« Previous | Home | Next »

For Bitter Or For Worse

Since I was old enough to date I’ve been practicing serial monogamy and loving it. The excitement is always high, and I never have to experience the boredom of the old shoe. I’m 32 now, and wondering how long I can realistically keep this up. What’s your take on serial monogamy? Have I ruined my chances of ever being happy with just one man forever?

--Worried

“Being happy with just one man forever” sounds great in concept, but in practice, it often plays out like standing in the one line that doesn’t move at Customs.

Yet, going from relationship to relationship -- having a ball instead of a ball and chain -- is frowned upon…even, a little bit, by you. Perhaps, deep down, you buy into the Puritan Work Ethic approach to relationships: the idea that a “real” adult relationship means spending a lifetime slaving away in the hot fields of couples counseling, and trying everything from tantric yoga to Kama Sutra Pilates to relocate that lost spark. This romantic hardship worship --- the assumption that you’re a better person if you tough it out -- should remind you of lectures you must’ve gotten as a girl: “You know, young lady, Grandpa crawled on his hands and knees over 10 miles of broken glass to get to school every day!” “Gee, thanks, Gramps, good to know, but there’s my bus.”

People don’t necessarily stay together because they’re happy, but maybe because they promised they would or the priest says they should. Or, maybe because breaking up would just kill Great Aunt Mavis, or because it’s too embarrassing to admit failure, or, more admirably, because they pumped out a bunch of kids. It’s humiliating enough being a teen just starting to date without pulling up in your driveway with some guy you’re madly in crush with, and -- yikes! -- there’s your mom making out in the parked car next to you.

But, what will become of you if you don’t lock in a man like an interest rate? Who will change the rubber sheet on your bed and put tennis balls on the bottom of your walker? This is an understandable concern, but maybe you could just put a few bucks aside for that, as it seems kind of insulting to get together with somebody now as a means of saving big on elder-care. Beyond the need for good nursing, maybe you fear being all alone in your twilight years (or, worse yet, dying alone and being turned into a Purina substitute by your 26 cats). The truth is, according to studies referenced in Bella DePaulo’s terrific book Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After, women who’ve never been married have some of the strongest friendships and sense of community in their lives, and are the least likely to feel lonely when they’re old bags.

Assuming your friendships aren’t as fleeting as your relationships, and serial monogamy isn’t an excuse to avoid fixing something in your psychology that’s broken, what’s the problem? Your current approach actually seems pretty wise -- not planning in advance how long your relationships will last but being honest about how long they actually do. Until you start longing for something longterm, why not have the love that works for you instead of the love that’s supposed to work for you? Despite all the people who’ll ask how long you’ve been with somebody, not how happy you are, the real tragedy isn’t the relationship that ends after a few years, but the relationship that’s allowed to drag on like the ballet (forever) or a bad play (about 10 minutes longer than the ballet).

Posted by aalkon at June 20, 2007 5:41 AM

Comments

"I've been doing 'X' and loving it, so when should I stop?" Well, quit thinking you have to! Great advice, Amy - one of your best columns yet.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 20, 2007 6:56 AM

Thanks so much...I love challenging assumptions like these.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 7:23 AM

"..not planning in advance how long your relationships will last but being honest about how long they actually do."

I couldn't agree more. Yes, let's be honest and not to fool ourselves any longer. Considering that the average adult American female has virtually no incentive legally, socially, or morally today in regards to making a relationship of any kind work, why even bother trying to make a marriage work? It's like ice skating uphill. Becuase of no-fault divorce, completely lopsided expectations all on the side of the man, with no rights and all the responsibilities placed upon him, women today will cut and run at the least little bump in the road. So why even bother? Besides, women now are easier than ever- buy em a couple of drinks and you're in like Flynn.

Posted by: daniel at June 20, 2007 10:14 AM

Daniel,

Bitter much? Yikes!

Posted by: Renee at June 20, 2007 10:27 AM

daniel: The metaphor needs some fine tuning. It seems like ice skating uphill would work just fine if the need ever arose. Rollerblading uphill presents no special case with regard to the laws of physics; it’s just harder (and totally blasts your glutes.)

