|
Grex > Femme > #83: length of time between meeting and marrying? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
iggy
|
|
length of time between meeting and marrying?
|
Nov 12 16:37 UTC 1997 |
for those of you who are married, or partnered permantly in some
way:
how long did you know your S.O. before you got married?
did you fall imediately in love, or lust? or did things
happen more slowly? did you know right away that this person
was the one for you?
|
| 46 responses total. |
iggy
|
|
response 1 of 46:
|
Nov 12 16:42 UTC 1997 |
well, marc and i met through mnet. things happened so
gradually that i didnt even realize we had become an item.
he was a very good friend, and eventually my best friend for
quite a while.
after 4 years, he proposed. and we waited another year before we
married.
the first few times we met, i didnt like him very much.
my first impression was that he was mentally retarded. the second
was that his sister was actually his wife.
then later i thought he was obnoxious and kinda weird.
funny how things turn out.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 2 of 46:
|
Nov 12 20:20 UTC 1997 |
Bruce and I met at college, and we knew each other to nod to for
a couple of years -- had classes together, but weren't really friends.
Then my junior year, we started hanging out at the campus coffee
shop (there was only one, this was a *small* campus)at the same time,
since my room-mate of the time was working the switchboard. We started
talking, and I found out he was into sf, too --- it was really funny,
since he asked me if I wanted to see his starship plans (and very nice
plans they were, too). Then I fell and broke my foot, and he started
driving me home to the dorm, and then we started talking a lot, and
by the time my great-grandfather died at Thanksgiving, we had become
an item, and he asked me to marry him. We were engaged for thirteen months,
since we got married the January of my senior year.
|
valerie
|
|
response 3 of 46:
|
Nov 13 17:59 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 4 of 46:
|
Nov 14 02:12 UTC 1997 |
Hmmm, I met Larry in August '94 -- it was kinda funny.
I was 35, Larry was 46.
It had been a horrible summer. I'd just miscarried, my eldest son had
fallen 30 feet off a cliff while vacationing in Europe and broken his
left ahnd off and I couldn't get to him, and Marcus and I had just
broken up.
Nonetheless, when it comes to depression, I don't have much of an
attention span and I was tired of sitting around and feeling sorry for
myself so I went to a Stilyagi (SF club) meeting. Larry was there,
though I didn't notice him at the time. I did run into a friend there,
though, and afterward she invited me to go play pinball with her and a
few friends. My first response was "pinball? Ick. No thanks", but
after I'd turned around to walk to my car, and got to thinking about
going home to the boarding house for another evening alone, I ran back
and said "sure, pinball, great!".
There I ran into another old friend and his lady, and Voila! Larry was
there. Well, they were all being pals, and I felt kind of like an
outsider. I was too blue to start a conversation without some
encouragement and no one seems to realize I was there -- so I decided to
go home after all.
About 4 days later I was at Ec and Griz's wedding and -- there was
Larry, hanging around the pop table. Well, I had been a dancing fool
all night and it was *very* hot in that loft, so eventually I went over
to get something to drink. To my surprise Larry remembered me and asked
where I'd disappeared to the other night. (Turns out he's shy, he had
been busily working up the nerve to come over and chat with me.)
Well, I gave him the Readers Digest condensed version of my summer, and
told him I had just needed to take my tears home to keep my dignity
intact. Well, the darling got tears in his eyes! He was that touched
by my pain! Well, I decided that he was pretty cool, and started to
flirt with him -- never figuring he'd be interested in me, but what the
heck, I was out to have fun!
At the end of the evening I invited him to call me -- but I forgot to
give him my number and he didn't ask. (He thought *I* was just being
nice.) I realized the next day that I'd forgotten, and I called and
left my number on his answering machine. He called back a few hours
later and we set a date to get together for dinner the next night at 7.
Meanwhile, both of us are thinking "Gads, what are we going to talk
about with no one else there to keep the conversation going. Neither of
us is really good at the social thing. Both of us considered feigning
illness to call it off, but neither of us did.
That nigt we chatted about everything for hours -- we didn't even see
the time passing until 1am when the place we had dined closed. Even
then, we went to another place to continue out conversation.
By December 94, Larry invited me to move into his apartment. In
February we did, all three of us. <grin> In March of 96, Larry told me
that he'd talked to his Mom, and that she agreed with him that it was a
very good idea for us to get married. I was enchanted at such a
typically Larry style proposal and we agreed to marry in September, 15
months after we met.
