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.

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.

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.

This response has been erased.

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.

How touching... sigh. I don't think I'll ever get married, although that
certainly isn't my choice.

This response has been erased.

After my disasterous first marriage I never thought I'd marry again.  I never
thought I could trust anyone that much again.

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). 

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.  

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?

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.

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?)

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.

This response has been erased.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Right, I agree completely.  But, what matters is both parners really thinking
that way, not just the word 'married'.  

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.

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.

Exactly.
(one of the traumas from childhood)

This response has been erased.

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]

Makes sense to me.

Decidedly.  I think we were trying to say the same thing, but your way makes
more sense.

This response has been erased.

I don't want to pigeonhole you, but
why do you think that it is always the father that runs off? It can very well
be the other way around.
And even if a commitment is made, this commitment can wear off. E.g. my
parents, they didn't just decide it isn't fun anymore so let's split.
They stayed married for more than 25 years!
With the largest part, let's say 15 years, having not a good marriage, untill
it blew up in pieces over a period of seven/eight years. But in my view they
shouldn't have got married in the first place, so much hatered had developed
between them. But, in that case I wouldn't have wlked the earth.
I truly believe that both of them threw away their life this way.
Imagine you have to share your bed with a person you loathe, or putting it
little more lightly: dislike, or don't love anymore?
Would sexual intercourse still be a marital obligation because somebody said
it was so twothousand or more years ago?
The idea...brrrr...
(Not to offend you bees, but here and there I disagree with you)

Bees, I'm sorry but life will always be difficult for some people.  That woman
you mention would not have been any happier if her father had ben there but,
ditant and resentful, would she?  Or if her mother was abused, frightened and
helpless.  It's true that when a relationship works out well and the child
has two involved, happy parents, that's the best of all possible worlds.  I
doI don't know of *anyone* who would disagree with that.

But that two parent, happy family isn't the only way to teach committment and
moral strength.  I agree with you that that's the most important thing to
teach kids.

It may not be the only way, but it's the easiest way. I keep hearing from
people who tell horror stories about their adolescence, and yet my
kids (so far, knock wood!) seem to be healthy, happy and very well
adjusted people who are decent human beings -- and I attribute that to the
fact that they had a traditional family structure *and* parents who
lived their beliefs. No, I am not perfect, but at least I can say that
my beliefs seem to have worked with my kids.

And, clees, I agree that some people should not be married -- my parents
being a *shudder* case in point. They have been mairried for 42 years
right now, and I think we all would have been better off if they'd divorced
a looong time ago. Alas, my mother is even more into committment than I am,
and since my Dad had a totally incapacitating stroke when they were 
just beginning to consider divorce, she's been at his beck and call ever
since. I can admire that, I really can, and I agree that it would have
been reprehensible to leave him in those circumstances, but I'd have
left several years before she even thought of it. Say, right after 
I was born. 

Err, I should say that my parents met on a blind date in January or so,
and got married in February, and that I was born in September. (I was
a preemie, quite early, but I still have my suspicions aobut why they
got married.) I don't think that my parents ever had a real commitment
but that my Dad wanted sons, and he finally got ome.

Beeswing - as regards the introduction to your response, someone _does_ get
hurt in that case, and anyone thinking that that's a harmless situation is
just plain wrong.  That said, I don't think it's necessarily as simple as
you've set it out to be.  First off, an unmarried couple is not inherently
doomed to split up and leave the kids with a single mother.  I know of couples
who have never married, but instead been handfasted, or just decided privately
to make their relationships permanent - and these commitments have held
together, and they have turned out to be wonderful parents.  Secondly,
there are times when a divorce is less harmful to the children than a
house full of fighting.  And finally, there do exist 'nonstandard' family
arrangements - unwed mothers or fathers with enough help and support to do
their job properly, or homosexual couples with adopted children, to cite a
few common examples - that work out fine.
But those are minor quibbles.  The point is, a stable, committed, home of some
sort is essential for the proper raising of a child, and most often, this
takes the form of a married couple with their children.  I don't think
anyone's asking you to accept the horror story you recount as an example of
a perfect family for a child to live in; however, it is true that there exist
forms of commitment and sources of stability other than marriage.

