Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Interesting question....
    
    When we were getting married, we heard enough from people we knew
    about how much marriage s*cks! I don't think anyone said a good
    thing about it. 
    
    In our case, if we weren't married, we would not be together right
    now. About the time of our 6th year, we entered a period of about
    3 years of hell, damn near got divorced. Don't know what held us
    together at that point but I'm sure glad we stuck together. Now
    we're going on 11 years and we're happier than ever.
    
    Maybe people need to hear how good it can be.
    Just my experience...........

    Re .0, I have thought before about how easy it is to get married
    plus how difficult it is to get divorced.  (Because I think it is
    *still* difficult to get divorced.  Not impossible, but expensive
    and an ordeal just the same.)  When I got married in 1972 we didn't
    have a big, traditional wedding - just the blood tests, license
    and married by a JP.  It cost us $35. to get married.  When my
    ex-husband divorced me last year it cost him $600.  Then, it cost
    him a couple of hundred more to change our divorce agreement when
    we sold our house.  But, then some people pay thousands of dollars
    for huge weddings of their own accord, and presumably think nothing
    of it.
    
    I can understand questioning marriage and calling it an archaic
    institution.  But, unfortunately, marriage means too much under
    certain laws for it to be totally abandoned yet.  For example, how
    could a man have children who are legally his if he isn't married.
     Men don't have any legal right to so called illigitimate children,
    do they?  So, if a man wants to have children and have a say over
    their lives the easiest way is to be married first.  Also, from
    a woman's viewpoint, there are many legal advantages to being married
    such as a widow getting social security based on her husband's probably
    larger paycheck, a wife automatically inheriting her husband's
    belongings and money, wives being eligible for husband's insurance
    policies, being able to be included with the husband in certain
    things like job relocation, etc.  If we are going to do away with
    marriage we need to do away with all of the laws that can make marriage
    advantageous, too.
    
    There is still the problem that marriage means so much more to most
    people than two people who are "just" living together.  No one seems
    to consider that one or both of the people who are just living together
    may not ever want to remarry, regardless of how much they love each
    other.  There is still a feeling of - well, he just doesn't love
    *her* enough to marry her.  When he meets the "right one" he'll
    marry again.  Parents and relatives seem to accept live-in situations
    today but they don't put the importance to it that they do to marriage.
     For example, I have been living with my SO for 2 1/2 yrs., but
    to his parents, nieces & nephews, and brothers, I am not a member
    of the family, but just some "girl" that he happens to be living with
    right now.  But, his brother married a "girl" that he had only known
    for a couple of months a year ago and she is now referred to as
    "Aunt", "daughter-in-law", "sister-in-law", etc.  I don't really
    care about being married, but I resent the importance that both
    society and the law still place on marriage.
    
    Maybe the entire system should be overhauled.  Maybe it should still
    be easy to get married and easier to get divorced.  But, maybe we
    should totally do away with the idea that marriage are supposed
    to last forever, since they so seldom do anymore anyway.  Maybe
    we should have short term marriage contracts of 5, 10 or so years
    at a time that can either be renewed or not.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Marriage isn't too easy - living together is.  It sure makes it
    easy to say, "sh*t on this!" and walk out when you just live together,
    doesn't it?
    
    Sit back & watch the mud slinging?!  Well, I've been sitting back and 
    the mud you're slinging is so deep you're about to sink.
    
    I've read more notes/replies in this file on divorce where an (adult?)
    male does nothing but cry on our shoulders about how unfairly they
    were treated in divorce court.  Well, in my opinion, it's about time 
    these men grew up and stopped whining!
    
    There are plenty of divorced women who weren't treated exactly fair
    (yours truly for one) that aren't in here whining about it all the
    time.
    
    Do us all a favor and GET OFF THE PITY POT!
    
    

    RE: .4
    
    Lorna, your comment about divorce not being easy was the point I
    was trying to make, as a rebuttal to some the other noters in their
    responses who maintain that divorce is "too easy". As people 
    who have been there will attest, it is not easy at all, neither
    emotionally nor, in most cases, financially.
    
     
    RE; .5
    
    Which note(s) are you directing your comments to?
    
       Alan
    

    re .7:
    
    'Who doesen't want to have it easy'?
    
    That's an awfully shortsighted attitude! Why go to college? Why
    save money? Why have kids? Because you have faith that your
    short-term sacrifices are going to yield long-term gains, either
    to yourself or to others you value. Why commit to anything,
    otherwise? Just drift through life havin' a good time; when
    the going gets tough, move on! 
    
    I know there are a lot of troubled marriages out there; there
    always have been and there always will be. It's also very tough
    to try and tell 2 starry-eyed kids that there's gonna be trouble
    down the road. A successful marriage means making each other the
    number one priority in your lives - above career, outside interests,
    and even kids. That's a big commitment. It's not easy all the time.
    But for me it was the best decision I ever made.
    
    -Dave

    
    re: .6
    
    Just take a look through the directory of this file and read a few
    of them.
    
    re: .7
    
    Granted, no one wants to struggle through everything, but something
    made too easy has no challenge, can become stale and boring.  People
    appreciate those things in life that they have to work for/at and
    take for granted those things that are handed to them.  Therefore,
    working hard at my marriage makes me appreciate it more.
    
    How was I treated unfairly?  Well, if you read my reply to a note
    previous, you wouldn't need to ask that question.  

    An anomaly? No.  Check the records of any Welfare office and you'll
    find several women who got the short end of the stick from men who 
    cared more about the almighty dollar and themselves than they did 
    they're own children.
    
    Beckie    

    
    re: .9
    
    To set the record straight, I believe if you reread MY reply (.5)
    you will notice that it is not directed JUST at you, but divorced
    MEN in general that feel it necessary to carry on about how unjust
    the judicial system is, how poorly they were or are being treated,
    simply put - WHINING (note 392.25 et al), those that feel the necessity
    to carry on in multiple conferences on the same subject (need I say
    more?) and those who get on the band wagon and ride along as if they
    were the only people to be treated unjustly.
    
