shadowplay Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Somebody linked to this Atlantic Monthly article in another thread, but I think it deserves its own as it could spark some lively discussion. It's a very well written, convincing piece. I still haven't decided if I agree with the author's argument. What do you guys think? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry
blind_otter Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 That article was really depressing. I can't imagine being partnered with someone I'm not attracted to, though. I can't imagine being with someone who I don't like having sex with. I just can't imagine it. Is it really that important to get married??
LucreziaBorgia Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Its hard to say. On one hand, I think that people who settle rarely actually do in the long run and keep the 'ideal' door open by having affairs. I know I see it often enough on these forums. The single mom thing kind of stung. I realized that by my age, physical condition and the fact that I'm a single mother who barely scrapes by - that I fit somewhere on the dating continuum between the bottom of the barrel and under it - perhaps buried in a deep hole far away from it. Does that mean I will settle? Nope. I have no romantic plans or even hopes for one. The last thing I want to do is settle. Then again, there is that niggling fear that being what and who I am, that I will be the one who is settled for by a guy who didn't have any luck any further up the dating barrel. I don't want to settle, and I don't want to be settled for. So, I will go it alone (insofar as living a comfortable co-existence with exH is said to be 'alone' - we aren't romantic or sexual). If something else comes up, fine. If not, fine. I had my shot, and am grateful I at least had one. A lot of people never do.
directx Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 I agree. That is a depressing article. Like relationships, love, everything else: it all comes down to the individual and what they want/need. So in this way I agree with Lucrezia: if you love works out for you, fine. If not, its not worth being miserable with someone if you don't have to. Some find love they need/want. Some don't. Can't force it. Some are luckier than others.
melodymatters Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Very interesting article, but I agree with BO about sexual attraction being a must have. I am not sure how i feel about the rest of it. I mean I guess I no longer believe in soul mates like i did when I was a kid. But the problem is I have to be attracted to the person, and a lot of guys in my age range are not that good looking anymore. I might settle for their blue collar job, or lack of same interests, but I can't make myself want to kiss or touch somone who is fat or has a face I don't like. So, I guess I'm NOT quite ready to settle yet !
norajane Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Settling is living a life of soul-killing quiet desperation - stuck with someone you don't want to be with. If you've never done that, you don't know how miserable and depressing it is, so it might be appealing from the outside looking in because it appears to be a better option to have a man, any man, than being on your own. But when you are in it and can't stand the way he breathes much less anything else, you know better. Women back in the 50's and early 60's did that all the time. They married young because they were supposed to, had the kids, and then lived lonely, unfulfilled lives. And had affairs! As did their husbands. That's why divorce became so acceptable over the years...those women wanted to kill themselves, but fortunately for them, divorce became an option and they started leaving those lives in the 70's.
Yamaha Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 We all settle. There are many factors to include when shopping for a life partner. It is a matter of finding the best balance we can because there are several people in the world that can fit this criteria (not 1 soul mate).
marlena Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 (edited) I agree with Nora Jane. It is clearly "the other side is greener" syndrome. Most of the married couples I know are constantly bickering over their different views on child-rearing amongst many,many other important things. It's a tug of war and the children get caught in the middle. Not to mention how one tries to dump the kids on the other. I know women who have settled. Some are happy with their choices. Others are clearly miserable. I guess it depends on what you value most in life. The ones who say they are happy are content to have someone take out the garbage, fix the dripping faucet,take the car for servicing and bring in that big,fat pay check. The fatter the pay check the more content they are. The ones who aren't happy say that they expected of more in a marriage. Some feel stifled and trapped and worn out from the demands of a marriage. Most do not even like their husbands at all. They dream of the days when they were independent and could do as they pleased. I for one am glad I raised my daughter alone. If I had stayed with her Dad, it is certain she would not have turned out as perfectly as she did. Yes, definitely the "grass" syndrome. It's human nature, it seems, to want what we don't have. Edited February 17, 2008 by marlena
johan Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 It's time to face reality, ladies. Read the article again, and then start making your plans. Sometimes life is cruel.
norajane Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 It's time to face reality, ladies. Read the article again, and then start making your plans. Sometimes life is cruel. Johan, you're green and you drink beer...I love that in a man. Will you marry me?
