, which gives them a better chance to pass their attitudes on to others. They prefer one another's company, which reinforces their convictions. They tend to frown on abortion as well as on frivolous divorce. They also exhibit greater geographical stability than the easily divorced: they move less often, and when they do move, they tend not to move as far.
But as with many other constellations of conviction and behavior that yield negative returns for the practitioner, there exist "safe" enclaves within which his ways are the ones prevalent. As long as such enclaves exist -- and we may take it as assured that they always will -- those who view marriage as a matter of personal fulfillment and otherwise of no great import will have somewhere to flourish. It's on all fours with the dominance of our universities by socialists and communists: in that demesne, one can espouse wildly counterfactual notions, incapable of being sustained in the outside world, with no fear of the consequences.
Your Curmudgeon will now yield to his sappier impulses and discourse for a bit on how to make a marriage happy.
We must begin with some assumptions about the marriage and the persons in it:
- There was no defect to the marriage; both spouses knew what they were getting into.
- Neither spouse was coerced into it.
- Neither is mentally ill or criminally inclined.
- Neither is shiftless.
Let's also imagine that there's some love there: if the spouses don't currently treat one another's happiness as a high priority, they want to do so and know that they ought to do so, even if they fail at it in practice.
What could be more promising? Each should resolve to treat the other as he knows the other would like to be treated. On those occasions when he fails of this standard, he should own up, apologize, and strive to do better in the future.
No, he doesn't always have to rub her feet. No, she doesn't always have to fetch him a cold one. But when it's plain that she'd like her feet rubbed, rub them! When it's plain that he's stretched out for the afternoon and has no energy for anything but the idiot box, bring him a beer and a bowl of chips! Take pleasure in your ability to please your beloved.
Try also to relieve your spouse's discomforts, and (of course) not to inflict discomfort upon him. Has he just come home from a day's work, looking as if he's been knocked down by a dog and run over by a truck? Don't demand anything more of him. Does she look as if she's begun to see the arguments for infanticide? Get between her and the kids and create a buffer for her. Has he been putting off some difficult or dirty chore so regularly that it's clear he just can't face it? Hire it done, without making a fuss.
Your Curmudgeon has said it before: Love isn't just something you feel; it's also something you do. That's what love does: it brings pleasure and comfort, dispels anxiety and fatigue, and creates peace.
Nothing else that simple could possibly earn as great a reward. Nothing else that straightforward has ever required explanation.
If you haven't been living by these precepts -- if your marriage has begun to strike you as a ball-and-chain rather than as a living, growing thing -- get started on it this very minute. If she's nearby, go to her; if he's far away, call him.
There is no guarantee that either of you will live to see the sunrise.
The "marriage contracts" linked above struck nearly everyone who saw them as somewhere between ludicrous and horrific. That's good; it means we're mostly pretty sane about relations between husband and wife. But there's a lot of marital unhappiness about, even so. The overwhelmingly greater portion of that malaise is brought about by "me-centered" approaches to marriage that are fundamentally congruent with those absurd tracts. It is entirely unnecessary. With the exception of those marriages contracted by persons too damaged or immature to have married anyone, unhappy marriages can all be improved, just by an honest effort to do love as well as to feel it.
Improved; not perfected. If he tends to abdicate his responsibilities as a disciplinarian, show him how it's done, and then encourage him to involve himself. It's likely he's merely nervous around the kids and uncertain how to proceed. If she's a spendthrift, unable to control her shopping impulse, limit her access to cash and credit. Given the multiplicity of inducements to buy that surround us all, sometimes nothing else will work. If he's absolutely fascinated by some diversion that leaves you cold, whether it be fishing, monster truck shows, or tossing the caybor, let it go. He has (or can acquire) other friends with whom to enjoy those things. And above all, if she's repelled by some bedroom practice that really turns you on, don't try to nag her into it. That's morally indistinguishable from rape; it cannot be harmonized with love.
Even in this most ancient and intimate of relations, it comes down to doing as you would be done by, to the best of your ability. But then, doesn't it always?