    If it came across that my reply was directed souly at you, I apologize.
    
    Beckie    
    
    

    Okay, let's try to get back to some of the thoughts I originally
    posted in the basenote:
    
      - Is entering into marriage too easy, mechanically (legally)?
      
      - Is it easier to get married than divorced?
    
      - Is divorce tough emotionally?            
    
      - Is divorce tougher legally and financially than marriage?
    
      _ For those who have gone through divorce, do you wish
        you knew all the subtleties of divorce before you
        decided to marry?
    
      - If you did know the mechanics of divorce in general 
        (without knowing that YOU would actually divorce -
        kind of like knowing the dangers of cocaine before
        you tried it, not after you had become addicted) 
        would you have thought harder about getting married?     
    
    And a final thought for now. Back in the "old" days in America,
    and still adhered to in some other countries today, there's what is
    known as an "arranged marriage". The two people getting married
    do not pick their spouses for love. The arrangement is most often
    effected by their parents.
    
    Within arranged marriages, the divorce rate is extremely low -
    almost non-existent. 
    
      - Would you opt for an arranged marriage and the virtual
        guarantee it offers for stability and continuity for the
        family unit (often, the husband and wife come to love
        each other as we in the West define love), or would you
        still prefer the concept of "romantic love" up-front and
        the uncertainties of divorce that accompany it?
    
       Alan                                
    

    I think we need to realize several things:
    
    	1.  When we are hurt, we look for sympathy.
    
    	2.  The way most of us look for sympathy is to try to
    	    get others to take pity on us, unfortunately this
    	    more often than not comes across as whining.
    
    	3.  It's much too easy to generalize than to try to focus on
    	    individual cases, for example "the judicial system is
    	    unfair", "women put the screws to men in a divorce",
    	    "marriage is for idiots", etc.  (All quotes are fictional
    	    - any resemblance to actual quotes is unintentional.)
    
    I agree with Beckie that there HAS been a lot of whining going on
    in this conference and others.  But perhaps if we could all step
    back and realize WHY someone wants us to pity them, then maybe we
    can have a rational discussion of the underlying causes, rather
    than trading volleys of personal attacks and gross generalizations.
    
    For the record, there exist many happy marriages, many divorces
    where both partners were treated equally and the children are being
    cared for jointly and with love, etc.  But we are all individuals,
    and there is no universal answer to anything.  We must consider
    individual cases!  What's good for me is not necessarily good for
    you and vice versa.  Don't assume that just because I happen to
    disagree with your views that I'm automatically an idiot or an
    oppressor.

    
    Now for the topic at hand...  I agree with the premise that marriage
    is much too easy for many people.  Most of us enter into marriage
    when we are young, and so full of love that we don't take the time
    to consider the commitment we are making to each other and to
    society.  If we're VERY lucky, and realize that, just because we
    have a piece of paper that says we're married that doesn't mean
    we'll live happily ever after, marriage can be wonderful.  If we're
    unlucky, we'll fail, but many of us will pick ourselves up and try
    again.  Some of us will become disillusioned, and insist to everyone
    else that marriage is for idiots.
    
    I am a divorced man.  I married young, and had at least six good
    years of marriage - I remember the good times with great fondness.
    Yes, the last few years were not so good, but that hasn't soured
    me on trying again.  My divorce settlement was as fair as can be,
    both in terms of money and in responsibility for our child.  I am
    not saying it was easy - it was the hardest and most painful thing
    I have EVER gone through, and I will do my damndest to make sure
    I don't go through it again - but I have no desire anymore to
    have people take pity on me, so you won't see me complaining here.
    I only offer this as a counter-example to the horror stories
    one reads here and other places.  
    
    But there do exist people for whom things didn't go as smoothly
    as they did for me (note that "smooth" is a relative term here!)
    We should offer these people our support and caring, and try to
    understand and empathize with the pain that lies beneath.  Arguing
    with someone who is in pain tends to be pointless.
    
    For those of you who suffer - please realize that we are not your
    enemies.  Though we may appear to be a symbol of what oppresses
    you, try not to believe that everyone in some general class (men,
    women, blacks, etc.) are attacking you.  Step back and look at how
    what you write may be interepreted - consider having a friend look
    it over.  When you have something to say, say it once, and get it
    over with.  Don't allow those who misunderstand to draw you into
    a continuing escalation of shouting.
    
    This conference draws pain - it can help heal, but only if everyone
    is willing to support that goal.  I and my co-moderators try our
    best to guide discussions along fruitful lines, but it's sometimes
    hard to decide when and where to step in.  With luck, we won't
    step on too many toes when we do so.
    
    				Steve

    re .13:
    
    I believe that George Bernard Shaw (or was it Mark Twain?) said much
    the same thing as you around the turn of the century. That proposal
    included a six month cooling-off period before granting a marriage
    license, large fees paid to the state (my guess in today's terms would
    be about $5,000), and divorce granted on demand.
    
    	Jon

Excuse me, but I see red...

Beckie Greenhalge,

You may consider me a Whiner, but I prefer to think of myself at alerting people
to pitfalls that they may personally suffer in divorce, what rediculous
legislation our lamebrained legislatures are passing, and asking for advice on
how to get out of the mess.

I am not *whining*.  I am mad as hell, I am occasionally screaming, shouting, or
yelling, but I do not whine.  If all you have to offer is pity, take a hike;
that I do *not* need, nor will it help me, or my children.

Yes, I have heard a great many stories from women who have been abandoned; and I
do feel for them.  I do not feel pity for them, nor do I feel that they are
whining.  It most cases, I asked to hear their stories, because I *want* to know
what it is like on the other side.  They, in return have usually listened to my
story, and the consenus is, 'you is getten' screwed', even by women who have
been abandoned. 

