There’s no such thing as a perfect marriage or relationship, and high expectations might doom you.
I think that many people are stuck between two extremes on this one. There is the idea that a love marriage is tasteless and foolish, and marriage is a contract that either brings two families together or, at the very least, provides security. Different cultures approach this issue differently. Many people in today’s world continue to have arranged marriages, for a variety of reasons. Proponents of arranged marriage are quick to point out soaring divorce rates in the U.S. and other comparatively liberal nations. Of course, what’s not often factored in is the notion that socially conservative communities gladly sacrifice individualism over the perservation of family ties, no matter how strained those ties may become. A low divorce rate is not an indicator of marital happiness – nothing is, really, because happiness cannot be measured (don’t get me started on self-reporting, it’s a bloody sham and you’re a fluffy little sheep if you buy into it).
On the other hand, there are those people who enter into marriage with the idea that they can pretty much bail at any moment. This attitude is reinforced by the notion that marriage (and love in general) is a shampoo commercial in slow-motion (I’ve stolen this metaphor from friend Lawrence Toppman, may he live long and prosper). If you’re not supremely giddy in your every waking moment around each other, if you’re not having mind-blowing, delicious, yummy sex all the frickin’ time, if you’re not walking on air and sleeping on rose petals or the nearest equivalent of – you somehow have the right to be pissed off.
Popular culture contributes to this, because we rarely see portrayals of happy, messy marriages. A marriage is often either one or the other. Interestingly enough, comedy often does a much better job at this – although comic actors and storylines are dancing monkeys to the culture snobs: entertaining, maybe, but certainly not worthy of a deeper look (we do a much better job at picking apart comedic stereotypes). Too many of us still have the Jane Austen syndrome while growing up: happy ending = marriage (or another form of commitment), and to hell with what may or may not happen next.
I’ve seen both extremes up close. At this point in my life, I am more affected by the “love is a trip to happy candyland” disease. It’s not particularly awesome and I don’t recommend it. In fact, I recommend daily viewings of “Battlefield Earth” over this.
On the other hand, even as we bemoan the high divorce rate – several other issues come into play. Among them is the idea that human beings are not naturally monogamous (and by human beings I mean everyone), as well as other, disturbing insinuations regarding human relationships and their power dynamics. The freedom to divorce, for all the stigma still attached to it, is a moral good in light of how horrid we can be to one another.
Enduring love (and no, this isn’t a reference to the freaky Ian McEwan book), on the other hand, is also a moral good.
One should not negate the other.
Natalia A. 
I think the only way to really appreciate what is good (and bad) in relationships is by having some along the spectrum (though hopefully not TOO bad or for that matter, abusive). Because until you do you just don’t know.
You don’t know what is good and you don’t know what is bad. I had some bad relationships. I’ve had some ok ones, I’ve had some good ones – all of that taught me what was good (and not) in a relationship, what was realistic to expect, and that led to my having a reasonably good relationship (though not perfect because none are).
Dear natalia. I think you just have to understand what each other expects… Managing expectations. Total bullshit word, but really, the action of doing so is invaluable.
Enduring Love WAS freaky.
And in Pakistan — where arranged marriages are *very* common, if not the norm (it’s changing somewhat) divorce rates are rising exponentially — in the urban population, at least.
It’s not arranged marriages vs. love marriages per se — it’s more simply a matter of not knowing how to manage long term relationships that involve heavy sacrifices on both sides and no *incentive* to stay together. If divorces were rarer in the past in societies that have traditionally tended to arranged marriages, it wasn’t because expectations were lower, or the communal commitment higher than the one to the self. Divorces were rare because women couldn’t survive independently in a male-dominated society. All the sacrifice (almost) was one-sided, made by the less powerful partner. Now, not so much, hence divorce.
Heck, I want to stay married, adore my husband, everything’s terrific and I still think about divorce on a weekly basis (at least).
I agree with what you’ve said, except for that cop-out “people aren’t naturally monogamous” line. How the cuntsmen, deadbeat dads, et al. love that piece of “rationalization”! Me, my parents, my brothers…we’re people, and we’re also monogamous! (as are many species of animals). Yet anyone who says so today, married or single, is treated like a fucking mawkishly sentimental CHUMP! “Modern” thinking on sexual relations is like the line from Derek Robinson’s RAF novel “Piece of Cake”: “Up there, there’s only two kinds of fighter pilots: bastards and suckers. Take your choice.”
But I believe that lasting romantic love should be the highest and most satisfying pursuit and achievement of everyone; the manifestation of a deep emotional need within emotionally healthy people. People who think otherwise usually seem like narcissists, or people who were molested by their stepdad or something. I can’t figure out why anyone would marry anyone while thinking that it probably won’t last, because we’re hard-wired as a species to fuck and run, blah blah…Jesus! “Cowardice is the worst vice”, as Bulgakov wrote, and I think that a lot of failed marriages and “relationships” are just the handiwork of people who didn’t have the maturity or BALLS to stand by the side of a worthy person. And just because someone’s parents divorced, cheated, etc. doesn’t mean that ALL people do it! Life is often subjective, but not always. I admire my dad for his low-key but undeniable love for my mom, even though he isn’t bonking her with medieval battering-ram ardor on the freaking dining room table. Given the chance with a good woman, I’d emulate him over some greasy, thrice-divorced cunt-hunter any day.