Considering that 1 in three marriages does end in divorce, I'd say
that it is not all bad marriages that actually end up in court, and
secondly, a system that fails like it does these days, is a bad example to
be named as an institute that sets a perfect picture.
Commitment, love, happiness, respect are the keys for a good relationship,
and thus I guess a basis for good parenting.

Yes.

Mmm hmm. Y'all are certainly welcome to disagree, so don't think I resent
anyone for that :)

I did not mean to insinuate that it's always the father who leaves. A mom is
just as capable of running off. But more often than not, it's the father who
leaves. That's just fact.

And I do think there are times when divorce is the only way. I agree that if I
were a kid I'd rather my parents split up than live in a home with fighting and
tension. And in the case of a parent abusing the children or spouse in ANY way,
particularly sexual or physical, then by all means get the hell out of there.

Of course an unmarried couple can be good parents. But it simply baffles me
that someone would make such a bond that a kid creates, but not wish to
solidify it with a marital bond. That gives an "escape hatch". Marriage is a
covenant, not a slip of paper. It has nothing to do with the so-called
illegitimacy factor. A child deserves to be brought up in a home where they
know mom and dad loved each other enough to make such a covenant and then have
that child as a symbol of their love and that covenant bond, instead of mom and
dad essentially just being roommates. (Yes they may be in love, but in a sense
they're indeed just roommates.) When the kid asks later on why mom and dad love
each other but not enough to marry, what does the parent say?

Choosing to live your life by a moral code sounds simplistic and easy. It is
not. Moving in together is easy... marriage is not. 

I find it intriguing how folks who always seem to think they
know what marriage is about or should be about and how commitment
is defined have usually never had a personal relationship as close
as the one they share with their cats (or dogs).  They are often
even failures at casual relationships.  But that doesn't seem to
get in the way of their knowing what works, for everyone.

Listen to people who have been in successful relationships a very
long time and you'll usually find people who will admit they
don't really know why it works.  When pushed they will often
list a whole slew of attributes like patience, the willingness
to forget, perseverance, sense of humor, etc.  But I've never
had one single person whose relationship I admire ever say
a marriage certificate is what made it work.

Well, hhhmm. I've been married for 20 years come January 7th, and I certainly
would say that I've been in a close and successful relationship for all of
that time. Yes, I do have rather old-fashioned views of committment and
what relationships should be, but since Bruce shares them, we fit together
very well. I can also say that I can't concieve of a more successful relation-
ship than we've had -- we've always been there for each other, and we've 
shared so many significant events that I know I'd feel totally lost if he
wasn't there. And both of us knew before we got married that it had to
be a forever thing since neither of us really believe in divorce, so we 
waited until both of us were sure that it was what we really wanted (in
our case, approximately 13 months after we got engaged). I know that having
made that committment made it easier in the long run to weather the 
bad times. And it made it so much better during the good times. 

what is a "traditional marriage" exactly?

young woman stays with family until man takes her
away and they live like ward and june cleaver?

I still disagree, and me too won't resent disagreeing with me.
In holland many people get married because of the financial (read taxes)
benefits that can be obtained from it (e.g. mortgages). Legislation still
treats marriage as the cornerstone of society.
If marriage is that great institute, then why are there so many divorces?
That absolute commitment doesn't, it seems to me, prevent people from
splitting up as a result of (minor) conflicts.
Take my granmother for instance: I am certain that her husband (a despote,
but a great grandfather) legally raped her during their marriage days, since
it was expected to be the duty of the wive, and continuing to do that untill
his early demise. They made a commitment for life, but I never saw my
grandfather mourn very much over his death.
If people are made for each other they don't need a little scrap of paper with
a couple of signatures on it to make a statement, for that's what it sounds
like to me.
You can make statements inmany other ways.
(i know a couple that when they decided to stay together forever, for that's
the motive for commitment, they had tattoos on their arms). Quite a definitive
statement, I'd say.
Don0t get me wrong: I am not against the institute of marriage. I am likely
to get married if that's what we both decide we want. If not, than not.
As for custody over children in Holland it could be sensible to get married.
Since I don0t want any (at this time of my life) that is not an issue.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss