To think that marriages have a shelf-life

[Blindspot82]

I think most people fall in love with the idea of marriage.....committed to one person, forever, forsaking all others, till death do us part. It sounds very romantic at the time and people who do marry probably have the best intentions........at the time. The idea of finding a soulmate is very comforting.

And then, after the kids come along and years upon years spent nappy-changing, domestic servitude, repetitive boring sex, or no sex at all, washing clothes, little to no interesting conversation, ironing, paying bills etc etc the dream is over, the spouse is at best, a very good friend who you love but no longer fancy and surprise surprise, people find themselves straying, or catching their partner straying.

Lots of people do remain in committed marriages but equally, so many people take lovers, have polygamous agreements, or just end up splitting to start afresh. People feel bad for having affairs, but they're too scared to end a dead marriage for various reasons.......social condemnation, security, etc etc. I wonder if marriages do have a natural shelf-life and we're biologically pre-disposed to couple romantically with more than one lifelong partner. Lots of other cultures don't have the puritan Western view of one lover. Is it setting yourself up for failure to expect total emotional and physical loyalty to one person, for the rest of your life? "For the rest of your life" is a long fucking time! I think most people find it too long. AIBU???

No one should feel responsible for the failing of someone else. It’s being too hard on yourself to do that.

There's a book you may find interesting, Mating in Captivity by Esther Perel. She talks about how it's not really one marriage, it's several marriages. Because we change so much and our roles change so much (from romantic partners to co-parents, for example), and we have to re-negotiate our relationships, find different ways to accommodate and love each other. I thought that was very insightful.

repetitive boring sex, or no sex at all, washing clothes, little to no interesting conversation

Haha speak for yourself! I would say sex, whilst not as frequent after 20 years married, is even better.

@JacquesHammer….….agree. A marriage is certainly not any reflection on your personality, or your intentions. I still think the majority of people who commit to marriage have good intentions, at least to begin with. No-one starts out wanting the dream to fail surely?

That would be fine if the person that sacrificed their career, financial independence for the sake of child rearing and looking after the home, or just let their career take second place was significantly financially compensated when they split. But invariably they are not. There are already a lot of women going into old age in financial poverty as it is now, so if you made it easier and more the norm to split that would get worse.

"For the rest of your life" is a long fucking time! I think most people find it too long.

I think this is the crux of it. It's one thing marrying at 18 when there's a high chance you'll be dead by the time you're 40, another marrying at 30 knowing you could well make it to 80. Historically 2nd and third marriages were fairly common because people did die earlier.

I don't agree with your description of marriage, although I know that bad marriages can be like that. However, I think what I'm like now and what I was like 20 years ago and I know I've changed a great deal. I've never married but I do now have a DP and we met when were both late 40s/ early 50s. I think this makes a difference and can see this lasting because of our experience and wisdom (of a kind!). I think if I'd met my DP 20 years ago we might not have been right for each other, but we are now.

I nearly stuffed up my marriage by straying. It could have had terrible ramifications. Everyday I am thankful for my dh. He isn't perfect but I shudder to think what could have happened

Some marriages definitely do have a shelf life but not all; many couples become closer and do interesting things together when the children are grown up.

And then, after the kids come along and years upon years spent nappy-changing, domestic servitude, repetitive boring sex, or no sex at all, washing clothes, little to no interesting conversation, ironing, paying bills etc etc the dream is over, the spouse is at best, a very good friend who you love but no longer fancy...

You have to work at your relationship to stop this happening though.
Maybe it's because we had a baby so soon after getting together so we're still in the honeymoon period but we have always prioritised spending time together.
Domestic chores need to be done regardless of relationship status. They only get in the way if you let them, nobody needs to devote their life to doing them.

Obviously I don't know what's going to happen in the future but twenty years and four children in and we're closer than ever. We enjoy spending time together and are very happy.

I never see this written by someone who has been happily married for 50 years. Both my parents and PIL were devoted for over half a century. I don't think one size fits all where marriage is concerned and that's why divorce exists. DH and I have just celebrated our silver wedding anniversary. We have been through some truly horrific life events, some of which I couldn't have got through without DH by my side.

I agree Allegorical Even child maintenance is very east to get out of (as I know to my dc's cost)

I think there is something beautiful about the changing phases of a relationship (be it a married one or not). How we adapt when we (or a friend) has children; how we support one another when trauma / death / disease have to be faced; how we make decisions to be faithful to a relationship, a marriage, a friendship when there are other potentially more exciting options; how we value one another's diversity and difference; how we learn compassion and tolerance; and how we learn what our own boundaries are, so that in all of the above we are not used or broken.

I find it sad to think that we only use friends, relationship, love when they are actively benefitting us, and walk away from them when they are not.

I find it sad to think that we only use friends, relationship, love when they are actively benefitting us, and walk away from them when they are not

For me it wasn't like that - I wanted to keep my then husband in my life (and vice versa) but we weren't a married couple any more. We're still great friends - that to me was more important especially with a child in the mix - than trying to revive a marriage that had changed irrevocably for both of us. We split before it became anywhere near toxic.