Mustang Sally Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Thanks so much for that, Shadowplay. I think it describes perfectly many things about my current marriage-situation and how I feel about it (I've said often that marriage - for many - turns into a business arrangement) and why I've stayed, and probably will continue to stay. Surely, not everyone will agree. But that article hit me on many levels.
Art_Critic Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 We all settle. I don't think so.. I come from the camp that believes we adjust our expectations to a more realistic expectations.. A person who adjusts their expectations is showing self esteem and the ability to change in the ever lasting journey of living a fulfilling life. A person who settles is reacting out of desperation.. they are not acting but reacting... Some people who think we just settle are not happy with their choices and are blame shifting.. We control our own happiness...
marlena Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 I don't think so.. I come from the camp that believes we adjust our expectations to a more realistic expectations.. A person who adjusts their expectations is showing self esteem and the ability to change in the ever lasting journey of living a fulfilling life. A person who settles is reacting out of desperation.. they are not acting but reacting... Brilliantly put, AC! Totally in agreement.
Lizzie60 Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Lots of truth in this article.. but I don't necessarily agree with the 'settling' stuff. I know some people do that, or like many many decades ago.. were ending up, after the 'honeymoon' was over, doing just that.. settling for a monotone, platonic relationship. The reality though, IMO, is that, whether you're settling or not, it won't last... so I would think that it's better to be in head over heels for a while then settled for another couple of years.. then start the process all over again... Sad but it's now life in 2008! and it won't get better..
Curmudgeon Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 (I've said often that marriage - for many - turns into a business arrangement) In its infinite wisdom, California has, in statute, declared marriage to be merely a fiduciary arrangement. Just ask most men who were divorced in this state a decade or more ago. I think all marriages "settle-in" but I don't think that's necessarily settling. To me, settling is wanting to but thinking you can never do any better so you just accept what you have and strive no further. Settling-in is being content with what you have. There's also a comfort level and that's worth a lot and can be very fulfilling, provided there are still reasonable amounts of romance and love. Going from one relationship to another may be exciting and stimulating but in the end, looks fade, libido diminishes and you have no one with whom you've established a history and that special closeness and comradeship that come with a good, long-term and committed relationship.
Trialbyfire Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Haha...I read the first page of the article and thought, ummm...nope. All it takes is to be married to the wrong person once and you'll know the article is full of hoo, hoo and what, what... Never settle ladies and gentlemen or you'll be headed down the Highway to Hell!!
marlena Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Going from one relationship to another may be exciting and stimulating but in the end, looks fade, libido diminishes and you have no one with whom you've established a history and that special closeness and comradeship that come with a good, long-term and committed relationship. I agree, Curm, with this. But isn't it rather a romantic view of marriage? Honestly, how many people actually reach that level of closeness and comradeship even after or in spite of being together for years and years? The lucky ones number few and far between as far as I can see. But, yes, it does sound ideal!
norajane Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 I agree, Curm, with this. But isn't it rather a romantic view of marriage? Honestly, how many people actually reach that level of closeness and comradeship even after or in spite of being together for years and years? The lucky ones number few and far between as far as I can see. But, yes, it does sound ideal! Those who settle NEVER reach it, never have a chance to since they already knew that wasn't going to happen when they settled.
marlena Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 Those who settle NEVER reach it, never have a chance to since they already knew that wasn't going to happen when they settled. Exactly. One cancels out the other. For something like what Curm describes to happen, the two parties involved must have a lot of love for one another and a good, solid foundation to work from when problems arise, as inevitably they will throughout the course of their journey together. When one settles, well, one settles because there is very little to begin with. Or even if there once was, it got lost somewhere along the way. It happens.