Posted by: martin at June 20, 2007 10:36 AM

Daniel, I can't figure out if you're complaining or not. Are you saying it's a bad thing women will put out after a couple of drinks and then leave in the morning? Or a good thing? Men have been looking for sex without commitment since the earth cooled, and now that women don't need a man to pay our bills, a lot of us are saying, 'Sounds good to us, too!' And now you gripe. Sheesh. Can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 20, 2007 10:41 AM

The metaphor needs some fine tuning"
oh wait, that's a simile, not a metaphor. Apologies to all.

Posted by: martin at June 20, 2007 10:42 AM

Daniel, you miss the point (perhaps because you're seething too hard to see it). Not everybody has to live according to the forever standard. Some of us have the luxury of being able to have relationships as long as they last. There isn't a lack of morality in that. There is, in fact, honesty in that, and a respect for life.

In my relationship, the only expectations placed on my boyfriend are pretty reasonable, given what I've experienced these past five years of being with him: He'll do what he says he'll do (he's that kind of guy), he'll be wise, he'll impress me with his thinking, and he'll make me laugh (he always does).

He's the best person I know, and I can't imagine being without him. That said, if we start boring each other, and we're no longer better together than we are alone, we'll split up. We'd somehow be more "moral" if we stuck together under those circumstances? Right.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 10:42 AM

"Daniel, you miss the point (perhaps because you're seething too hard to see it)."

Whoa! Back off there, Nelly! Who said anything about being angry? Sounds like you're doing a little 'projection' there to me. You couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm LOVING life because I don't have any obligation of any kind in today's society to have to marry a woman and put up with her psycho crap on a daily basis in order to get laid! Sounds like YOUR the one seething because I'm saying that. What's the problem? What's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? What's your problem? Is that the putrid rot of hypocrisy I smell?

Posted by: daniel at June 20, 2007 11:13 AM

As long as adults are honest with their expectations, you’d think people could just get along and have a good time. The problems arise when those oh so modern attitudes suddenly slide back into Victorian costume when real life barges into the picture. Popular culture still holds that relationships are the property of the woman and she is entitled to get what she wants from it (by lying if necessary) while a man is considered lucky to have her company. Family law is still firmly on the side of women regarding child custody and division of property. And so many of these discussions pretend that jealousy was informed it was no longer in fashion and packed its bags. Most people are sickened by the thought of their “snugglypookums” riding the sweat couch with someone else. All concerns for responsible parenting and division of joint assets and coupling memes aside, that primitive aversion to sharing your sweetie’s goodies is always going to get in the way of the freewheeling knocking of boots.

Posted by: martin at June 20, 2007 11:22 AM

daniel, it was good until this part:

"Becuase of no-fault divorce, completely lopsided expectations all on the side of the man, with no rights and all the responsibilities placed upon him, women today will cut and run at the least little bump in the road. So why even bother? Besides, women now are easier than ever- buy em a couple of drinks and you're in like Flynn."

This is what women are thinking is bitter, and I'm paraphrasing what you said: Men have no rights, men have all the responsibilities, women don't commit to anything, women are sluts. Does that sum it up?

Posted by: Chrissy at June 20, 2007 11:52 AM

Jeez, Daniel, maybe we think you're bitter because you SOUND bitter. Complaining about all the "lopsided expectations all on the side of the man, with no rights and all the responsibilities placed upon him," women cutting and running at every little bump in the road, women and their daily "psycho crap," I'm beginning to wonder. Is your name really Jeff?

Martin, I completely agree with you about jealousy issues, but what we're talking about here is serial monogamy - not screwing around on your significant other. This assumes you end one relationship before beginning the next one.

Hey, no one really enjoys going through a break-up. But if people stop beating themselves up with the expectation that they have to find someone to be with "forever," it really takes a lot of pressure off. I can say this, because I have no desire whatsoever to have kids, so there is no "biological clock" to worry about. I'm 37 and still single, and I've dated lots of people. Obviously this means I've gone through lots of break-ups, too. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM was ever the end of the freakin' world. The next one, if it happens, won't be the end of the world either. And in the meantime, I might just have a really nice time getting to know someone.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 20, 2007 12:01 PM

You couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm LOVING life because I don't have any obligation of any kind in today's society to have to marry a woman and put up with her psycho crap on a daily basis in order to get laid!