No, I do not feel like I am the only one being treated unjustly.  If I did, I
would 'correct' the problem in quite a more personal way than 'whining' in
notes.  But I am not the only person who is being treated unfairly.  That just
makes me madder then ever!

"An anomaly? No.  Check the records of any Welfare office and you'll find
several women who got the short end of the stick from men who cared more about
the almighty dollar and themselves than they did they're own children."

It's really quite simple.  In divorce, men get screwed quite often when the
court makes the decisions.  The men then decide, 'I'm not staying around to be
screwed for the rest of my life, I'm outa' here!'.  I can understand that quite
well.  Whose fault is it?  Well, it's not solely the men's....

Also, quite often, the arguement is not solely over money, either.  Men get
screwed the most often over the children, their retaliation can only be through
money. 

Am I doing something about it... You bet your glutious maximus, I am... and I
will continue fighting untill I have equal rights and responsiblitys with my
children.

If you don't want to hear it, use the keypad comma key.  Just do us the favor
of not replying if you are not going to read.

Jim.

    It's not just young people who are starry-eyed who get into doomed
    marriages.  My Mother (who had been previously divorced twice) married
    a man that she knew for (explanations vary) about a month before
    she married him.  Three months later, he had cleaned out her bank
    accounts, spent the money (it's still beyond me how you can spend
    that much money in so short a time without making major purchases!),
    she gets enough of him, when he is out spending what little money
    they have left, and she has an overdrawn checking account and apartment
    rent due.  She arrives on my doorstep asking for a place to live,
    and divorces him.  She was certainly old enough and experienced
    enough to know better
    
    One major problem with marriage is that it is based on the woman
    being the man's property (Mrs. John Smith - not Mrs. Mary Smith).
    
    Another is joint responsibility and ownership.  There is nothing
    preventing a vindictive or irresponsible spouse from taking the money
    and running, or being sued and *your* wages garnished.  Live-in
    arrangements usually allow for "what's mine is mine" financial
    arrangements.  These are much easier to sort out if the arrangement
    fails. 
    
    Yes, it may be easier to just walk away from a live-in arrangement.
    But in most states the divorce is automatic if filed for - it's
    just the property settlement and custody questions that take time
    and court intervention.  If there is no property or children, one
    can be divorced fairly quickly.
    
    Still, in many cases, alimony is awarded EVEN IF BOTH PEOPLE STATE
    THAT THEY DO NOT WANT ALIMONY.  Also, much so-called child support
    is thinly disguised alimony.  In the case where a man is paying
    his former wife half of his take-home pay, it does not cost as much
    to take care of a child as it does to take care of the father who
    now lives alone.  Having once chosen to live with and/or support
    a person does not make a lifelong commitment.  Suppose I give a
    bum a quarter.  Does that mean I now need to continue buying him
    wine and Salvation Army clothes?  How does it matter if it was someone
    I married?  If I have chosen to quit giving to that person, by what
    right do they claim what is mine?
    
    As far as men having rights to illegitimate children (why are children
    more 'legitimate' if their parents were married?  Even if you believe
    that the parents were acting immorally, the children didn't cause
    it!), they certainly do.  A woman can bring a paternity suit against
    anybody she wants - and it is up to him to prove it false, with
    medical tests, etc.  A man with a paternity suit against him may
    get custody rights and/or visitation rights.  If the mother dies,
    he gets the children pretty much automatically, just as if they
    had once been married.
    
    Yes, there are advantages to being married.  However, most of them
    can be duplicated through other sorts of legal documents.  For example,
    you can will everything to your POSSLQ (except for some minimal
    amounts which are required to be given to one's children, if any).
    Thus, you will inherit.  You can tell your insurance company that
    person X to be the beneficiary on your insurance.  You can buy a
    house or car together.  If you *want* the person to have complete
    control of your affairs, you can always give them Power of Attorney.
    
    I agree with the others - marriage is far too easy to enter.  How
    about a 6 month waiting period - maybe with required living together?
    Although it was a very different set-up than modern marriage, that
    was done at the time of Christ.  I believe a form of "espousal"
    could work today just as well.
    
    Elizabeth

        Well, it's old predictable me again. You've hear the opinions
        before, but I might as well state them again.
        
        First of all, I do think that it's "too easy to marry" in that I
        think that people far too frequently marry for the wrong
        reasons. They marry with out love, but merely overcome by
        passion. The marry without trust, but with some unrealistic
        notion of how their spouse is perfect. They marry without
        commitment, assuming that they can back out and start again if
        it doesn't work out or something better comes along.
        
        Marrying for the wrong reasons is probably the #1 reason for the
        failure of marriages. Before you marry you must ask and be sure
        that you love each other. You must each value the other as much
        as or more than yourself. You shouldn't live your whole life for
        the other person making them the only thing of value. They
        mustn't be the whole world--just the most valuable single thing
        in it. ANd you must both love. One-sided love will turn abusive.
        
        Before you marry you must trust each other, and the trust must
        be strong enough to withstand the failures and foibles that
        every human is prone to. A trust that is only good up until your
        partner lets you down is no trust at all. It is untested and has
        no strength. And in order to trust some one, they must be
        trust-worthy, and that's something you can not know in a brief
        time.
        
        Before you marry you must be willing to commit and to commit
        absolutely. Trust without commitment is doomed. Each of you must
        commit to living up to the trust of the other, and whe one or
        the other of you stumble you must be willing to commit that you
        will see it through--work it out. Marriage is, at least as I
        define it the absolute commitment of two peole to one life. It
        means that as you grow you must grow towards each other, as you
        strive you must strive to gether. "We just grew apart" means
        that you failed in your commitment--you weren't paying attention
        to the other. You weren't keeping the center to your lives. 
        
