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

[Ronni]

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.

The list itself, the way it's presented, is VERY clinical. Nonetheless agreement on or compromise with those points can be pivotal to a successful relationship, and will often be the breaking of one.

*I* entered into my relationship with Ron, before we got married, with a similar list. Granted it wasn't presented to him in bullet point form, with a line for his initials once we discussed each point. And there were things on the OP's list were not applicable to me/us at our ages. But there were still many things that were very important to me to be discussed and worked out between us before I could contemplate a committed relationship. Things that were deal breakers for me, if we couldn't come to an understanding, arrangement, compromise. I encouraged Ron to discuss with me things that were deal breakers for HIM, things that would be important to know before we got in too deep with each other.

We are very much in love. We have a fantastic, enduring, respectful and happy marriage. We are very romantic with each other, and deeply committed to us. Making sure we covered the many points on OUR list that were important to each of us didn't detract in ANY way from our feelings for each other. That we were able to come to agreements and be in accord on so many things just deepened our attraction and affection for the other.

I think a lot of folks believe that exceptional, successful marriages just happen, that if you love each other enough it will all work out. I've not found that to be true, either personally or as I've observed friends' or other family relationships over the years. Two of my dearest friends are married, deeply in love and have been for a long time, yet they live separately as the ONLY way they could resolve some issues without divorce.

There are all kinds of ways to be happy and loving in relationships. My personal belief is that ironing out as many potential differences and issues beforehand is the best way to ensure the highest potential for success.

 

[Warrigal]

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.

This reminds me that in England and America women were sometimes regarded as property of their husbands and that sometimes wives were sold by their husbands. This practice is the subject of fictional works such at The Mayor of Casterbridge and Paint Your Wagon. I don't think it was widespread but it could be one reason why marriages came to be registered with legal rights and obligations legislated.

 

[Murrmurr]

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.

I'll bet divorce attorneys hate your idea.

I staunchly believe no one is prepared for marriage until they grow up, and some of us never do. But most of us do. Men are usually grown-ups by age 35, and women are mature by about age 28, some as early as 26.

Ideally, before then, parents would have already taught their so-called adult 18yr-old kids to start a career by either furthering their education, entering a career-training program, or getting an entry-level job. Parents would help this adult child (emphasis on child) gradually cut the umbilical cord (but not too gradually), and help them get transportation and their own place. The adult child would (ideally) have been taught by the parents that his/her future must take a priority over fun and flings.

And I'd say that, even in that ideal situation, realistically, there's a 50/50 chance the kid's gonna effitup.

 

[Raddragn]

While it may be possible that there was "true love" between marital partners in the "traditional" marriage, in most instances, it was more often a case of political and/or financial expediency. Women and children were assets to be sold or traded. For all practical purposes, they had no rights. Things have changed, but we are still in an era of change and adjustment; there are still men who seem to believe and promote to subsequent generations belief that women should still accept a subordinate role in marriage in particular and society as a whole. Many women are still being raised in environments that discourage women form getting the education and/the training to earn a decent living - that their major - if not only - function is to marry and have children.

 

[grahamg]

Pepper wrote:
"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."

This reminds me that in England and America women were sometimes regarded as property of their husbands and that sometimes wives were sold by their husbands. This practice is the subject of fictional works such at The Mayor of Casterbridge and Paint Your Wagon. I don't think it was widespread but it could be one reason why marriages came to be registered with legal rights and obligations legislated.

Oxford or no Oxford I'm sticking to the view human evolution depended upon the care given by both parents to their children, and experts could no have put this view forward in publications were it not so.

 

[grahamg]

While it may be possible that there was "true love" between marital partners in the "traditional" marriage, in most instances, it was more often a case of political and/or financial expediency. Women and children were assets to be sold or traded. For all practical purposes, they had no rights. Things have changed, but we are still in an era of change and adjustment; there are still men who seem to believe and promote to subsequent generations belief that women should still accept a subordinate role in marriage in particular and society as a whole. Many women are still being raised in environments that discourage women from getting the education and/the training to earn a decent living - that their major - if not only - function is to marry and have children.

My future wife's class of twenty girls was asked by their teacher what they wanted to do when they left school, (his is in 1975), and seventeen out of twenty said they wanted to get married and have children, (and as far as I know, no one had forced them to say this, and their teachers were disappointed to get these responses!).

 

[Raddragn]

I'm sure no one "forced" them, but this was the ethos that existed - a subtle social pressure from many sources. Also this mindset would vary depending on where you lived. Some areas of a country would vary quite a bit on that subject!

 

[Nathan]

I'll bet divorce attorneys hate your idea.

Yes, they hate me, I hate them...it's a symbiotic relationship.