Something tells me you don't get laid an awful lot.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 12:10 PM

P.S. I guess this escaped you, but I don't believe in marriage.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 12:11 PM

daniel, it was good until this part:

"Becuase of no-fault divorce..."

Well, of course you think that's 'not good' because it applies to you!

"This is what women are thinking is bitter, and I'm paraphrasing what you said:"

"Jeez, Daniel, maybe we think you're bitter because you SOUND bitter."

Who cares what women think? The problems are with them! (YOU)

Posted by: daniel at June 20, 2007 12:24 PM

"Something tells me you don't get laid an awful lot."

This 'observation' tells me you're not even half as smart as you think you are. You're more like a 'Legend In Your Own Mind.'

Posted by: daniel at June 20, 2007 12:28 PM

Point taken P.J. but keep in mind that serial monogamy is a comedic term that points out the inherent contradiction between what people expect and what they really want. In an atmosphere of perfect trust and perfect self-confidence, all would be fine but not everyone lives there. It would be hard for some people to relax and have fun in a relationship if they couldn't get the fear of potential humiliation out of their mind. The need for formal committment is rooted in insecurity but then so is the need for two forms of ID when you take a check (back when people still took checks I mean.)

What society calls a committed relationship means one where both people are wearing shackles of somekind to keep them around in times of temptation or frustration. I guess the perfect relationship would be the one that started out with two people not making plans past next weekend and waking up in each other's arms one morning and realizing they'd been together for 50 years and not regretting a minute of it.

Posted by: martin at June 20, 2007 12:33 PM

Yep, it's Jeff. And this week's column was such a good one. Amy, can you boot this troll before he pollutes yet another otherwise interesting discussion? Aside from spewing incoherent word salads of vitriol and women-bashing, he contributes nothing in the way of dialogue. It's not so much banning another point of view, it's more a matter of someone who HAS no point of view and just sprays graffiti.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 20, 2007 12:33 PM

"It's not so much banning another point of view, it's more a matter of someone who HAS no point of view and just sprays graffiti."

Get a clue dykey, you're the one that started attacking me. I didn't attack anyone on here. So therefore YOU'RE the one that needs to get lost. Go have some quiet time with all your unemployed, high school dropout loser friends. Scat, little germ, adults are having a conversation here.

Posted by: daniel at June 20, 2007 12:50 PM

Well, I'm smart enough to look at my MT software, and to find out you're actually Jeff. (Good thinking, Pirate Jo.

And then you were also "Martin" posting on "Diddle He Or Didn't He."

Hello, Gaping Wound!

You've got a good point, Pirate Jo. Since he won't leave when asked. What kind of guy sticks around where he's been told he isn't wanted, and destroys what would otherwise be intelligent discussion? Pathetic.

Also, if you compare his brags and contentions in each one (I don't have time at the moment, on deadline) I'm guessing you'll find glaring inconsistencies in the stories of his Great Life.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 12:52 PM

"And then you were also "Martin" posting on "Diddle He Or Didn't He." "

Please note: I'm a different martin, the non-poo flinging one.

Posted by: martin at June 20, 2007 1:03 PM

Daniel/aka Jeff/aka Martin writes (in a comment directly above my 12:52 remark that may get deleted, because I'm going to try to ban him using that comment, so I'll post it below):

DANIEL: "It's not so much banning another point of view, it's more a matter of someone who HAS no point of view and just sprays graffiti." Get a clue dykey, you're the one that started attacking me. I didn't attack anyone on here. So therefore YOU'RE the one that needs to get lost. Go have some quiet time with all your unemployed, high school dropout loser friends. Scat, little germ, adults are having a conversation here.

The adult conversation is what we have when you aren't around. "Dykey"? You come off like a vicious eighth grade girl. We're sorry some woman walked all over you with her high heels, but take a little personal responsibility for choosing her. And be gone.

I've opened an MT job ticket in case I don't have the plugin to ban this uncivilized cur, but I'm on it.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 1:07 PM

Sorry, Martin...we know. Working on banning poo-Martin-Jeff-Daniel-weenie now.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 1:08 PM

Banning isn't working. I'll wait until MT answers my job ticket. Boyfriend may need to install special anti-asshole software.