        As I've said before I think prenuptual agreements and pre-agreed
        divorce agreements are good for a marriage. First of all they
        are selfish--they put the focus you and on what is yours that
        won't be surrendered. In marriage each must focus on their
        partner. Secondly, they show lack of trust. They put in black
        and white the distrust that one has in one's spouse--without
        this paper I can't trust you. Finally, they water down the
        commitment. They make it conditional, partial.
        
        When I married I didn't merely pledge my wife that she could
        have what was hers, or even that she could have half of what is
        mine. I pledged that she could have all that I have and all that
        I am. That commitment is what I see as marriage. Marriage
        doesn't have to have a piece of paper or the government's
        approval, or the church's. It merely has to be a public pledge
        to make two lives one, a solemn vow to love, to trust, and to
        strive together. 
        
        Why get married when you can live with someone? Why get married
        when there is plenty of opportunity for sex outside of marriage?
        Because living together, and sex are not the purposes of
        marriage. Marriage is the joining, not of living spaces, not of
        property, not of bodies, but of lives. It is the merging of
        fates, and there is no substitute for it. Either you make two
        lives one, or you don't. Either you value the other person and
        pledge to continue to do so come Hel or high water or you don't.
        
        And in the end there's nothing like it. To have anther person
        with whom to share the joys, the miseries, the wonders, and the
        responsibilities of this life is tremendous. And to see that
        shared life blossum into a family, to see and love and raise the
        children who are the merger ofthe two of you is real joy.
        
        Yes divorce is too easy. In this self-centered day we pay too
        little heed to the needs of others or to our responsibilities.
        We walk away from that which is hard. We ask what's in it for
        us. We cover our asses rather than lay our hearts on the line.
        
        And yes, marrying is too easy. We do it without understanding
        what it is we do. We marry the wrong people and for the wrong
        reasons. Or to view it differently there are so many divorces
        because so many people never really marry. They get a license,
        they sign a paper, they say some words, but they vow nothing,
        they commit to nothing, they don't open up.
        
        And our expectations are far too often unrealistic. We expect
        our partner to never let us down. If they were really infallible
        they'd be God Himself. We don't expect to have to work at it. We
        expect it to never hurt. We don't relize that we have to make
        the little adjustments and sacrifices before the gap gets too
        big to cross.
        
        Despite all this, marriage works. It works for billions of
        people the world around, and it's great. You can love and be
        loved in sickness and in health, through good times and bad. It
        doesn't take the perfect Mr/Mrs Right. It just takes to people,
        two weak, fallible, ordinary people, all it takes is love, and
        trust, and commitment, three intangibles of which there is an
        infinite supply.
        
        Lots of people fail at marriage. Lots of people mistake
        something else for marriage, and fail at it. Lots of people are
        hurt by marrying when or whom they ought not to. Lots of people
        are affraid of commitment, are afraid to trust, or can't value
        anyone else as much as themselves. Lots of people are bitter or
        angry over the failure of marriage. Lots of people blame the
        institution or the people that they married. 
        
        I say, pay them no heed. Sympathize with them. Support them in
        their need. Help them if you can. But don't let their failure,
        their unwillingness to risk or to commit stop you. For when we
        fail, we want to blame others or blame the situation. When we
        hurt we often do not know what hurt us, but merely that we hurt.
        
        Do not marry if you do not want. If all you want is sex, there
        is no need to marry. If all you want is company, do not marry.
        If valuing another beyond yourself is alien to you, do not
        marry. If you can not trust or will not commit do not marry. Do
        not marry badly. But do not insist that others oughtn't or
        can't. And do not think that you can never love, never trust,
        never commit absolutely. For some day you may see someone worth
        loving, worth trusting and worth marrying. 
        
        JimB.

.17>			Three months later, he had cleaned out her bank
.17>  accounts, spent the money (it's still beyond me how you can spend
.17>  that much money in so short a time without making major purchases!),


    Hmmm.... I know someone who spent over $3000.00 one month with an
    American Express Creidit card (read that due at the end of the month
    card), without making a single large major purchase.... it was all
    nickel and dime type stuff...  I still can't believe he did it...
    its awful to know he isn't the only one on this earth who could
    do that!
    
    GLK

    living together does not let you off the hook legally or otherwise
    
    look at lee marvin
    what about leases you sign together
    joint purchases
    etc,etc,etc...
    
    kelly

        Oops, that should be "I think prenuptual agreements and
        pre-agreed divorce agreements are NOT good for a marriage."
        
        When will I learn to type?
        
        JimB. 

I just spent my lunch hour reading this particular note and all its replies
and have a few comments.

First of all I have been divorced for 6 years and have joint custody of both
my sons and physical custody of my oldest.  There are always going to be some
people who are going to be out for blood no matter what.  When I first got
my divorce we went to one lawyer told her what we wanted and the total cost
was $400.  When my youngest son moved in with his dad we simply changed a
few items such as support and instead of me having sole custody we now have
joint custoday.  Someone out there is probably saying, oh what a friendly
situation.  WRONG, my ex had been having affairs most of our married life
(12 years - I was the last to know until he got drunk one night) and when
he moved out he moved into his present wife's home.  All I wanted was to
get the thing over with and go on with my life.  We'd already gone to
marriage and individual conseling and he simply didn't want to be married
to me any more.

Second I'm the old-fashioned type who likes being married.  During the time
of my marriage I usually had a part-time job and I enjoyed being able to
make financial contributions to the marriage.  I enjoyed baking cookies,
making fancy dinners, etc. which I find I'm usually to tired to do working
at DEC as well as a parttime job.  Marriage is great when both people want
the relationship work.  Saying it is easy to get divorced is o.k. in my
opinion, because why stay married to someone where you are miserable.

