While sloshing Pine-Sol around the bathroom and listening to old country, I hear an old good one:
“You’ve got to
kiss an angel good morning
and let her know you think about her when you’re gone.
Kiss an angel good morning
and love her like the devil when you get back home.”
Gentlemen, if you want to try it and report back here in comments, please do.
Categories: Marriage
Many people today think marriage is a 50/50 proposition. It is not. It is 100/100. If you’re not willing to give 100, I’d advise against marriage. Also, many people think marriage is a contract, an exchange of duties. You do this and I do that, and when you break the contract, it is null and void. In fact, marriage is a mutual covenant. The important difference is that in a covenant, you promise to do X independent of what the other person does. And the person who breaks the covenant is you, because it is your promise to yourself to do what you say you’ll do. We’ve strayed far, far, far, from that. And presto! nearly half the new marriages don’t work out. Go figure. . .
@Terbreugghen says “many people think marriage is a contract”
And that’s one of the myths out there…
As was written in the Supreme Court, Maynard v Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) (“[Marriage] partakes more of the character of an institution regulated and controlled by public authority, upon principles of public policy, for the BENEFIT of the community”)
Private contracts are not subsidized by the government. That’s between two parties only. Marriage has a 3rd party (which is the government) who subsidizes it through various benefits and tax deductions. Children are a benefit to society but are expensive to raise; hence, the marriage perks.
Sounds like good advice to me!
I agree, Diane M.: Elizabeth’s advice (via Charlie Pride) about being appreciative and showing that appreciation is good advice. This, however:
is terrible advice. Giving and giving and receiving nothing in return except being taken for granted (at best!) is not a recipe for a healthy marriage or a healthy life. Mutuality, reciprocity and communication are essential elements for a healthy marriage. Continuing to stay in a marriage independent of what the other person does is damaging to one’s physical and mental health. We need to get rid of the myth that marriage is like “The Giving Tree”.
La Lubu you and I often don’t agree but you hit that one out of the park with your reference to “The Giving Tree”. I cried at the end when I read it. But ultimately the boy who takes everything the tree has and never reciprocates ends up with nothing. And that is what usually happens to people who take everything and give nothing in return.
You’re right. But in the meantime, they blow through a lot of people, leaving a lot of “stumps” in their wake. *smile*
(It is not. It is 100/100. )
What a delightfully modern idea.
(Maynard v Hill)
But in accepting that the territorial legislature could grant a divorce by statute you pretty much void DOMA.
That’s interesting stuff about the 100/100 covenant, Terbreugghen. I agree the reason so many marriages end in bitterness is because of the 50/50 contract attitude so well described by La Luba and Hello, which some men probably have also, and which makes marriage miserable and pointless, like it never arrives, it never happened, final approval is always still pending, contingent on fulfilling the next task.
I can actually see both sides on this one, La Lubu. While I do think this is terrible advice to impose on other people, it is helpful for me in thinking about my own marriage. In other words, if both people in a marriage are following this advice for themselves, it works out pretty well. In other other words, it is good subjective advice but bad objective advice.
A few more details on what I mean:
On the one hand, I don’t think we should say to someone who is being abused or mistreated by their spouse that their suffering doesn’t matter and that they should just concentrate on their own actions.
On the other hand, as someone hearing this advice, it reminds me that even if my spouse is in a bad mood, that doesn’t give me a right to be in a bad mood back.
Also (again, speaking from the perspective of a subject hearing this advice, not as a judge of society), it is helpful to remember that I can’t change the other person, but I can change myself.
Maybe what I’m saying is that this advice works really well in relationships where both partners are trying their hardest to love the other person.
A contractual approach to marriage or relationships doesn’t work, at least not forever.
However, I believe that the reason we got into the contractual approach was that the previous approach was for women to give more than men. That didn’t work either.
If I were advising someone on what approach to use, I would vary my advice depending on the people and situation. So while I would generally be against a contractual approach, for some people, it would be a necessary improvement to an imbalanced relationship. For others, it might be a way to get to a place where they could trust someone enough to try another approach.
And I guess I would want to see something added to a statement about giving that spelled out when you should stop giving and get the hell away from the guy. (Think of a young woman who agrees to leave her parents and live in a trailer in another state and not have contact with other people, etc.)
I think the way I would put it, if I had to come up with one principle, would be you have to give 100%, but you also have to make sure you are getting what you need and that includes telling the other person what that is.
@LaLuba – And what about arranged marriages? How can a couple love each other when they haven’t even met? Do you still insist they must give 100% to the arranged marriage?
@zztstenglish: you must have me confused with someone else. I think the “100%” is an empty, meaningless platitude. We’ve got enough empty platitudes, none of which are helpful; I think if we’re going to give marital advice it might as well be substantive even if it doesn’t lend itself to catchy soundbites.
@LaLubu – Hmm….I think I misread your post. So, nevermind…
Sorry, didn’t have my morning coffee
Discussion appreciated. Especially like the subjective vs. objective point of view, thanks to Manny for trying to rescue the point. I agree that there are reasons to leave an abusive marriage, notably “the three A’s”. . abuse, adultery, and addiction. But those reasons seem to me to be indications that the other person wasn’t in a marriage to begin with, or wasn’t capable of marriage.
Diane M has correctly pointed to the need for an “out.” My only objection is the assumption that the woman has to get away from the guy. Lots of times its the other way around.
And agreed about “The Giving Tree” as an example NOT to follow. Personally I reacted badly the first time I ran into it, and haven’t changed my view. Seems like the worst of a radical altruism gone horribly wrong. I think marriage should be 100/100, and it is true that the only thing you can control is your 100. But I also think we should be EXTRA careful that the person we choose to procreate with is also “all in,” and is capable and committed to her 100. I’m not sure our culture even values that level of commitment anymore. We don’t seem to be training young people to be ashamed that they’re not carrying their part of the load.
And as to deciding whether someone else is giving their 100, not sure how you’d measure as it would seem to vary widely as abilities changed over a lifetime. That’s why I suggested that our 100 is most important. But hell, no, I’d never stay in a marriage in which I was doing all the giving and what I was getting back was abusive, and I don’t think anyone else should either. But I also think people don’t change, that the guy who abuses the waiter for the fun of it is probably going to turn that on you sooner or later, and you might run the other way when you see it. but we don’t. We “think we can change her.” We have all these foolish assumptions that lead us to make deep mistakes. I’m very much in favor of clarity, honesty, and integrity BEFORE commitment, not crying about it after the vows are made. We very much need to rid ourselves of our romantic views of this very practical institution.