Jeff, are you really that pathetic that you're told you aren't wanted and you stick around anyway? I mean, get some self-esteem, man.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 1:10 PM

"Well, I'm smart enough to look at my MT software, and to find out you're actually Jeff."

Uh.. OK.. are you the 'Advise Goddess' or the 'Stalker Goddess?'

Posted by: daniel at June 20, 2007 1:12 PM

"I guess the perfect relationship would be the one that started out with two people not making plans past next weekend and waking up in each other's arms one morning and realizing they'd been together for 50 years and not regretting a minute of it."

Martin, I think you may be on to something. You made some other good points, too, about insecurity and such. Maybe it's just a part of human nature that when you begin to value something you also start to fear losing it. But what's the alternative? Never to have it in the first place? Does anyone ever fear death so much they wish they'd never been born?

We've all gone through crappy break-ups before, ones that took forever to get past, and we don't want to repeat the experience. That's always the trick, it seems - if you don't risk something of yourself, you don't get hurt. But in that case you haven't really allowed yourself to give a crap about the other person in the first place, in which case what's even the point? Being with someone you don't really give a crap about isn't much fun.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 20, 2007 1:53 PM

Pirate Joe wrote:
"...if people stop beating themselves up with the expectation that they have to find someone to be with "forever," it really takes a lot of pressure off."
It's true! One day I just told myself, "You know, I don't think I really want to get married." And really, it gave me a much more manageable perspective on my relationships. (I don't really want kids either, so I guess this is easy for me to say...if you want kids, I can understand why you might want to be married.)

A lot of people are so obsessed with "forever" that dating becomes more of an audition process("sorry, sweetie, the sex is great, we have wonderful conversations, and I enjoy my time with you, but, honestly, I'm looking for someone a little more...oh...[insert religion here] for the role of wifey/hubby. NEXT!")

Oh, and can't everyone just agree to stop using this term "failed relationships?" As in, "after several failed relationships that only lasted a year or two each, I'm looking for formal commitment. For cryin' out loud. Did you enjoy your time w/ this person? Did they teach you some new things about yourself/the world? Were they interesting/did they make you more interesting? Did you have some good sex? Did your break-up NOT involve one of you in a body bag?

Then how on earth was this a "failed relationship?" That's like saying, well, my major is English so every single one of those Biology classes that I enjoyed/got good marks in/learned something new from was a big fat waste of time.

Posted by: sofar at June 20, 2007 1:58 PM

Way to really bring it Daniel/Jeff/Martin/PooFlingingMonkey "Stalker Goddess"? Seriously? That's a pathetic insult. You should be so lucky as to be stalked by someone as brilliant as Amy!

Posted by: Shinobi at June 20, 2007 2:01 PM

"Well, I'm smart enough to look at my MT software, and to find out you're actually Jeff." Uh.. OK.. are you the 'Advise Goddess' or the 'Stalker Goddess?'

Look, I realize you consider yourself highly intelligent, but are actually butt-dumb, so let me explain. Looking at my MT data to discover that you're a duplicitous jerk is not stalking. Stalking is repeated unwanted contact with a person after you've been asked to leave that person alone. Exactly what you're doing here.

Jeff/Daniel/whatever. Leave. You are not wanted here. Your comments are abusive and stupid, and cause intelligent people who would otherwise be having an interesting discussion to deal with your repeated illogical remarks and hostilities...thus drawing down the level of conversation on my site.

This is my site, I pay to maintain it. You are not welcome here.

Let me make myself perfectly clear: You are not wanted here. Go away.

Note to everybody else: The MT technician just responded. In lieu of Jeff/Daniel/whatever having a healthy enough psychology to leave when it's clear he's not wanted, I'm finding out what plug-in I need to ban his weenie ass.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 2:13 PM

Please ignore the troll. His only purpose is to
get a rise out of you.

His comments are substantively insincere.

They are manufactured for their vitriol and nothing else.

Posted by: peter at June 20, 2007 2:31 PM

"Stalking is repeated unwanted contact with a person after you've been asked to leave that person alone. Exactly what you're doing here."

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source stalk 2 (stôk) Pronunciation Key
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks

v. intr.

1. to track prey or quarry.

2. to pursue by tracking stealthily.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? But don't worry, I'll be going now because you are really creeping me out- bye, weirdo!