My third point is one I hope to get some input on, child support.  When one
parent pays child support to another, in my opinion that person should be
able to deduct it from his income.  At the same time it should not have to
be recorded as income on the receiver's side.  I feel that if this was the
case more people would pay the child support (sometimes even more than they
are now doing) without the financial burden being quite as harsh.  At the
moment the child is the one who suffers when the payments are small, late
or non-existent.  In my opinion, once again anyone who gets a divorce and
allows the lumping of child support and alimony together is not working with
a full deck.  For the most part alimony shouldn't even be in more than about
10% of the divorce settlements.  My ex and I had it in for tax purposes.  He
could claim $20 a week for alimony ($1040 per year) which was the same as
each of us claiming one child on our taxes.  The alimony payment disappeared
when we each had one child living us.

Finally, I have seen the subject of divorce, etc. in so many of these files
that I am still trying to get input from people as to how they feel about
a separate conference on DIVORCE/SINGLE PARENTING.  Please send any input
to WILLEE::DAVAULT.  I have more information on this in the FRIENDS and
PARENTING files (Sept 87).

Susan

    
    Without being insensitive to others, single and/or widowed,divorced
    ..., are there folks who would like to discuss their marriage in
    terms of its longevity and ability to survive. ?
    
    

    RE: .13
    
>    And a final thought for now. Back in the "old" days in America,
>    and still adhered to in some other countries today, there's what is
>    known as an "arranged marriage". The two people getting married
>    do not pick their spouses for love. The arrangement is most often
>    effected by their parents.
>    Within arranged marriages, the divorce rate is extremely low -
>    almost non-existent. 
    
    Those marriage work because the two people invovled know that they
    *have* to make it work.  Divorce in those culture is still considered a
    stigma.  Ironically, it gives some support to the argument that making
    known that the divorce is really difficult would make the divorce rate
    get lower.  There was a topic on it in this conference eariler, but it
    did not receive much response. 
    
    However, it is not the "arranged" apsect of it which makes it work, it
    is the commitment and the obligation which is implicit in the marriage
    which keeps the couple from "drifitng apart", even when they are
    thousands of miles away from each other.
    
    Sometimes a couple really has to go through the "cooling off period". I
    will not be surprised if the success rate turns out to be higher when a
    couple is forced to live apart for years after their marriage e.g. when
    a spouse's exit/entry visa takes years by countries such as
    Russia/America respectively.  A Couple who survices that kind of
    torture can face anything together which the destiny might put in front
    of them later in their married life. 
    
- Vikas  

    re: .26
    
        I don't know much about arranged marriages, so if I'm full of
    it please tell me that I'm wrong.
    
        I do agree that the stigma of divorce does have an effect upon
    the couple in an arranged marriage.  However is it possible that
    the elements missing from an arranged marriage are more important.
    I'll call those element romantic, hormonal, expectations, and the
    pre-marriage acting.
    
        People who are dating often ask themselves "I wonder what it
    would be like to be married to X ?".  They often fantasize about
    their potential future with X based on their knowledge of X through
    dating.  In this fantasizing they set up expectations about how X
    will be as a spouse.
    
        I would imagine that there probably isn't much fantasizing about
    the future partner before an arranged marriage. The marriage is of
    two people joining together, not two people trying to join with their
    romantic expectations of the other.
    
        Dating tends to be driven by "winning" someone through impressing
    them.  I think that a lot of people in the dating phase relationship
    are more aware of driving the other person off and engage in acting
    the part they think the other person wants to see to win them.  People
    tend to be at their best when dating, then they let the "real" person
    show after the engagment or marriage.
    
        Maybe part of an arranged marriage is a phase where the couple
    gets to know one another, and learns how to deal with each other.
    Maybe they don't go through the deceptions that some people go through
    to get a spouse.
    
    ASP - I wasn't completely real when I was dating.

    Re .26, what is so important about a marriage lasting forever if
    the people are not happy on a day to day basis?  I think having
    a happy life is more important than announcing at the age of 70,
    well, we made it we're still married, we hate each other's guts,
    and have had lonely, miserable lives, but we're still married -
    so what, who cares?
    
    I think romantic love is more important than just sticking out a
    boring marriage until you drop dead.  Who really knows how happy
    those people in arranged marriages are?  Who knows how many of them
    died miserable?  Also, I bet in some cultures it has been acceptable
    for the man in the arranged marriage to have affairs on the side
    to satisfy their romantic needs and to alleviate boredom - but not
    the wife I bet.
    
    As for marriages to lasting longer because the two are apart, of
    course, it's easy not to get sick of somebody who isn't around every
    day to drive you crazy with their weird idiosyncrasies.
    
    I find the idea of a long term, love relationship to be very appealing
    as long as the two people are happy and are in love.  I would rather
    spend 30 years with one person if I love them, than have 10 short
    term relationships in the same 30 years.  But, if can't find that
    special person to spend 30 years with and still be in love, I'll
    go for the 10 separate relationships before I try to stick it out
    in an unhappy marriage just to avoid divorce.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .24 on Child Support and Tax Deductions
    
    The way it used to work (I'm not sure if it's been changed by the
    latest Tax Reform Act) was:
    
    Alimony - Should be reported as taxable income by the person receiving
              it and is deductible from the taxable income of the person
              giving it.
    
    Child Support - Is not considered taxable income for the parent
                    receiving it, and cannot be deducted from the 
                    taxable income of the person giving it.
    
    The way a parent gets a "break" in his/her taxes for child support 
    payments made, lies in the area of which parent gets to claim the 
    child as a dependent on his/her tax return (in effect, deducting 
    whatever the current per-person exemption is at this time). 
    
    The IRS instructions said that a parent could claim a child as a
    deduction from his/her income if:
    
        - The single parents had an agreement between them as to 
          which parent would claim the child as a deduction
    
                           OR
    
        - The parent who was responsible for more than 50 percent
          of a child's financial support would claim the deduction
    
    Both parents cannot claim the same child as a dependent deduction
    from his/her taxable income. 
    
       Alan
    

    RE: .28
    
    Lorna, I agree with what you're saying about its being more important
    to stay in a marriage because there's love between the two people,
    rather than staying miserable in a marriage and being able to say
    to the world, "We're celebrating our Golden Anniversary". (At the
    rate I'm going, I guess I'll never have to worry about MY 50th
    anniversary!)
    