 

[Murrmurr]

My future wife's class of twenty girls was asked by their teacher what they wanted to do when they left school, (his is in 1975), and seventeen out of twenty said they wanted to get married and have children, (and as far as I know, no one had forced them to say this, and their teachers were disappointed to get these responses!).

I agree with Raddragn - that was societal conditioning. I'm pretty sure we're over it.

 

[Warrigal]

Pepper wrote:
"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."

Oxford or no Oxford I'm sticking to the view human evolution depended upon the care given by both parents to their children, and experts could not have put this view forward in publications were it not so.

For everything that we imagine is the sole answer to a perceived problem there are alternatives that we have overlooked.

It is true that the nuclear family has been a strong foundation of society, particularly where new lands were being colonised. Australia and US could not have been settled without this social institution. However, in other societies it was/is the extended family and the village or tribe that ensured the welfare of the children.

The thought just occurred to me that in tribal communities such as PNG sons are important because they are needed to defend the tribe and its lands against their neighbours. Women and girls are important because they are the source of sons. However, the young men secure their wives from those same neighbouring tribes and their welfare depends on them being able to produce male children.

If their husband died or was killed in battle they were of less value and in some societies they were summarily murdered. If still young and fertile they might be passed to another man. I'm beginning to think that marriage laws benefit women for good reasons. Certainly the scales have been tipped in favour of women since more primitive times.

 

[Raddragn]

I wish! Unfortunately there are still groups supporting the "traditional" (or worse) marriage/attitudes towards women.. Ever hear of "Incells" - Muslims, etc? Many far right, conservatives support the idea also.

 

[Knight]

20 questions that were not part of our married life. We just figured it out as we went along. Still ironing out things 60 years later. Ironing out means I do the ironing everything else is already solved.

Never understood the his & hers division of money. From the 1st. paycheck I had when 1st. married it was always what do we need. Now the same applies except we are in the position of go ahead get whatever you want & don't need to ask each other.

 

[Tempsontime65]

I expected her to keep her mouth shut[hehehehe] I was expecting way too much!!!

 

[StarSong]

20 questions that were not part of our married life. We just figured it out as we went along. Still ironing out things 60 years later. Ironing out means I do the ironing everything else is already solved.

Never understood the his & hers division of money. From the 1st. paycheck I had when 1st. married it was always what do we need. Now the same applies except we are in the position of go ahead get whatever you want & don't need to ask each other.

I was hoping someone else felt this way. Thanks for being a voice in the wilderness, Knight.

Frontloading decisions about who would work outside the home, for how long, how would chores be split, what church to attend - if any, specifying categories and percentages of expenses, etc., etc.? Gimme a break. What folly to even try to broker such a specific future! (Man plans, God laughs.)

If a guy handed me a list like that when I was single, I'd have been out the door laughing hysterically before he knew I'd left my chair.

Over time people change their minds. Unplanned children or difficulty conceiving arise without warning. Family members get ill or gravely injured. Recessions spring up. Industries that seemed secure become victims of technology or offshoring. People's religious beliefs and politics evolve. In other words, life happens.

When I got married, cable TV was in its infancy, cell phones were the exclusive domain of Maxwell Smart, and home computers were a George Jetson fantasy along with flying cars that folded up to briefcase size.

After 42 years of a great marriage, my opinion is that good marriages no different from other successful relationships. There isn't any great mystery about have to form and maintain them. Nearly all ills are cured by kindness, flexibility, loyalty, trustworthiness, a helping hand at the ready, good listening skills, a comforting shoulder, and a good sense of humor about life and our own foibles.

As for legally delaying issuance of marriage licenses in hopes of reducing divorce statistics, most couples cohabitate before marrying anyway. They're already de facto married, quite often with children. (40% of US children are born outside of marriages.)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm
The percentage born outside marriage or civil partnerships is even higher in England & Wales (51.3%).
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1653236/marriage-unwed-civil-partnership-babies-born

Legal marriage and uncomplicated divorce provide an avenue for equitable division of assets should the couple split up.

p.s. @Knight, my husband also does what little ironing needs doing. He's better at it and doesn't mind. I'm tech support because I'm better at that and I don't mind it. It works for us.

 

[ArnoldC]

To love and be loved in return. With that, everything else falls into place.

 

[Warrigal]

To love and be loved in return. With that, everything else falls into place.

 

[DaveA]

Hey - - - Murrmurr may be onto something. I can bang away with anybody and everyboy. (Well, let's say I could have - -at a younger age ) None of us will be "married", at least in any legal sense, for whatever that will mean (in the future). There will be no penalties for "plundering" your neighbor's wife or even better for her to "plunder" you.

Like speeding regulations while driving. Just have a little chat with officials about safe driving but make it optional and it'll only apply to you as long as, and when you choose to obey the "law". No, not law, I meant suggested speed.