Posted by: daniel at June 20, 2007 3:07 PM

We all know what stalking is.

Thanks to whatever in your sick psychology keeps you coming back here after you've been repeatedly asked to leave, I've spend considerable time writing up Movable Type job tickets today, and my boyfriend will have to take the time to install IP banning software...specifically to ban you.

Please, get a therapist and let that person read what you wrote here. You're one sick fuck and I feel sorry for anybody and everybody you encounter.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 3:28 PM

Amy - Post his IP address here. Then we can figure out his general whereabouts, and get his ISP to cut him off.

Either that, or pay him a visit in person.

With poo, if necessary.

As far as LW goes, if she doesn't want a family, then there's no real reason to "settle down", is there? Otherwise, she's likely to walk away and leave her four-year-old with her (now ex) husband because she's bored.

Not everyone is cut out for the settle-down-with-one-person lifestyle. Society, however, bashes us over the head with it until we relent, and make ourselves miserable for the purposes of keeping up appearances.

And I, for one, resent it.

Posted by: brian at June 20, 2007 4:00 PM

He's in the Austin, Texas, area.

Hmm, his behavior here does qualify as stalking -- or, more specifically, cyberstalking...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking

I just wrote my poor boyfriend, who has enough on his plate, and asked him to install the plug-in. I'm not sure how complicated that is. But, if the guy posts here again, I will complain to his IP and ask them to take action against him.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 20, 2007 4:19 PM

MT restrict plugin isnt too complicated to install. Though you could do the same at the web server side as well.

Good advice. Disappointing public comments.

Posted by: Michael at June 20, 2007 5:08 PM

Can everyone please agree to stop responding to this guy?! He's not hijaking the comments, you guys are totally giving them to him! Ignore the guy, already! Another post, another round of everybody versus this guy. If he was a little bit interesting, I'd root for him at this point.

Posted by: Allison at June 20, 2007 7:37 PM

Here is an "exploded short novel" by Jonathan Wallace

http://www.spectacle.org/kazoo/some.html

The story revolves around a group of characters whose needs and expectations about relationships and monogamy evolve over their adult lives.

Beyond being relevant to the topic at hand, it's a great read.

Enjoy

Posted by: martin at June 20, 2007 7:47 PM

Amy,

Greetings from Vancouver. I agree with the general theme of your column. Furthermore, everything you said applies to single men as well.

It does get rather repetitive to have married friends constantly say, "You seem like such a great guy (or gal). Don't worry, there's someone out there for you." But too often, behind the words I often wonder if there's a "I wonder what's wrong with him/her" going on too.

The caveat to my agreement with what you've written is that much too often I can see within just a few minutes why a man or woman is still single or has a string of divorces behind them. Some may say that I'm a hypocrite to say such a thing because I'm single as well, but there is a distinct difference.

One thing is for sure though: What's much worse than being single and lonely [at times] is to be in a relationship and lonely. That's the worst type of existence of all!

Robert

Posted by: Robert W. at June 20, 2007 10:42 PM

Thanks so much, and I'm with you on that (per what I wrote above):

Assuming your friendships aren’t as fleeting as your relationships, and serial monogamy isn’t an excuse to avoid fixing something in your psychology that’s broken, what’s the problem?

Incidentally, I'm trying to get back into a Vancouver paper. Used to be in the Westender in Vancouver, and Monday Mag in Victoria, and then editors and publishers changed at each. If you're so inclined, you might drop the publisher of Westender, a note to tell him you want to read my column. (You can tell him I suggested it after you commented on my blog.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 21, 2007 12:28 AM

Oops, errant comma in there...it's late.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 21, 2007 12:29 AM

I've been married for 20 years now, and all in all, it's been a blast. There are things I have had to compromise on over the years, but nothing I've felt like I sold out over. It's an uplifting partnership and I can't think of anyone I'd rather be with. That being said, I do totally agree with Amy's response. I agree that single women have better networks. I have always been somewhat of an introvert, and having my husband to come home to every night makes it unnecessary for me to go out looking for meaningful friendships. He is my best friend and I have sadly neglected a fulfilling network because of it. I have often thought that, god forbid anything ever happen to him (I'm hoping for the "die-the-same-night-when-we're-95" scenario) that I will absolutely not go back into a marraige. Things will be more on my own terms. I think that means I'd be more selfish, but somehow that rings as a negative thing. I don't think it's negative to concentrate on ones self. After all, we were born and we will die in our own heads.