    As a separate issue, a thought that occurs to me is whether married
    people whose marriages are "borderline", and who are reading either
    this note, or others relating to marriages splitting up, have a feeling
    of anxiety as they read them.
    
    I ask this because I know that during my marriage to my first ex-wife,
    when we had already separated and reconciled twice, when we were drifting
    ever-further apart from each other, when I knew she really wanted
    "out" of the marriage, I would feel panicky any time I heard the
    word "divorce" from whatever the source.
    
    If she was on the phone, talking to a friend of hers who was in
    the process of getting a divorce, I panicked. I felt she was
    trying to get up the courage for her to do the same thing.
    
    If I looked over her shoulder to see what she was reading and the
    article dealt with divorce, I panicked.
    
    If we were watching something on TV or went to a movie where the
    characters in the story were getting divorced, I panicked.
    
    My mind was thinking, if she doesn't hear from her friends the
    word divorce, if she doesn't read about divorce in a magazine or
    a book, if she doesn't see a story in which there is a divorce,
    then...................then maybe she won't WANT a divorce.
    
    When she finally came to me and said that there was no hope for
    us in the marriage, that we each deserved to be happy and we
    couldn't be happy with each other, when she said she wanted a
    divorce and I knew this time she really meant it, I felt that
    my life would surely come to an end. But then, strangely, I felt
    a sort of peace. The for-so-long-sword-of-doom hanging over my
    head was gone. Either I would die, or once again, I could begin
    to live. I was no longer suspended in time.
    
        Alan
    
                                                             

    Reply .27 brings up a good point.  If a couple lives together for
    a few years before getting married, they each get a good look at
    the other.  I agree that in dating, people tend to try to impress
    the other person.  After marriage, you find out he doesn't put the
    seat down after going to the bathroom, she likes to hang her stockings
    on the shower rod, and all the other personal ideosynchracies that
    people keep hidden during dating.  By living together you can really
    get to know the other person and really determine if that person
    is for you for life, or is it all just infatuation.
    I still advocate a period of living together prior to marriage,
    based on these reasons.  It allows you to gain real insight into
    the other person, that can not be known by dating.  She hogs the
    blankets, or he is a couch potato.  At least living together gives
    a person a realistic view point and not one based on expectations
    that have been created by romantic delusions.
    
    Mean Gene

    
    re: -.1
    
    Well, I'll go along with that!  I lived with my husband for six
    months prior to marrying him.  At least this time around I had a
    pretty good idea what I was in for.
    
    I think some couples tend to expect more from their spouse than
    they would if the couple were just living together.  It's sort of
    like living together doesn't allow you to set your expectations
    of the other person too high for fear they may not like it and walk.
    Marriage, on the other hand, makes it a little tougher to leave
    and leaves room for setting higher expectations of the other person.
    

    RE: "romantic" love vs. arranged marriages
    
    As I see it, one of the problems with putting so much reliance on
    romantic love is that it is (a) unpredictable and (b) not going
    to last forever all by itself. (Oh, if you believe that every person
    has one and only one Perfect Soul Mate somewhere on earth, *maybe*
    a marriage with that person would be automatically happy, but I
    doubt it - and besides, it's terrifying to think that one would have
    to search the whole world for that one person...)
    
    Given that *anybody* you spend a lot of time with - spouse, SO,
    roommate, family - is going to get on your nerves (and vice versa),
    there will definitely be some work required to make the relationship
    happy and satisfying in the long term. And given *that*, it seems
    that parents who know their children well and also know what is
    required to get through life might have a good chance of arranging
    a decent match.

    Now, when I was in my teens I would have raged at the very idea
    of anybody else telling me who I had to spend time with, but over
    the years I've modified that opinion. Some of the guys that my folks
    thought highly of back then (and whom the girls called "drips")
    have grown into wonderful men, and many of the most popular boys
    (and girls) wound up proving that they had peaked at 16 and have
    gone downhill from there.

    Do I think marriages ought to be arranged? No. But I think that
    effort should be made to remind the starry-eyed lovers of the
    day-by-day adjustments, the chores, the limitations, etc. that will
    be demanded of them.
    
    And what if you don't believe in marriage at all? Fine - but without
    it, there would not be the incentive to work to maintain a long-term
    relationship. It's a Catch-22 in many ways: if you don't make the
    commitment, you don't "lose" if the relationship ends, but you also are
    not encouraged to work through the bad times to make it last; and if
    you *do* make a commitment, you can feel trapped if you stay with it, and
    a failure if you give it up.
    
    It would be interesting to see what society would be like if everybody
    was expected to take total responsibility for the closeness and
    duration of their relationships, with no external limits at all.
    Some people would handle it well, a lot of people would get hurt;
    would it strengthen us in the long run, or not?

    -b

>    The IRS instructions said that a parent could claim a child as a
>    deduction from his/her income if:
>        - The single parents had an agreement between them as to 
>          which parent would claim the child as a deduction
>                           OR
>        - The parent who was responsible for more than 50 percent
>          of a child's financial support would claim the deduction

	Minor correction:

	At least as of last year, only the latter justification was allowed.
	Agreements - which had to be legal, not verbal ones, btw - were only
	permitted if they dated prior to something (sorry, I've forgotten the
	date).  The IRS decided that they didn't want the courts ruling on
	"their" territory (i.e., who gets what deduction).  At least this was
	true if the parents were divorced; I don't know how it gets handled
	if they were never married - maybe agreements are allowed then?

	Other interesting tax trivia:

	The parent claiming the deduction can also claim the child-care
	credit, if applicable.  Obviously you'd have to get the amount paid
	from the custodial parent or caregiver.

	The custodial parent can file as single-head-of-household - even if
	the child is NOT being claimed as their dependent.  