sb129 Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 . I come from the camp that believes we adjust our expectations to a more realistic expectations.. A person who adjusts their expectations is showing self esteem and the ability to change in the ever lasting journey of living a fulfilling life. A person who settles is reacting out of desperation.. they are not acting but reacting... This is great- what a good way to put it. We change as we grow older, and our wants and desires change too. Women back in the 50's and early 60's did that all the time. They married young because they were supposed to, had the kids, and then lived lonely, unfulfilled lives. And had affairs! As did their husbands. That's why divorce became so acceptable over the years...those women wanted to kill themselves, but fortunately for them, divorce became an option and they started leaving those lives in the 70's. Exactly. Single women were much more stigmatised then than they are now. People got married sometimes because that was the only way they could have SEX! I shudder to think how things would have turned out if I had married the first man I had sexual urges towards... Its hard to say. On one hand, I think that people who settle rarely actually do in the long run and keep the 'ideal' door open by having affairs. I know I see it often enough on these forums. . I thought this as I was reading the article.. what if someone more exciting comes along after you have "settled". And if you know you have "settled", then I can see people adopting the attitude that they deserve a bit of excitement, seeing as they "settled" and all. I found the tone of that article to be rather condescending. I also think that the author of the article had quite high and unrealistic standards, and her idea of "settling" might be a more realistic persons idea of a dream date. I think if she had re-worded the entire article and instead of making "settling" sound as if you were selling your soul to the devil, advising people to be realistic about what makes them happy or what they are prepared to accept in a partner, then it may have sounded a bit more sincere.
mental_traveller Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 If you settle and it works, you are unsatisfied. If you settle and it doesn't work, you just wasted half your life on something worthless. If you marry for love and it works, you are very happy. If you marry for love and it doesn't work - you are in the same situation as the failed settling marriage, but you at least had a few years of genuine passion. With settling, you lose either way. Marrying for love & passion, you get something worthwhile even it if ultimately fails. In any case, the article makes out that being single is something horrible. Actually being single is really cool and you have more freedom than when in a relationship. So waiting for 5, 10, 15, 20 years for "the one" is fun too - much more fun than being in a dull marriage for that long.
norajane Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 I think the reason settling seemed so appealing to her is she chose to have a sperm-doner baby, and it seemed that having a partner, any partner, would be better than life as a single parent in her 40's. She almost completely ignored the topic of divorce except for one reference to how divorced mothers get alimony and child support to ease the burden, as well as having a daddy babysitter so she can go out and date. There was no mention of how people who settle DO get divorced, too, and how often those people also have affairs. She was looking at it from the perspective of how much easier it would be to have a partner to share her single parent burden, and reduced men to wallets and babysitters as the primary reason to settle for them . I would think that article would offend men far more than women!
mental_traveller Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 I think the reason settling seemed so appealing to her is she chose to have a sperm-doner baby, and it seemed that having a partner, any partner, would be better than life as a single parent in her 40's. She almost completely ignored the topic of divorce except for one reference to how divorced mothers get alimony and child support to ease the burden, as well as having a daddy babysitter so she can go out and date. There was no mention of how people who settle DO get divorced, too, and how often those people also have affairs. She was looking at it from the perspective of how much easier it would be to have a partner to share her single parent burden, and reduced men to wallets and babysitters as the primary reason to settle for them . I would think that article would offend men far more than women! Agree. The editor who accepted that article really needs to be given a good talking to! I feel sorry for any guy who falls for her act. She'll be one of those single mothers who acts all sexy, romantic and passionate, then once she's married, the sex will stop, the clothes will become dowdy, hubby will have all the baby chores to deal with, and she'll start talking about how to spend his money. 3 years later he will be on Loveshack asking what he did wrong and how come she changed so much after the wedding day.
Trialbyfire Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 So this begs the question. Why would you have children on your own, if you're neither financially or emotionally capable of handling the burden by yourself? If you need space from your child/children, if you're financially prepared, you can find good childcare. If they're domestic burdens, go get yourself some hired guns to clean or even cook for you. There are solutions for everything, if you're prepared before you go out and litter...
sb129 Posted February 17, 2008 Posted February 17, 2008 I think the reason settling seemed so appealing to her is she chose to have a sperm-doner baby, and it seemed that having a partner, any partner, would be better than life as a single parent in her 40's. Honestly, it sounds like she didn't really think the donor thing through too much at all. . She'll be one of those single mothers who acts all sexy, romantic and passionate, then once she's married, the sex will stop, the clothes will become dowdy, hubby will have all the baby chores to deal with, and she'll start talking about how to spend his money. 3 years later he will be on Loveshack asking what he did wrong and how come she changed so much after the wedding day.
Recommended Posts