As it is now, a high percentage of our population are having kid outside of wedlock. I don't think many of these births are planned but they do happen. Some of these kids will never know who "dad" was. That seems sad to me. Maybe not to some of you, but it still does to me.

 

[grahamg]

Hey - - - Murrmurr may be onto something. I can bang away with anybody and everyboy. (Well, let's say I could have - -at a younger age ) None of us will be "married", at least in any legal sense, for whatever that will mean (in the future). There will be no penalties for "plundering" your neighbor's wife or even better for her to "plunder" you.

Like speeding regulations while driving. Just have a little chat with officials about safe driving but make it optional and it'll only apply to you as long as, and when you choose to obey the "law". No, not law, I meant suggested speed.

As it is now, a high percentage of our population are having kid outside of wedlock. I don't think many of these births are planned but they do happen. Some of these kids will never know who "dad" was. That seems sad to me. Maybe not to some of you, but it still does to me.

The idea of creating a child with someone you don't love, and don't have any reason to think loves you, (whilst commonplace obviously), is enough of an anathema to me I'd choose to have no child than entertain the thought of it. Our children need to be thought a great deal of and loved by their parents, and all this goes together, and its tosh to think otherwise, (though I don't mean to denigrate the very exceptional people who can show such love to another's child, this just isn't me).

Now the comments about "putting it about all over the place", whether said tongue in cheek or not", I'm told by a very smart guy who has studied psychology, this is just not how human beings are built, to behave in such a fashion. I'll choose to accept his word on this!

 

[grahamg]

To love and be loved in return. With that, everything else falls into place.

One line and you've summed up the essence of it all.

 

[grahamg]

I expected her to keep her mouth shut[hehehehe] I was expecting way too much!!!

There is a poem I believe going something along the lines of, "Her voice was soft gentle and low, a wonderful thing in women", (not sure if it was s*xist, but my former brother in law used to read the text out to his class as an English teacher!).

 

[grahamg]

For everything that we imagine is the sole answer to a perceived problem there are alternatives that we have overlooked.
It is true that the nuclear family has been a strong foundation of society, particularly where new lands were being colonised. Australia and US could not have been settled without this social institution. However, in other societies it was/is the extended family and the village or tribe that ensured the welfare of the children.

The thought just occurred to me that in tribal communities such as PNG sons are important because they are needed to defend the tribe and its lands against their neighbours. Women and girls are important because they are the source of sons. However, the young men secure their wives from those same neighbouring tribes and their welfare depends on them being able to produce male children.

If their husband died or was killed in battle they were of less value and in some societies they were summarily murdered. If still young and fertile they might be passed to another man. I'm beginning to think that marriage laws benefit women for good reasons. Certainly the scales have been tipped in favour of women since more primitive times.

Study of ancient societies, and tribal societies around today, attracts a great deal of academic interest, but arguments such as the one you put forward in your first sentence above don't always apply, (obviously!).

I remember responding to a very difficult boss who was suggesting there was no right or wrong answer, (about an issue involving both moral aspects, and pure facts), that "You can't be half pregnant, so there are black and white answers, and everything doesn't always come down to shades of grey".

 

[grahamg]

Yes, they hate me, I hate them...it's a symbiotic relationship.

How can anyone hate a divorce lawyer, (if you read a modern divorce lawyers brochure you'd be convinced just how good and helpful they wish to be!).

We used to look at our film stars having numerous marriages/divorces and feel how exceptional and and unusual it all was, but not anymore hey, (good for lawyers firms obviously, that societal change)!

 

[grahamg]

I'm sure no one "forced" them, but this was the ethos that existed - a subtle social pressure from many sources. Also this mindset would vary depending on where you lived. Some areas of a country would vary quite a bit on that subject!

Why could it not be a simple desire to be just like their mum, (to wish to settle down and have children)?

 

[Trish]

Good coffee and DIY. I made an exception with the chap as he is not so keen on coffee but he does have a nice electric drill

 

[OneEyedDiva]

It seems your title should have been what do couples expect from one another. I think those are good questions to ask that opens up necessary dialogs about important real life issues. I keep reading that most fights and divorces are due to financial reasons. If you don't know the real deal about your potential spouse's finances and financial habits, real trouble can be coming down the pike. Also I didn't see the question about which religion would the couples want their children to follow if the parents have two different religious beliefs.

I think sometimes (maybe often) men assume the wife should do the cooking and cleaning while the wife expects the husband to chip in. After they are married is not the time to discover the each other's different expectations. I feel that the questions and points in the OP can be discussed in conversations that don't wind up seeming like interrogations. To do so might avoid some heartbreaking, marriage ending discoveries down the road.