	Note that this all may have changed with the new tax code, but it's
	worth knowing simply to know whether to ask!

		-hh

Re: .33                    

>>    As I see it, one of the problems with putting so much reliance on
>>    romantic love is that it is (a) unpredictable and (b) not going
>>    to last forever all by itself. (Oh, if you believe that every person
>>    has one and only one Perfect Soul Mate somewhere on earth, *maybe*
>>    a marriage with that person would be automatically happy, but I
>>    doubt it - and besides, it's terrifying to think that one would have
>>    to search the whole world for that one person...)

Perhaps it is terrifying to contemplate having to search the whole world for
the one "right" person... but finding one's soulmate is certainly worth the
search.  Perhaps marriage shouldn't be entered into unless the soulmate is
found.  What is marriage anyway?  How did it originate?  What is its purpose?
Does it still fulfill that purpose?  Is it outmoded in today's society?
Other than the obvious child bearing and caring, what are the advantages
to marriage in today's world?  Have societies evolved to the point where
they have made marriage difficult?  
    
>>    Given that *anybody* you spend a lot of time with - spouse, SO,
>>    roommate, family - is going to get on your nerves (and vice versa),
>>    there will definitely be some work required to make the relationship
>>    happy and satisfying in the long term. And given *that*, it seems
>>    that parents who know their children well and also know what is
>>    required to get through life might have a good chance of arranging
>>    a decent match.

I've read quite a bit about bride burning in India.  It appears that some
arranged marriages are done for social or financial reasons and that the 
bride is disposed of by burning her to death since divorce is not a common
event.  This practice seems to cast a different light on the arranged marriage.

>>  Now, when I was in my teens I would have raged at the very idea
>>    of anybody else telling me who I had to spend time with, but over
>>    the years I've modified that opinion. Some of the guys that my folks
>>    thought highly of back then (and whom the girls called "drips")
>>    have grown into wonderful men, and many of the most popular boys
>>    (and girls) wound up proving that they had peaked at 16 and have
>>    gone downhill from there.

The problem that I see with this is that lifelong decisions should be made 
by the person who has to live with the ramifications of those decisions,
by the person who truly has to live up to the committment.  No one can 
make a committment for another person... parent or not.

>>    And what if you don't believe in marriage at all? Fine - but without
>>    it, there would not be the incentive to work to maintain a long-term
>>    relationship. It's a Catch-22 in many ways: if you don't make the
>>    commitment, you don't "lose" if the relationship ends, but you also are
>>    not encouraged to work through the bad times to make it last; and if
>>    you *do* make a commitment, you can feel trapped if you stay with it, and
>>    a failure if you give it up.

I disagree, long-term relationships are inherently valuable to humanity.
Everyone wants to be loved.  Commitments cannot *really* be forced upon
people (as is proven by our divorce rate).  Commitments must come from the
heart and from the will, people work through the bad times because the
relationship is worth fighting for... married or not.

>>    It would be interesting to see what society would be like if everybody
>>    was expected to take total responsibility for the closeness and
>>    duration of their relationships, with no external limits at all.
>>    Some people would handle it well, a lot of people would get hurt;
>>    would it strengthen us in the long run, or not?

I've often wondered where the "concept" of marriage originated.  Did some
primal jungle clearing serve as an official church?  It seems as though we
humans have loved each other for a very long time... long before we developed
social mores or religious convictions.  Men and women have always managed to
survive the rigors of life together and somehow I believe that we always will.

RE: .27
    
    Couple tend to build up their expectation lot more realistically
    in an arranged marriage.  The love which might develop after the
    marriage is going to based on the reality as opposed to the fantasy
    and would have a better chance of surviving.
    
RE: .28
    
    I am sorry but if one is unwilling to put the efforts to make the
    marriage work, the chances of the marriage succeeding are almost
    nil.
    
    How are you going to find out if those people died miserable or not?
    If it is possible for you to know a couple who has survived through
    thick and thin, you might want to ask them the same question.  Your
    speculation that the couple must be unhappy is to say the least is
    insulting. 
    
    Indeed, outside flings can be present but those are more of an
    exception than the rule.  Certainly, the occurrences of such incidents
    are far less in those cultures.  The culture tends to take very dim
    view of the marital infidelity by either partners. 
    
    Just glancing in this conference will tell you that most of the
    successful marriages have gone through the turmoil period.  If one
    expects that the life after the marriage is going to bed of roses till
    the end, (s)he is in for a rude shock.
    
    One does not marry a part of the person.  One does not marry only the
    good side the the person.  It has to to be total acceptance.  One has
    to be able to live with the "weird idiosyncrasies".  In rare cases,
    those idiosyncrasies might just make that person extra special. 

    The assumption that the marriage is automatically going to be happy one
    without having to work at it is wrong.  It is implicit in an arranged
    marrage that the couple will have to work at it. 
    
    To use your own example, it is certainly possible that out of thirty
    years of arranged marriage the couple might go through difficult times
    at least ten times (probably lot more) but then they have to decide for
    themselves if they would rather try to make it work or try for the
    greens on the other side of the fence. 
    
    Really, what makes a person think that the tenth time is going to be
    the real one if the previous nine times had not resulted in the perfect
    match, apart from the fatal and unrealistic optimism?? 
    
- Vikas 

    Sorry_Mike_;-)_I_forgot_!

    Vikas, I hate to bring it up again, but my understanding is that
    bride burning is a serious problem in arranged marriages in India, 
    especially in the country regions.  
    I've read that many marriages are arranged for
    financial or social reasons with little regard for the future
    of the (often very young) girls involved.  Apparently some of those
    husbands resolve the problem of their bad marriage by burning their
    brides to death.  Easier than divorce albeit but hardly an acceptable
    solution to the problem of divorce.  Could there be problems with
    arranged marriages that perhaps some of us fail to recognize?

    
    
    	RE :.31
    
    	Ending a marriage or relationship because he 'leaves
    	the seat up'?  Little drastic, no?
    