There’s two types of manhood: the braggadocio-spouting bullshitter, and the quiet, responsible, strong guy who does what he should do, for himself and those he loves or respects, without grand-standing in the process. Society, to its great cost, ignores the latter and praises the former (think rappers, pop singers, actors and “personalities” of dubious talent: the preposterous Sean Combs comes to mind). And since people DO resemble the lower primates and other animals in their tendency to mindlessly imitate the more conspicuous members of the species, most people think and act like the people featured in US Magazine by default. It’s fucking pathetic!
I could rant all goddam year on this topic of topics, and maybe I just will at a later date! But I’ll stop now while I still can. But for you nihilistic asshole hipster “love is illusion” types out there, I hope you wake up at 35, with dildos, or aging/divorced poondogs who look like Dennis Koslowski, as your only sexual options, because the young studs no longer pant and drool for your flaccid old cooch.
Women used to put the brakes on guys’ asshole tendencies, but now that women emulate these same tendencies, I’m amazed that anyone in reasonably secular human society finds themselves in happy, romantic, mutually caring partnerships. But I said I’d stop. Anyway, good piece about avoiding the extremes, Natalia.
Apostate, I think you’ve brought up a good point, as usual. We must remember that the social position of the man often entitled him to mistresses and the like.
Alex, I think you’re confusing nature with humanity. Nature is weird and violent – but what makes us human is our ability to follow something other than instinct, or so my naive self would believe. Nevertheless, I don’t think that people who cannot be monogamous are inherently worse, and I don’t agree with the language you’ve used here. In fact, I’m downright offended. A lot of us struggle with our sexuality – and for some, the very idea of intimacy is impossible. Some people struggle with it for years and overcome it, others can’t. A lot of people do end up alone – and perhaps that’s the best option for them. Balanced singlehood is better than an unbalanced marriage. And women being “old” at 35? WTF?
Socities always come down harshly on the promiscuous, and even the serial monogamists – and women suffer from it more than men. They’re the ones who get called “sluts” and “whores.” They’re the ones who get stoned in places like rural Iran. Socities want to “exorcise” the “evil” of people like that – and I think that’s taking the easy way out.
I’m glad someone’s still offended by dirty words. I’m normally a polite guy, but we seem to live in an age where no one listens to someone unless they’re talking–bellowing, really–smut. But I used it for effect too to “tell it like it is”: a “cuntsman” is all about fucking and the narcissism it stokes. He wants a vagina, not a person, hence the term.
I don’t think that promiscuity to the exclusion of couplehood is benign absolutely. When enough men and women choose a permanently unattached life, it becomes the norm others choose despite their own personal preferences, and is socially harmful. This is where nature and reason, or humanity as you put it, diverge, or should. But I think that people make a great deal of human choices, even the most important ones like who we marry, with whom we have a baby, etc., according to instinct (or nature), not analysis or common sense.
Malcolm Gladwell’s book “Blink” is a recent endorsement of the ‘snap judgment’ over the considered one. The latest “Men’s Health” magazine has an article about what women look for in a guy: an interviewed female doctor told the article’s author that women are subconsciously attracted to men who are big, loud and rude! These are the same qualities people despise in their elected officials, yet they will get pregnant by someone with the same qualities! Gotta love it! “Oohh, rush into my arms, Donald Rumsfeld!” 🙂 Take note of the fact that they’re subconsciously attracted; remember the old axiom that about 10-15% of what you say sways a person you speak to, while the rest depends on how you say it? And it’s not just in the sexual sphere; think of “pump and dump” artists in the financial sector. I try to act rationally instead of instinctively, but I don’t always succeed. But I think most people “go with their gut” more than I do.
Sexuality will be complex in any era, but recent years have made it more so, and often unnecessarily. Even the term “complex” when used now by people to describe themselves is simply a euphemism for “spoiled”, “bitchy” or “weird”, but naturally “complex” sounds more intriguing, and not pejorative. And I wonder how many previous ages made such lavish use of the term “loser” to describe anyone not rich or with fashion model looks.
This is where my description of 35 as “old” comes in; I don’t think it’s old, but on Planet Hookup/Dating, it IS old. Because in that alternate, “complex” universe, people have a ‘shelf life’ grounded on looks, and only extraordinary things like great wealth or fame can override a person’s being older than the competition. Modern society reminds me of the old (is 1970 old?) futuristic film “Logan’s Run”, depicting a world in which people are euthanized at the age of 30. Society flatters the young, because they’re more insecure, and they accordingly buy more stuff! Unfair? Maybe, but so is being a guy who’d make a great lover, husband and dad, but who isn’t as tall, or as buff, or as loud, as the competition.
If more people rationally considered their choices of a mate, these things wouldn’t matter as much, but most people prefer to forgo comparative analyses of peoples’ qualities, in favor of the subconscious Darwinian stampede for the exits; the dog whistle voice whispering to us, ‘”Hello, tall/buff offspring!” “Plenty of mother’s milk to nurture my dynasty!” “She’s blonde, unlike Mamma and my bratty sisters!”‘. A mental stampede, like the physical one, which hurts more people than a calm, rational exit–or steady, reflective entry into mutual, caring love– would.