Posted by: Laurie at June 21, 2007 9:41 AM

Laurie, your post is so interesting...and I think it's so wonderful (that is, if I understand you correctly) that you're with this man because you don't want to live without HIM...not because you can't bear the thought of not being MAWWIED.

I agree, it can be hard to maintain other friendships when you have the built-in best friend thing of a long-term significant other. It can be addictive...mutual love and feelings of warmth and security supplied by your favorite person. I'm an introvert by nature too, so I get that.

Posted by: sofar at June 21, 2007 2:52 PM

I think it's very important for people to have lives and interests outside their relationship...both personally and for the good of the relationship. Thanks for your post, Laurie. Very interesting.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 21, 2007 3:07 PM

Amy I agree, and Laurie well said!

Posted by: Julie at June 21, 2007 4:14 PM

Serial monogamy was alot of fun in college. And it is annoying when you're single and people won't leave you alone about marriage. However, marriage, I think gets kind of a bad rap lately. Most married people I know are pretty happy- even the middle-aged ones. Latching onto someone out of fear of lonliness is a bad idea, sure, but really, I'm not sure serial monogamy sounds as fun at 45 as it did at 25- don't the pickins' get slim after awile? Maybe that's that attitude some of you have pointed out, of suspecting people who don't conform to the marriage standard. Sometimes I miss the single life, in theory, at least, but in actuality, it wasn't that great.

Posted by: Allison at June 21, 2007 7:56 PM

Yeah- don't the pickins' get slim after awhile. Forgot the H.

Posted by: Allison at June 21, 2007 7:58 PM

I think you're wrong about this. The happiest people I know who're old enough to know how shitty life can be are the happily-marrieds.

Posted by: Crid at June 21, 2007 11:47 PM

Serial monogamy is the way most everyone's love lives play out, whether they "believe in it" or not, whether they choose it or not.

If you want to make a kid, you do have to legally secure a "co-provider" for the kid. Otherwise, there is no reason in the world to tie anyone up in legalities. Get some self confidence and just enjoy the ride. It's mostly out of your hands anyway.

Posted by: Sandy at June 22, 2007 7:23 AM

Sandy, you just hit the nail on the head. Whether people choose to spend exhorbitant amounts of money on weddings and divorce attorneys or not, the fact is that most people proceed from one relationship to another throughout their lives.

Occasionally you find those lucky jackpot winners who manage to stay happy with the same partner "forever," and quite honestly, when they feel that this is a reflection of moral superiority on their own parts, their smugness is unsufferable. The reality for most people is that sometimes you either get bored (which sucks, because you can't help it) or the other person gets bored and/or turns into a jerk (which also sucks, because you can't help that, either), and morality has nothing to do with it. Then you wind up with a choice to make - stay with that person and be miserable for a long time, or suffer for a short time by going through a break-up, and then have a chance at being happy. If people can afford it, they usually choose splitting up.

What makes people miserable isn't the breaking-up part. Unless you are bound and determined to make yourself miserable by dwelling on it, breaking up only sucks for a little while. What makes people miserable is beating themselves up over it by feeling like failures for not "making it work." This is just silly, because you CAN'T "make it work." You can't manufacture emotion that isn't there, and you can't change another person's feelings or behavior. It's the EXPECTATION that was flawed to begin with, not a person's inability to carry out that unrealistic expectation.

Note sofar's very astute observation about how people view "failed" relationships. You could have a happy relationship for ten years, become unhappy after a while, break up, and then beat yourself up over this "failure." On the other hand, I'd say that if you were happy together for ten years and then broke up at the right time, nothing about it was a failure, but normal for the way things work in real life.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 22, 2007 7:43 AM

Pirate Joe wrote:
"Occasionally you find those lucky jackpot winners who manage to stay happy with the same partner "forever," and quite honestly, when they feel that this is a reflection of moral superiority on their own parts, their smugness is unsufferable."
Eesh. We all know "that" couple. I think Judith Martin (Miss Manners) said it best when she wrote: "Successful love creates an exaggerated feeling of worthiness." If being with someone has made you a better person, great! It becomes problematic, though, if you think it makes you a better person than everyone ELSE.