In contrast, I had known my first husband for 7 years before we married
and the marriage lasted 2.5 years. I was 21 and he was 22 when we
married. It was disaster for both of us.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 5 of 46:
|
Nov 15 05:10 UTC 1997 |
How touching... sigh. I don't think I'll ever get married, although that
certainly isn't my choice.
|
valerie
|
|
response 6 of 46:
|
Nov 15 06:27 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 7 of 46:
|
Nov 15 07:29 UTC 1997 |
After my disasterous first marriage I never thought I'd marry again. I never
thought I could trust anyone that much again.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 8 of 46:
|
Nov 15 16:10 UTC 1997 |
I guess I feel that way because I am not what I'd consider a magnet for guys. I
am the one that everyone says "Oh, you're smart, you're pretty, blah blah blah"
and yet am never asked out. I have asked guys out before and it was a disaster.
So you could say I am scarred.
Um, Valerie... if you know that you and Jan want to be together forever, and
you want to have a kid, why not get married? I am confused. I simply have a
hard time understanding establishing a bond that a kid creates, and yet not
wanting the marital aspect of it. I know I would feel weird if my parents lived
together and all but weren't married. It would make me feel like one of them
could just up and leave at any time. (Yes that can happen with a married couple
too, but it just seems the marriage would make a home more solid).
|
mta
|
|
response 9 of 46:
|
Nov 15 21:58 UTC 1997 |
Marriage, unless you've already made the commitment to each other, is just
a piece of paper. It used to be a contract -- and in some ways it's still
helpful if things don't work out. But it's not really a legally enforceable
contract. People up and disappear from their families all the time.
Sometimes they bother with divorce, sometimes not. But alimont\y these days
is rare and child support impossible to collect unless the parent responsible
has made the personal commitment.
Marriage and the making od\f a family are two different things.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 10 of 46:
|
Nov 16 01:17 UTC 1997 |
Well, yeah, but that piece of paper is still nearly essential when you're
having a child. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it would seem that being born
a bastard isn't a Good Thing even now, pearticularly if the parents
are already comitted to each other. And doesn't marriage automatically
give the father rights which he might not have (particularly in cases
of medical emergency) otherwise?
|
mta
|
|
response 11 of 46:
|
Nov 16 01:40 UTC 1997 |
bastard is a very old-fashioned, discredited idea.
Yes, marriage gives the husband automatic paternity rights, but if you
list the father on the birth certificate, he has automatic paternity rights,
too.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 12 of 46:
|
Nov 16 02:10 UTC 1997 |
Well, it may be discredited in Ann Arbor, but it's not other places. (I
don't live in those other places anymore, but I know that attitudes in
heartland America aren't exactly what you might think.)
And what about BEFORE baby is born? What if there's a medical emergency and
Dad has to make a decison, only he's not Mom's next of kin? Things can and
do happen which would not be covered by a domestic partnership, as far too
many gay couples have found out to their sorrow.
Not to say that I disapprove of whatever anyone may decide, since it's their
life, but I would never consider having a baby out of wedlock and don't really
understand why anyone would, if they were in a relationship already. (I eman,
accidents happen when you're dating, and you may end up being a single mom,
but if you're in a realtionship, why NOT go for the piece of paper?)
|
mary
|
|
response 13 of 46:
|
Nov 16 04:04 UTC 1997 |
There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all type of
relationship so rules that tend to make all couples
look and act alike are bound to fail miserably for many.
I'm glad marriage worked for you. I can understand why
it wouldn't work for everyone. I think some couples may
actually put more effort into their relationship *because*
they aren't married.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 14 of 46:
|
Nov 16 06:08 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
mta
|
|
response 15 of 46:
|
Nov 16 07:34 UTC 1997 |
Trisha, that's all very romantic and idealistic...I envy you your optimism.
I went into my first marriage feeling with similar thoughts and feelings.
Then I discovered something. For some people, making the "public" committment
to marriage is much easier than making the personal committment needed to make
that marriage work.
If you've already made the committment necessary to make a marriage work, then
the marriage isn't really necessary to making the relationship work. And if
you haven't (*both* of you) then the wedding and legal contract won't help.
Now mind you, I like being married to Larry! But I don't think it created
anything, I think it was a public affirmation of a committment we'd made to
each other privately some time before. The marriage was a celebration and
an affirmation not the creation of the very special bond we decided to create
together.
There are very real legal advantages to being married -- and if that's
important to you, by all means take advantage of them. There are very real
emotional advantages to living the way that suits you best. For some people
that means making a clear and intentional committment to another person and
the liscense is irrelevant. For some, no matter their feelings about the one
they love, the liscense makes them feel claustrophobic: trapped inside their
parents model of what a husband and wife are. For some, marriage is as
serious and necessary a committment as it is to you. If you marry (or don't)
someone who feels the way you do, then all is well. If you marry someone with
a different attitude, you can end up with a traumatic disappointment and a
disasterous divorce.
I married young with every intention of making the relationship work.
Unfortunately my ex-husband was a world-class showman. he loved the wedding
bit and he loved the "romance" of being engaged. But when it came time to
work on making the relationship work and all the glamour had worn off under
the friction of raising two babies, his heart wasn't in it. His attitude?
