What we expected from our missus when we married them, (and vice versa!)

Gary O' said:
What we expected from our missus when we married them, (and vice versa!)
Me? I was young
I expected sex and lots of it. She was younger expected even more sex
I often wonder what the 17 (or 19?) grands will be expecting
Click to expand...
Thanks for bringing things down to basics, (I'm glad she made you wait though! :) ).
 

Murrmurr said:
Doesn't matter how far back, marriage shouldn't be legislated or regulated. I suppose it made sense back when there was no separation of church and state, and the crown represented church, or whatever, and, of course, new laws have replaced old ones here and there. But still, imo, there's no justification for gov't involvement in people's relationships.
Click to expand...
The whole world (anywhere with a legislature at least), has legislated concerning people's relationships, or marriage, so there must be some case to be made for it.
In days gone by there was such a thing as "breach of promise", where jilted fiancés could seek redress in the courts for the damage they felt they'd suffered.
Then there has to be some need for marriage, if only to make a demarcation between those having made that public commitment and others.
Let's look at it another way, you may not have meant "till death we do part" when you said those words, (I'm not meaning to suggest you didn't BTW), but the future spouse did mean them let's say.

If neither party can ever be assumed to mean what they say when declaring they'll be true till the end of their lives it shouldn't be said should it!

I think you're opening up a whole can or worms here, and though I agree modern marriage looks like a doomed business, my reasoning is completely opposite to yours (unfortunately! :) ).
 
oldaunt said:
Too many men get married with the idea they get a second mommy, only with bedroom rights.
Click to expand...
My wife and I both work, until her retirement she was a paramedic in the ambulance service. That meant shift work around the clock, including weekends and public holidays. She only got two Christmas days off in thirty years, probably because she has no kids.

I got used to cooking, I managed to get quite creative actually. As for domestic chores, with both of us working and having no children we have been able to afford an ironing fairy, a home cleaning fairy and a husband & wife who are our gardening fairies.

We never argue about who will have the car, we have one each as well as our classic MG. I can fart to my heart's content in the bed, we have a bedroom apiece. The only drawback to that is we had to replace the carpet between the bedrooms. (think about it!)

Oh, nearly forgot, our lifestyle may not suit many but it's kept us together for fifty-five years.
 

grahamg said:
The whole world (anywhere with a legislature at least), has legislated concerning people's relationships, or marriage, so there must be some case to be made for it.
In days gone by there was such a thing as "breach of promise", where jilted fiancés could seek redress in the courts for the damage they felt they'd suffered.
Then there has to be some need for marriage, if only to make a demarcation between those having made that public commitment and others.
Let's look at it another way, you may not have meant "till death we do part" when you said those words, (I'm not meaning to suggest you didn't BTW), but the future spouse did mean them let's say.

If neither party can ever be assumed to mean what they say when declaring they'll be true till the end of their lives it shouldn't be said should it!

I think you're opening up a whole can or worms here, and though I agree modern marriage looks like a doomed business, my reasoning is completely opposite to yours (unfortunately! :) ).
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting marriage be abolished, I'm saying laws and gov't shouldn't be involved At All.

In some Eastern, Asian, and African countries, for example, you don't have to get a marriage license and divorce attorneys are non-existent. (some of them have atrocious child custody laws, and some treat women like livestock, but those are different issues entirely.) And in over half of those countries you don't even have to register your marital union or dissolution. Some of them get registered if a social worker from some world data organization comes around, but other than that, these couples are left alone.

That's what I'd like to see; just leave couples alone. The USA is all up in your marriage for tax collection purposes, and divorce attorneys sit back and wait to collect when you call the marriage quits. Those are the only reasons marriage laws exist....not for your safety or protection; there are separate laws for that.

Not really related to the topic, but an alarming number of men and women (mostly women) who have reason to call-off the wedding at the last-minute, don't, because it will inconvenience people, because dad paid $30 to $40K for it, because his/her best friend is catering....because we make too damn much fuss over weddings.

Michelle and I went to my uncle's house and a preacher did the officiating in my uncle's garden. If that's all there'd been to it, even that would have been a bit more than I'd prefer, but Meesh wanted a preacher, so my uncle got one. But of course, I had to buy a license first, and, after the ceremony, the preacher, me, Meesh, and our two witnesses, Uncle Johnny and cousin Craig, had to sign our contract with the government, then I had so-many days to get that to our country clerk's office so s/he could add it to a national data bank, and someone mailed us an official Marriage Certificate suitable for display.
All absolute hogwash, imo.
 