And as for what Amy said ("I think it's very important for people to have lives and interests outside their relationship...both personally and for the good of the relationship.") This couldn't be more true. I use to be one needy, clingy bitch, and it took a guy I was in love with telling me how unattractive that was to make me change. I'm now in a relationship where we literally have completely separate social existences. I have friends who don't believe he even exists, although we've been together (however informally/nonexclusively) for 3 years. He likes going to hole-in-the-wall bars with a few close buddies. I like getting dressed up and going to clubs with a pack of people that my BF cannot stand for 5 minutes without going for his gun. He's a planner...I'm a wherever-the-night-takes-me kind of girl. This separate social-spheres thing was kinda new for me, but I've found I love it--if I only get to see him a couple nights a week (and we live together!), I find I engage in fewer unattractive behaviors like whining, nagging, and impersonating cling-wrap.

Posted by: sofar at June 22, 2007 9:19 AM

Sigh. Pirate Jo, something about what you wrote ("What makes people miserable is beating themselves up over it by feeling like failures for not 'making it work.'") struck a chord with me. Thank you.

Posted by: Erin at June 22, 2007 8:33 PM

This might seem a little off track, but...

I grew up in the Wonder Years of the mid-1960s, the last decade when all the moms on the block were stay-at-homes. And to this day, I'm still really glad I got to grow up in a neighborhood where all the moms knew each other and watched out for each others' kids.

But there was a definite sense of inequity in the typical marriage. Most of the wives (and kids) were entirely dependent on the father's income, and a lot of the women (including my own mom) seemed awfully needy and unable to handle much of anything on their own. I can recall, even then, thinking that if I were ever to get married, I'd want a woman who really could handle a job, and everything else in life, just as well as a man. That kind of woman would be a true life partner, not just a ball and chain.

But most men back then really wanted families, and they knew that a life without a wife and kids was only half a life. And there are still lots of men today who still feel exactly that way and still want exactly that.

The difference today, of course, is the women. Something may have been gained in the last 30 years in terms of equity for women, but something important has been lost too. Today, we live in a society where men and women don't really need each other any more. And that just makes me really sad.

Rafe VenHoy's song has always pretty much captured they way I feel about relationships today:

"I see love-hungry people
Trying their best to survive.
While right there in their hands is a dying romance
And they're not even trying to keep it alive.

So what's the glory in living?
Doesn't anybody ever stay together anymore?
And if love never lasts forever,
Tell me, what's Forever for?"

Posted by: Fester Bestertester at June 23, 2007 8:46 AM

"Today, we live in a society where men and women don't really need each other any more."

Isn't it better to want each other than "need" each other?

Posted by: Pongidae at June 24, 2007 8:32 AM

Exactly. That's how I live.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 24, 2007 9:29 AM

"But most men back then really wanted families, and they knew that a life without a wife and kids was only half a life."

Well THAT is certainly a matter of opinion. If most men were completely honest, they would admit that a wife and kids were the two worst things that ever happened to their sex lives.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at June 25, 2007 7:25 AM

"I'd want a woman who really could handle a job, and everything else in life, just as well as a man. That kind of woman would be a true life partner..."

Women have changed in the last 30 years. They earn their own money now, so the structure of the partnerships which worked in the past is no longer valid. Men have to change now, and bring something to the partnership that women will find valuable. They can't still expect to be the 'head of the household'.

I think what women want from men now is friendship, emotional intimacy, and a great sex life. That's what I want anyways. What say the other women on here?

Posted by: Chrissy at June 25, 2007 8:28 AM

Oh, I'm with you, Chrissy. That's exactly what I didn't have with my ex husband, and what I now have with my current boyfriend, as well as equal financial responsibilities for our household and extra-curricular activities. Will it last? Who knows? But I will enjoy immensely it for as long as I have it!

Posted by: Flynne at June 25, 2007 9:26 AM

Kids. Yep, they do serious damage to the ole sex life, but they taught me that other things can be just as important.

I believe in marriage, I believe in life-long commitment... to the right person. This opinion may be jaded by the fact that I've been married for close to 14 years, and we both are still very much in love. I don't see this changing as ever even becoming an option...