Totally agree OP.

Marriage is sensible if you have kids and are planning on taking time out to rear them.

Otherwise it’s an anachronism.

It’s always been a financial contract where historically the man provided financial security in exchange for sex and having his kids reared and the woman got security and respectability. The modern day trappings of romance are a fig leaf to disguise the fact that it’s a financial contract.

I agree that even in the best scenario the best you can hope for is a good comfortable friendship. Romantic relationships are not designed to last a long time. And when it breaks down, as it often does, marriage is a millstone around the necks of both partners.

Now more and more women are able to be financially self sufficient we should be able to reassess how we look at marriage. In my view it’s an outdated concept which is at the root of a lot of societal harm.

Very silly to think "people used to die at 45" and that makes marriage different. Old-fashioned life expectancies were low because of child/infant mortality. If you made it to the average age of first marriage in western Europe (24), you'd be very very likely to live past the age of 60, and a decent shot at 70 or even 80.

I can't think of anything worse than dating or shagging somebody new. I know that sex with the same person for 15 years isn't as 'exciting' as sex with somebody new but I prefer it. I don't really like being that vulnerable with somebody I don't know and don't trust.
Also, having a small child has limited our social life but I'm really excited about our child getting older now and spending more time 1:1 with dh again doing more of the things we enjoy together.

My 1st marriage was awful, he and his family were just vile. I had no problems walking away from that without any feelings of regret. The one good thing that came out of it was my DS.
I met my current husband and it was totally different, he'd got children and we all blended well. We went on to have 2 of our own so we've got a lot of kids in our relationship. My husband and I are rarely apart we work together all day ( we have our own business) and share the same hobbies and interests. We genuinely love being together. My first marriage I never saw as being long-term after the problems started. My current marriage I have every faith in the fact it will last. Some couples get into a rut and life becomes monotonous and dull. That's the start of the slippery slope. I think then the relationships have a shelf life.

“I find it very sad that people don't believe in marriage anymore. There are so many divorces because people either marry the wrong person or they want the wedding day and not the marriage.

“People change and evolve and if you're a decent person and committed to the person you're with then you'll grow with them. As soon as things get difficult people just up and leave. Very poor sign of character if you ask me.”

I find this kind of sadface post really weird. How do you know that this is what is going on? Most people really have no idea what is going on in others’ relationships

Maybe a legal requirement to renew vows every 5 or 10 years?

Just a thought.

YABU. I think the problem is getting married too young/too quickly, before you know yourself properly. When young and naive, it's too easy to choose the "wrong" person, usually because the sex is good or you enjoy the idea of the "bad boy", or you have rose-tinted glasses about the future.

As you age, your wisdom and experience grows, you understand yourself better, and the "excitement" of a relationship fades, especially if it was only based on lust in the first place.

From all the people I know (friends/family etc), it's the relationships/marriages which started later in life that generally have survived and it's the young ones (teenage sweathearts etc) that generally fail.

At the end of the day, the older and wiser you are when you start a relationship, the more life experience you have as to identifying the types of people to avoid, warning signs, etc.

Yes, I know in days gone by people married earlier in life, but they probably had more "life experience" earlier too, i.e. starting work several years sooner, more resilient, not as protected, - i.e. they "grew up" sooner than today.

It’s always been a financial contract where historically the man provided financial security in exchange for sex and having his kids reared and the woman got security and respectability. The modern day trappings of romance are a fig leaf to disguise the fact that it’s a financial contract.

Not actually the case. That's a particular view of marriage that arose in the early/ mid 18th century. It can also be a joining of families, property and inheritance. However, for the general population, prior to legislation banning child labour and a move towards more industrial and less agrarian work, families worked together. Men, women and children would all work although often at different aspects of the same task e.g. harvesting where the heavier work was done by men and the women and children followed on. It's not quite as contractual as you're making out, particularly not for labouring and working classes.

Very silly to think "people used to die at 45" and that makes marriage different. Old-fashioned life expectancies were low because of child/infant mortality. If you made it to the average age of first marriage in western Europe (24), you'd be very very likely to live past the age of 60, and a decent shot at 70 or even 80.

It is true that you need to consider average life expectancy somewhat differently rather than looking at a simple mean average, yes. But deaths for women in childbirth were extraordinarily high in comparison to today. And yes, people were dying in their 40s of diseases which are much easier to treat now, particularly some cancers. Infectious disease also carried off people of all ages (think Prince Albert dying aged 42, leaving Victoria a widow at the same age). So no, it isn't silly to point out that marriage has changed because people are living longer.

That's a particular view of marriage that arose in the early/ mid 18th century.

Sorry, should say 19th century.

I do think that we should change the language around marriages ending. A marriage coming to an end needn’t be a failure for example.

I agree with this.
I do think that some marriages have a shelf-life due to the people changing and growing apart. I think there shouldn't be any kind of shame or embarrassment at calling it a day. People shouldn't judge others whose marriages have ended and the term "failed marriage" should be done away with. The couple were married. It ended. That's it.

I guess I was one of the lucky ones, married 55 years, two children, and I still love him to bits.

YANBU