Murmurr quote (1):
"I'm not suggesting marriage be abolished, I'm saying laws and gov't shouldn't be involved At All.
In some Eastern, Asian, and African countries, for example, you don't have to get a marriage license and divorce attorneys are non-existent. (some of them have atrocious child custody laws, and some treat women like livestock, but those are different issues entirely.) And in over half of those countries you don't even have to register your marital union or dissolution. Some of them get registered if a social worker from some world data organization comes around, but other than that, these couples are left alone." (Break)

Murmurr quote (2).
"And the gov't frowns on one of us just leaving the other if we want to. They prefer we retain a lawyer first."

Again there must be flaws in your arguments, though we'll agree on simpler marriage ceremonies, if that were to become the norm (- I've left that section out of the quotes above, and sorry I dont seem to understand the multiple quote facility btw).

This line is contradictory in itself surely: "I'm not suggesting marriage be abolished, I'm saying laws and gov't shouldn't be involved At All".

If marriage becomes just something two people say they are in, and when they say they are no longer in a marriage it ends, then what is the difference between such an arrangement and girlfriends and boyfriends, (what happened to a great many of us when we were teenagers, and you were not sure if you were serious or not)?

Then the level of intrusion into our private lives by court appointed officials when child visitation is being adjudicated upon, and the expense of all that business, puts disputes during a divorce where there are no children into proportion, (where it is just property issues in the end to resolve). How can no govt. or courts be so terrible in one situation, and yet fully justified in the other?

I'm sure there are things you've not considered here, (and I'm in a rush too, and will probably think of more later! :) ).
 
grahamg said:
Below is what an expert thinks we should know about our potential partners before marrying, though I'd guess most of us dont follow such rules very strictly, (though on other threads some have suggested sensible ways of doing essentially the same thing, weighing everything up as well as can be expected before "taking the plunge"!).

As far as I can remember I guess I was a bit old fashioned in my thinking, though not going so far as to some work mates of mine who still expected their dinner on the table waiting for them when they got home from work!

I did think love should last for ever though, and however this is achieved, or possible, always thought of first before anything else, (if that makes any sense?).

Though not expecting my food on the table I do admit when my wife left I found some of the household duties a slight come down having to do them myself, (dont pillory me for that I'm just being honest).

I expected and of course wanted to start a family before this became less likely to be successful, and I cant say whether or not I expected to be loved.

My brother told his wife "if she put him first then she would get more in happiness in return", and there marriage seems to have been a great success, (whether he was right to lay out this course for her or not! :) ).

Now for the experts views on what we should all know for you to pull apart:

Question #1: What percentage of our income are we prepared to spend to purchase and maintain our home on a monthly or annual basis?

Question #2: Who is responsible for keeping our house and yard cared for and organized? Are we different in our needs for cleanliness and organization?

Question #3: How much money do we earn together? Now? In one year? In five years? Ten? Who is responsible for which portion? Now? In one year? Five? Ten?

Question #4: What is our ultimate financial goal regarding annual income, and when do we anticipate achieving it? By what means, and through what efforts?

Question #5: What are our categories of expense (rent, clothing, insurance, travel)? How much do we spend monthly, annually, in each category? How much do we want to be able to spend?

Question #6: How much time will each of us spend at work, and during what hours? Do we begin work early? Will we prefer to work into the evening?

Question #7: If one of us doesn't want to work, under what circumstances, if any, would that be okay?

Question #8: How ambitious are you? Are we comfortable with the other's level of ambition?

Question #9: Am I comfortable giving and receiving love sexually? In sex, does my partner feel my love for him or her?

Question #10: Are we satisfied with the frequency of our lovemaking? How do we cope when our desire levels are unmatched? A little? A lot? For a night? A week? A month? A year? More?

Question #11: Do we eat meals together? Which ones? Who is responsible for the food shopping? Who prepares the meals? Who cleans up afterward?

Question #12: Is each of us happy with the other's approach to health? Does one have habits or tendencies that concern the other (e.g., smoking, excessive dieting, poor diet)?

Question #13: What place does the other's family play in our family life? How often do we visit or socialize together? If we have out-of-town relatives, will we ask them to visit us for extended periods? How often?

Question #14: If we have children, what kind of relationship do we hope our parents will have with their grandchildren? How much time will they spend together?

Question #15: Will we have children? If so, when? How many? How important is having children to each of us?

Question #16: How will having a child change the way we live now? Will we want to take time off from work, or work a reduced schedule? For how long? Will we need to rethink who is responsible for housekeeping?

Question #17: Are we satisfied with the quality and quantity of friends we currently have? Would we like to be more involved socially? Are we overwhelmed socially and need to cut back on such commitments?

Question #18: What are my partner's needs for cultivating or maintaining friendships outside our relationship? Is it easy for me to support those needs, or do they bother me in any way?

Question #19: Do we share a religion? Do we belong to a church, synagogue, mosque or temple? More than one? If not, would our relationship benefit from such an affiliation?