The problem with most marriages that end up in divorce is that they should never have gotten married in the first place.

"Serial monogamy" (oxymoron?) Is that actually a practice, or a series of failed relationships?

Posted by: Morbideus at June 25, 2007 12:22 PM

I think we agreed already that there is no such thing as a 'failed relationship'. The only failure is staying in a relationship past its expiry date.

Posted by: Chrissy at June 26, 2007 10:51 AM

Really? I must have missed that...

Beside the point anyway. What I was pondering is: Is the concept of "Serial Monogamy" an actual practice (I'd italicize if I knew how) or something that emerges with the advent of hindsight.

I'm all for ending a relationship that has run it's course, but "serial monogamy" sounds self defeating, (Or self-fulfilling, depending on POV.)

I'm trying to find rationale where I see none.

Posted by: Morbideus at June 26, 2007 12:57 PM

I think serial monogamy is a pattern which is observed in hindsight. It seems to be the cultural norm, and unless you consciously decide to try something else, it's what people usually fall into. With it comes the inevitable 'cheating', or at least the temptation to cheat.

Posted by: Chrissy at June 26, 2007 1:08 PM

"I think serial monogamy is a pattern which is observed in hindsight."

Thank you, that makes sense. The initial post made it out as something very different. Like believeing in "temporary commitment".

Posted by: Morbideus at June 26, 2007 1:37 PM

MEIN GOTT!!

I let myself get distracted with the whole "Partnering for life/ What the fuck does Serial Monogamy Mean?" that I missed the obvious explaination:

She's only 32. It's not like time is running out on meeting "that special someone" or "time for the search for true love" has been wasted. She's got plenty of years of good lovin' to look forward to. Dollars to Dognuts it's her biological clock that's giving her a hard time.

Posted by: Morbideus at June 27, 2007 4:18 PM

I'm another happily married (seem to be a rare breed on this site). The first key, I think, is liking the person you marry. I know so many people who get married and then seem to actually dislike their spouse. Just because someone's hot and good in bed is no reason to get married. My husband is my best friend, and we talk for hours and have been happily married for 13 years, never running out of things to say to each other. Second key? Having an identity completely separate from your spouse and children. I spend one night a week with my girlfriends (I need it and deserve it) so that I never lose that network, and take a full day once a month just for me (it helps that my husband understands my need for me time). The rest of the time I'm with my husband and children, and my kids are happy because I'm happy. Living selfishly isn't a bad thing, even though the word "selfish" has a negative connotation in our society (American, I mean). If you live in a way that brings you joy, then you're better able to bring joy to others. How can I be a good mom and partner if I'm miserable? Answer: I can't!

Posted by: Angela at June 29, 2007 2:46 PM

Angela,
"I spend one night a week with my girlfriends (I need it and deserve it) so that I never lose that network, and take a full day once a month just for me (it helps that my husband understands my need for me time)."

This is all well and good, but does your husband get the same? Does he get one night a week to hang out with guy friends and one full day a month do go off on his own and do whatever he wants? Seems to me that would be really good for his mental health as well. Plus, if he really loves you, he'll come back missing you and being glad to be back.

Posted by: Fester Bestertester at July 2, 2007 4:11 PM

I finally "get it" about marriage (aka marred). It is great for some people, but not for me. I've tried it several times, but I am happier single.

Posted by: Clever07 at July 3, 2007 2:13 PM

Oh, he's *bitter.* He couldn't possibly be right.

Posted by: Brett at July 27, 2007 8:46 AM

Hm, let's see. Honesty, committment and self control. I was taught those are good qualities.

They may even be qualities that benefit those AROUND YOU. That is, OTHER PEOPLE. You know, the people in your world APART FROM YOURSELF.

Posted by: metalman at November 4, 2007 7:27 AM

Why is it a good thing to commit to a relationship that no longer is enriching the lives of those in it? Assuming there are no children, is there some virtue to this? I know those who have a belief, based in zero evidence, that there's a god, think, also based on zero evidence, that there's some great beyond, but the way I see it, we have only life on this planet and martyring yourself is anti-life and benefits no one.

Posted by: Amy Alkon [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 4, 2007 8:06 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)