"I did my part. I married you, didn't I? Now that your mine, I can stop
trying and there's not a damned thing you can do, so live with it."
After that experience I swore that I'd never marry again because I was
convinced that marriage ruined a perfectly good relationship.
I eventually came to see that it wasn't the fault of the institution that some
people are too immature to make a genuine committment relationship. When I
met Larry, and within weeks knew that he had already made the committment to
me and making a future together it seemed only natural for us to clebrate that
committment with our friends and to sign a legal contract that would give us
the legal advantages that will be very handy as we get old and need more and
more medical care.
I say again: making a family is one act, marriage is another. If both of you
feel strongly in the same way about the meaning of marriage, the two can very
well coincide, but it's not automatic.
|
beeswing
|
|
response 16 of 46:
|
Nov 16 22:45 UTC 1997 |
Idealistic? Maybe. But I hardly see true commitment as idealistic. It's a goal.
My parents have been married 34 years, so I know it can happen.
Certainly I agree that both people need the level of commitment to make the
marriage work. A friend of mine married at 21. She was the first of my friends
to marry and everyone just fawned over that. All she'd ever wanted was to be a
wife and mom. They began having problems and I don't know what alien crawled
into their heads and told them that having a baby would solve it. (Hell even I
could tell you that was stupid). She had her son at 23. Of course things got
worse.
Her husband was cheating on her. Even so, my friend wanted to go to counseling.
He said he wanted a divorce, she could have full custody of their son, and said
he'd felt forced to marry her (and yet didn't HE propose?). I think both of
them just wanted to be married is all... wanting the engagement and wedding,
like you said. In love with love so to speak. Her ex now has visitation rights
but he usually skips them. Child support has been off and on. She and her son
have had to move back in with her parents.
So, I do see the point that although one partner may be willing to give it all
to see it through, but if the other isn't, it's almost impossible.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 17 of 46:
|
Nov 17 00:09 UTC 1997 |
Re True Commitment: Unfortunately, marriage _doesn't_ really mean that
anymore. I think that, given the frequency of divorce etc., what matters is
less the legal or religious distinction, and more the attitudes of the people
involved. It's possible to go into a marriage not expecting it to last a
year, and it's possible to be in an unmarried relationship expecting it to
last a lifetime. What's important is your attitude and expectations...at
least as I see it.
|
mta
|
|
response 18 of 46:
|
Nov 17 05:15 UTC 1997 |
Orinoco, oh I think marriage *can* mean true committment -- if both partner
really think and feel that way. It's just a mistake to think it always
follows.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 19 of 46:
|
Nov 17 19:37 UTC 1997 |
Right, I agree completely. But, what matters is both parners really thinking
that way, not just the word 'married'.
|
clees
|
|
response 20 of 46:
|
Nov 18 15:21 UTC 1997 |
I guess I have had the worst example, my parents got divorced after seven
years of icy and cold war with small scirmishes in between. I longed more for
school, each day, than to return home. That can be called odd. After they had
stayed together for the kids, as one calls it, they finally decided it was
time.
I still regret they didn't separate sooner.
Thus, I definately am not in for marriage. But you never can say never.
|
mta
|
|
response 21 of 46:
|
Nov 19 08:32 UTC 1997 |
Yeah, my parents eventually reconciled, but my house seemed like a war zone
sometimes. I wished pretty oftent hat they'd break up and get it over with.
Now they're happy again, si I guess I'm glad they didn't -- but that taught me
that staying together "for the children" was no favour to the kids.
|
clees
|
|
response 22 of 46:
|
Nov 19 13:44 UTC 1997 |
Exactly.
(one of the traumas from childhood)
|
valerie
|
|
response 23 of 46:
|
Nov 19 17:26 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
abchan
|
|
response 24 of 46:
|
Nov 25 03:48 UTC 1997 |
Here's a train of thought.
I believe (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me) that there is a type of
wedding ceremony used by some pagans called a handfasting. To a couple who
both believe in this, the handfasting ceremony would probably mean more to
them than any legal "I do" does.
Now if you look at this from the other side of the coin, if a couple felt
a legal here's your piece of paper marriage meant a lot to them, but they
do not subscribe to handfasting, why on earth would they go do a
handfasting ceremony? Chances are they wouldn't.
Different couples have different ways of deeming their relationship to be
real. Some don't even need a ceremony to know that they will be together
forever. It just so happens that in this society, more people appear to
be in the second group described above than in the first group.
Yes, in this world, having a legal piece of paper may be advantageous.
But if it doesn't mean anything to a certain couple to have a piece of
paper or any type of ceremony, it's a free country. There isn't any
catchall solution to anything in life. People are different. Therefore
lifestyles will be different. If nobody gets hurt, there is no absolute
right or wrong. It's each to his/her own.
That make sense to anyone?
[set drift = off]
|