Question #20: Does one of us have an individual spiritual practice? Is the practice and the time devoted to it acceptable to the other? Does each partner understand and respect the other's choices?
Click to expand...
It looks like the list in the first post has everything on it that marriage counselors have been mediating between spouses since there WERE marriage counselors! 😂

They’re all valid in their way. I know more than one marriage that’s come apart at the seams because of differences in religious practice, the subject of children, lovemaking frequency, lack of ambition or too much of it etc.

I also think each of these points are valid for discussion between a couple who are getting serious so that hopefully any major differences that could be disruptive or divisive are hashed out. It doesn’t mean they need to be discussed in a clinical setting or formal interview. Many if not all of them are going to come up naturally as the couple get to know each other.

In my very humble opinion, absent abuse, infidelity or other psychopathy, a KEY point that is absent from the list but is foundational to any successful relationship, is the couple’s agreement that the health and well-being of the RELATIONSHIP is primary versus the individual needs and wants, which are evaluated against the relationship as a whole.

While it’s not foolproof as a formula, it focuses the attention on what’s important, which is the health of the relationship as a whole, rather than each person wanting things to be their way or the highway.
 
My mama always said "you marry a man and take him away from his mama and YOU continue to raise him" I guess I am still raising him lol.

I just expected the same as what I give him .

I am old school so yes I had his supper for him on most days after work unless I was still working.
 
The first paragraph with the experts sounds a lot more like a business arrangement than an agreement proposal for a "love" relationship - more like historical marriages where love didn't enter into it at all
 
perplexed said:
My mama always said "you marry a man and take him away from his mama and YOU continue to raise him" I guess I am still raising him lol.
I just expected the same as what I give him .
I am old school so yes I had his supper for him on most days after work unless I was still working.
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever suggested you sound like the ideal wife?
 
Raddragn said:
The first paragraph with the experts sounds a lot more like a business arrangement than an agreement proposal for a "love" relationship - more like historical marriages where love didn't enter into it at all
Click to expand...
I thought that yes, and as previously stated I didnt do any of the sensible measures put forward, other than I knew my future wife wanted children, (as I did of course), and am sometimes surprised friends of mine didn't even manage to get an understanding of each others wishes in that regard either!
 
Ronni said:
It looks like the list in the first post has everything on it that marriage counsellors have been mediating between spouses since there WERE marriage counsellors! 😂
They’re all valid in their way. I know more than one marriage that’s come apart at the seams because of differences in religious practice, the subject of children, lovemaking frequency, lack of ambition or too much of it etc.
I also think each of these points are valid for discussion between a couple who are getting serious so that hopefully any major differences that could be disruptive or divisive are hashed out. It doesn’t mean they need to be discussed in a clinical setting or formal interview. Many if not all of them are going to come up naturally as the couple get to know each other.

In my very humble opinion, absent abuse, infidelity or other psychopathy, a KEY point that is absent from the list but is foundational to any successful relationship, is the couple’s agreement that the health and well-being of the RELATIONSHIP is primary versus the individual needs and wants, which are evaluated against the relationship as a whole.

While it’s not foolproof as a formula, it focuses the attention on what’s important, which is the health of the relationship as a whole, rather than each person wanting things to be their way or the highway.
Click to expand...
You make good points too.

When I look back at my marriage I do have to wonder what there was in common, (beyond a desire for children), and how each expected to be able to live with the other seems a mystery even to me, though you did think there was at least some love there.

Better me than I have tried and failed, so I shall not criticise myself too much, and I believe its true to say I continued to feel I loved my then ex for about two years after she chose to break up the marriage, (she chose to flatter herself I still felt that way ten years later, but by then I had "moved on" I'm very glad to say!).
 
I think marriage became a legal thing for the protection of women and children, particularly when there were very few ways for women to earn a living. By marrying a woman a man was promising to support her forever, even after she became old and relatively undesirable, and he was promising to support any children she had during the marriage until they were grown.

We can easily look around and see what happens when we skip over this legal arrangement. Single mothers raising children in poverty, having to put the children in questionable daycare so they can go out to work. Children growing up without a father's influence in the home at much higher risk to drop out of school, end up in prison (boys) or pregnant as a teen (girls.) On the men's side skipping legal marriage means very little legal control over their children.

So I'm in favor of marriage for young people who plan to have children, for older people it doesn't matter so much, and they may be legally better off staying single if they have money or property they want to leave to their own children.

I agree that weddings have got completely out of hand and it amazes me to hear young couples with children say they haven't got married because they can't afford to. All it takes is the cost of the license and a few friends.
 
