Jewely, I think that if you want your husband to change to be more like you then you are going to run into problems. One thing I learned early on is that you only have the ability to change yourself.

Having a sense of humor is essential in a marriage. I can think of so many ways I could have replied to what your husband said that have nothing to do with computers and that could have been a good laugh.

You have to respect and accept that people are different if you want similar respect and acceptance in return.

I love the fact that my husband and I are so different. I would hate it if we were both the same. Being different gives you space and in a marriage you need space - as really you do not become one – you remain two completely different people with different likes, dislikes and moods.

Couples who do not plan to have children don’t really need to be married I don’t think.
They can basically please themselves if they want to live together or apart and with the new de-facto legal laws regarding property having recently been upgraded the property concerns involved with these relationships should no longer prove to be a barrier when making choices about living arrangements.

Having children is a more complicated area when debating the issue of marriage. Maybe separate dwelling houses or flats would be an even better idea in this case as long as both parents sign some sort of legally binding agreement as to their responsibilities in the equal care and financial support of the children. That way both partners can send the kids over to the other one’s house for a total break when they need some time out for a while.
Whereas living under the same roof with small children can really cause stress in a marriage and end up having the parents yelling at each other. It may actually save a lot of relationships from breaking down. As long as the legal reponsibilities are signed for, marriage is probably not necessary for the caring of children either.

Sharkfin's post really got me thinking.

I was once offered the chance of an 'open' marriage by a previous husband who really did love me, and wanted to stay married whatever the cost.

To me the idea of an open marriage was an oxymoron. We had never been unfaithful to each other but I thought - and still do -that a marriage where one or both partners take other partners - even those who claim it is 'just for sex' and doesn't alter their love for each other - is no longer a marriage. Consequently I stuck to my guns and left.

I fell into the worst nightmare of my life in my second marriage and my first partner never married again. I admit there were times then when I wondered if I had been too prissy and should have accepted the oxymoronic marriage.

Then, for most of the time I have been single there has been a person who has suggested we get together permanently - albeit in seperate domiciles as we have proved beyond all possible doubt that we could not live under the same roof. Once again, this does not seem to me to be a "real" marriage and I have preferred to stay unequivocably single.

Yet is it not possible that it is my - and many other peoples I guess - definitions of marriage that are still too narrow? Many of us agree that the definition of "the family" has changed. Yet we still define marriage itself in the same way.

Is it possible therefore that so many divorces occur due to the fact that there are still many of us who need to change our definitions of what we think of as marriage?

ps BTW, I too am am heartened and happy to read on this thread of so many people's unions which have happily endured for so long. Good stuff.

I have been busy of late so have not read all the posts on this thread.

Marriage was established as a lifelong contract between a man and a woman. Based in love for the other. It was for the mutual support and companionship of each other for the whole of life for better in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer etc. It is there to protect those that fall victim to ill health or permanent injury or disability etc.

However in todays selfish society the idea of abandoning a sick or aging partner for indulging in casual sexual infatuations has reduced bonded relations from contractual committments to mere sensual pleasures. In the areas where I live I find so many single women, abandoned by their husbands for other or younger women. The amount of unfulfiled lives and dysfunctional families I see in these fine single women's lives who are longing for emotional secure relationships convinces me that full understanding and committment to the marriage contract was not made. Our society is carrying a load of pain, guilt and hostility that is not there in mature and loving marriages.

Hi Foxy, Personally I am no good with travel. Husband spent the first year and a half of our marriage in Saudi Arabia, I joined him for 6 months and lived on an international compound, met women from all over the world so now I don’t need to travel. I discovered that no matter where you are from by 4pm you are wondering what to cook the kids for dinner.

But I am wondering if who we think is opposite truly is. People might look from outside and see us as very simliar. I do however believe I am going to always hate the computer talk. Yours is a bit of a player? Do you have a big stick?

Hey Jolanda, It occurred to me reading your post that maybe within a marriage the change often isn’t intentional. Might be a slow process that neither party thinks they are actively participating in…? In my case hubby might stop the computer talk some time after retirement when the geeks don’t have such a daily influence over him.

Morning Sharkfin, I never thought about really legal side of it, I always thought in terms of vows but yes I do get what you mean. I can say though that in all honestly over the last ten years my husband and I have had 106 children living with us (no not all at the same time, we foster kids under 5yrs). Oh and our own two who are now older teens. Never caused a problem between the grownups but then I have already stated he is annoyingly reasonable at all times.

Romany, your first partner sucked. The second was a fool. Is there a third on the horizon? I think you make a lot of sense, no one should “settle”.

Philo, I don’t think marriage was first established for those reasons but it certainly is the ideal now and I am pleased the modern concept of marriage is about the good stuff.

Could I ask one other question – why was Philo and Romany up so late?

Jewely

First off: gotta say I am enjoying your posts more and more as you continue to post.
Next, I want to say thank you. Y'know, for the rest of my life, ever since I dissolved the partnership with my first husband I have been carrying this huge guilt around with me: because I know I hurt a really nice person.

But your laconic precis: "Your first partner sucked" suddenly lifted that huge lump of useless baggage from my shoulders. You're right. In beating myself up for so long, I had forgotten the reasons behind what made the situation intolerable for me. Along with that other philosophical truism: "It takes two to tango".

Hell. No-one has ever pointed that out to me before. Hell, he was no saint and I am no sinner. Easy-peasy. Thanx.

I know it was only a throw away question but this morning I am actually having no difficulty accessing OLO so will answer anyway: I teach in a University in China. There is this thing in China that everyone gets to notice in about the first fortnight: the days are only about 5 hours long.

Well, that's how it seems anyway. Everything just seems to take so much longer to do. So my normal bed time is between 1 and 2 am just cos that's how long it takes me to get through classes, lectures, lesson plans, marking, shopping, e.mails, daily logs, class notes, exam plans, walking the dog, student advisement, cleaning, and the occasional meal...all the things my limited 5 hour day doesn't allow me to cram into it.