Comments
Nicely put. Love is no different from prayer in that respect, you don’t set aside time to love someone more than you should set aside time to pray; love and prayer are shown in the way you live, every moment of every day.
Posted by og on 03/04/2006 at 12:36 PMBravo! This advice alone would make any marriage much, much better. The first step is often the hardest when relations have cooled.
Each spouse believes the other should be the one to start the doing of love. Once off on the journey, however, everyone gets their feet rubbed. Most of the time.
Posted by Lana on 03/04/2006 at 05:39 PMinspiring words.
all new couples should hear them.
all old couples should hear them.
- Paul
Posted by on 03/04/2006 at 11:47 PMFor the most part I agree, however, I do have to take pause and say that I hope you’re not excluding the notion of prenuptial agreements entirely.
To be cruelly blunt, a big part of the reason marriage is getting skunked lately is the fact that, the way the divorce courts are run, the man is basically throwing away his rights, his self esteem and even his life by taking a marriage vow. As it stands now, a woman can CHEAT on her husband repeatedly, file for divorce, and be all but guaranteed to take everything from him--- his home, his car, his kids-- and gets first whack at every paycheck he makes from then on till he DIES.
I’ve SEEN this.(Life as a preacher’s kid gives you a really good look at life’s underbelly, believe me.) Men who have sacrificed everything for their wives, only to have the ice-blooded harlot carve his heart out on a whim… then come back to him at every opportunity to suck the blood from the corpse.
Without a legally binding prenup, asking a man to marry is like asking him to stick his manhood in a meat grinder.... and giving the handle to the blushing bride.
Posted by RHJunior on 03/05/2006 at 02:35 AMWell, RH, among the sad developments of marital jurisprudence is this one: Judges consider any prenuptial agreement, however drawn or worded, to be binding only if the judge says so.
I certainly understand the motivations behind a pre-nup. (I lost quite a bit in my own divorce!) But if the divorce court is empowered to dismiss it a posteriori on its own judgment, one cannot repose confidence in it. Given that, he who wants to insure against the dissolution of his marriage is forced to hide assets from his spouse—a felony in most states.
Ultimately, it comes down to character. Can you trust the character of your spouse-to-be? There is no substitute for character, and there is no rule about where you’ll find it. This ought to be uppermost in the mind of anyone contemplating matrimory...not just in our time, but in all times.
I like your cartoons, by the way.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/05/2006 at 06:58 AMI have been married to my bishert ( in the jewish mystical sense all souls are created in pairs and to find yours is the greatest possible good fortune)for 29 beautiful years.
My parents were married for 56 years and my sisters 25 and 32 years.The greatest blessing that a marriage can enjoy is “shalom ha-baiyis” (peace in your house). How does one acquire this? By the discipline and patience of good habits.
The first good habit is the submit to the marriage. That is to a thing bigger than you or your spouse alone. As in worship the habit must be built. This takes from one to three years. Habits require thought and practice. Most of the divorces I have seen are caused by envy, greed, and spite. To overcome our animal nature (selfish) and to fulfil the promise of the revelation of Sinai requires that we elevate the mundane to the higher spiritual levels.Dogs eat, sleep, fornicate, and defecate, so do humans. So what is the difference between a person and a dog? We elevate the mundane and give meanings greater than the physical
act. You cannot take from your marital “bank account” if you have never made any deposits. Those deposits are: generous acts of loving kindness on a regular basis, consideration of the needs of your spouse and your marriage, and above all patience.
After a number of years the “compound interest” of your marriage will produce a joy that is so precious as to be almost beyond description.
Bless you all and may you enjoy “peace in your house”.Posted by on 03/05/2006 at 11:53 AMThank you for a wonderful essay. You must be channeling St. Francis of Assisi, who said “Work is love made visible.” Not through words or pricey symbols do we honor Him who made us, but by loving others as He does. No conditions, no demands, no timelines, no accounts kept.
People who try it, like it. And have strong happy marriages, families, and lives; with or without “self-fulfillment.”
Posted by AskMom on 03/07/2006 at 07:10 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