Protection for women and children was never in history anywhere on this planet, except for maybe some tribal societies. Marriage was not 'invented' for this reason. Property & alliances is the basis of marriage, not protection for women & children who male society deemed second class. This is not anti male, it's just a fact.

The needs of women & children is a Very modern concept.
 
Last edited:
Ronni said:
It looks like the list in the first post has everything on it that marriage counselors have been mediating between spouses since there WERE marriage counselors! 😂

They’re all valid in their way. I know more than one marriage that’s come apart at the seams because of differences in religious practice, the subject of children, lovemaking frequency, lack of ambition or too much of it etc.

I also think each of these points are valid for discussion between a couple who are getting serious so that hopefully any major differences that could be disruptive or divisive are hashed out. It doesn’t mean they need to be discussed in a clinical setting or formal interview. Many if not all of them are going to come up naturally as the couple get to know each other.

In my very humble opinion, absent abuse, infidelity or other psychopathy, a KEY point that is absent from the list but is foundational to any successful relationship, is the couple’s agreement that the health and well-being of the RELATIONSHIP is primary versus the individual needs and wants, which are evaluated against the relationship as a whole.

While it’s not foolproof as a formula, it focuses the attention on what’s important, which is the health of the relationship as a whole, rather than each person wanting things to be their way or the highway.
Click to expand...
This is such a clinical approach to marriage, that I find it unappealing to even entertain entering into a committed relationship based on this list.
 
Pepper said:
Protection for women and children was never in history anywhere on this planet, except for maybe some tribal societies. Marriage was not 'invented' for this reason. Property & alliances is the basis of marriage, not protection for women & children who male society deemed second class. This is not anti male, it's just a fact.

The needs of women & children is a Very modern concept.
Click to expand...
Without that legal marriage, all the other women men happened to impregnate were on their own, along with their children, begging on streets, prostitution, or the early version of welfare the workhouse. For many women today who choose to have children without marriage, the outcome is not that different.


The needs of women and children were considered by some at least 2000 years ago:

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).

“Cursed is anyone who withholds justice from the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow” (Deuteronomy 27:19).
 
Pepper said:
Protection for women and children was never in history anywhere on this planet, except for maybe some tribal societies. Marriage was not 'invented' for this reason. Property & alliances is the basis of marriage, not protection for women & children who male society deemed second class. This is not anti male, it's just a fact.
The needs of women & children is a Very modern concept.
Click to expand...
Its certainly true that our UK family laws favoured the men, at least up to the second world war, (and probably beyond).

I think the other comments you've made though do not chime with the views of many observers of human behaviour dating back millennia.
 
grahamg said:
Its certainly true that our UK family laws favoured the men, at least up to the second world war, (and probably beyond).

I think the other comments you've made though do not chime with the views of many observers of human behaviour dating back millennia.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter if it doesn't chime. Marriage came about without the needs of women & children in mind. They were dispensable. She was property to be provided all through human history until recently.
 
While I certainly won't dispute your two Bible verses @Della the civil laws paid no attention. Women and children were the property of men until very recently in our history. You can trace real progress for only a hundred and fifty years or so.

There are many who would like to see a return to this, or maybe I'm confusing real life with The Handmaid's Tale.
 
Pepper said:
Doesn't matter if it doesn't chime. Marriage came about without the needs of women & children in mind. They were dispensable. She was property to be provided all through human history until recently.
Click to expand...
How can anyone dismiss all our forebears behaviour, and state what they did with any confidence?

I do know an expert on human behaviour stated in the 1960s that the relaxation of our divorce laws would lead to a huge increase in broken hearted people. I cannot believe the love felt by men and women in previous generations, when life was so much more precarious, (and life expectancy so much shorter), was in any way inadequate, and the chances of survival of their children depended upon it.
 
I guess we'd better give up the debate Graham. If the history tomes of Oxford don't have a record of any men ever loving their wives or caring about their mothers or daughters, it must not have happened.
 
Della said:
I guess we'd better give up the debate Graham. If the history tomes of Oxford don't have a record of any men ever loving their wives or caring about their mothers or daughters, it must not have happened.
Click to expand...
Snide, @Della. I spent years of my life studying. I worked hard and long. No one said anything about loving or caring. I'm speaking of the LAWS, not individual feelings. I'm sure you've done things in your life you are proud of. I am proud that Oxford allowed me an incredible opportunity.
 
Murrmurr said:
I reiterate, marriage laws are ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Here is my "It should to be" view: It should be more difficult to obtain a marriage license, instead of a 6 month waiting period after filing for a divorce, the waiting period should be be before granting the marriage. People should be required to complete a class on family and relationships, and write an essay on what they think commitment means, and how that applies to their "intended", a kind of written marriage vow.
If the relationship goes down the crapper, ending it peacefully and amiably should be a painless matter.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top