    	Occassionally I do this and my girlfriend just
    	beats me over the head with a baseball bat, but
    	I wouldn't stop dating her just for that.
    
    

    re: .39
    
        Do you know what the incedence of bride burning in India is?
    
        How does this this figure compare with the number of people
    who shoot, poison, etc... their spouse in this country to get out
    of a marriage?
    
        I have direct knowledge of arranged marriages of two of my
    Taiwanese colleges from my privious company.  Does anyone know if
    there is a similar practice to bride burning in that country?
    
    ASP

    Some Indian friends of ours were HORRIFIED at the type of coverage
    bride burning has gotten in our country.  Our papers make it sound
    like it happens daily, as a NORMAL occurance.  I believe their
    marriage *was* arranged, or at least partially arranged - their
    meeting to see if they would accept each other was at least
    arranged.  I briefly talked to them about it - the subject made
    the woman very uncomfortable - imagine someone coming up to you
    and saying "I hear lots of your teenagers are commiting suicide
    because of drugs and the pressures your culture puts on them
    in school, and that parents are just letting it happen and don't
    really care."  Untrue, right?  That's the degree of untruth this
    bride burning stuff has had according to my friends.  It happens,
    but it is CERTAINLY not the norm.
    
    I don't believe this "one soulmate in the whole world" stuff.  We
    are all unique, but I don't think we're that inflexible.
    
    I don't think Beth was suggesting that her parents ought to have
    chosen a spouse for her when she was 16, simply that perhaps she
    would now choose for herself at 16 to have listened to their
    opinions more.  And would now listen to them more.  I think that's
    what's called "a mature perspective", something my folks were
    always saying I would someday attain.
    
    Personally, I don't think that marriage per se is what encourages
    folks to make it work.  We've had lots of notes in here about people
    with 2 year relationships, not married, who are agonizing over how
    far to go, how long to try, before they give up the ghost.  Jim
    and I have been together, tooth and claw and love and caring, for
    7 years without that bit of paper.
    
    --Louise

    I'm genuinely relieved that bride burning doesn't happen daily as
    a normal occurance.  But I can't help but feel that it shouldn't
    happen at all .. and that if people weren't forced into situations
    somewhat beyond their control that *perhaps* this *particular* sort
    of thing wouldn't happen.  
    
    Its true that the element of violence follows
    humanity like the cockroach, but to marry for dowry and kill because
    the profit margin might not be high enough is a truly disturbing
    social side effect that seems to warrant a clear look at the practice
    of arranged marriage itself.

    The other thing that disturbs me about the practice is the concept
    of making a committment for another person.  How binding is a
    committment that is made on one's behalf?  I may be wrong about
    this but it occurs to me that one has the right to make one's own
    mistakes as well as one's own success.  
    Perhaps our mistakes are as precious to us as our victories.
    Wether or not one's marriage is a success, there is some comfort
    in knowing that we are (after all) responsible for the choosing
    and in some part for the condition of the marriage... even if the
    outcome may drift beyond our control.... and what is more precious
    or more beautiful than love.  To experience it for a short time
    is better (to borrow a phrase from a well known poet) than never
    to have loved at all.  I can understand the concept of arranged
    marriage at a time when women needed to be supported and cared for
    but somehow it seems more practical to raise our daughters to support
    and care for themselves .... and may they find love where God leads
    them.
    

    You're a product of your culture.  In your culture, romantic love
    is highly valued.  You cannot imagine your life without this concept,
    I think.  However, romantic love did not always exist.  Take that
    as true, or just as data regarding what I think.  I got this info
    from a course on the history of love - an interesting course to
    say the least.  Romantic love is not an ideal in all cultures. 
    The ability to maintain a stable family unit, the love of daily
    living, the kinship relationship - these ideals replace romantic
    love in some cultures.  It's not a devaluation of the woman, or
    the man (who often does not have a choice either!).  It's different.
    Different cultures ARE different.
    
    From what I've heard and read, India has been attempting, for many
    years, to outlaw the dowry idea.  It's illegal.  But it takes more
    than legislation to change a tradition.  Look at the VERRRRRY gradual
    success of our anti-discrimination legislation vs our traditions
    of discrimination, for an example.
    
    Arranged marriages do not lead to frustration and failure any more
    than romantic love marriages do.  There's a certain amount of 
    marital violence, some leading to death, some leading to psychological
    and emotional trauma, in both systems.  Our culture has women, and
    men!, who are just as stuck in situations somewhat beyond their
    control as people in other cultures are.  I would not assume that
    their system produces more of it simply because it seems to us,
    here in our country, that we would be frustrated by their system.
    
    --Louise

    Not intending this to, in any way, reflect on the culture, I
    can't help but observe that countries that do not have arranged
    marriages also do not have bride burning.  I realize that all countries
    have problems with domestic violence of course, but one form of
    violence does not justify nor diminish another.  I don't think that
    bride burning can be dismissed as a cultural difference that doesn't
    matter ... I would not think so if the custom existed in this country.
    These brides are often very vulnerable teenage girls who are in
    a situation they cannot control and being burned to death is certainly
    not something that anyone of us (humans) deserves.  I realize that
    (as a mother of teenagers) I relate very strongly to situations
    where children are in danger... its one of my own personal weaknesses.
    
    Romantic love aside, the committment to family cannot be forced
    upon one.  People will do what they want to do, it seems.  We (humanity)
    always look for easy answers to our problems.  The ability to maintain
    a stable family relationship, the love of daily livng and the kinship
    relationship are not values that are restricted to a particular
    culture or to particular forms of marriage.  They exist throughout
    the world in every culture and in every country to some degree.
    
    Not to challenge the validity of the course you took, but it seems 
    difficult to understand how even our most learned scientists could 
    reach conclusions about romantic love that preceed social development.
    And (at the risk of sounding like a romantic_:-), romantic love
    has existed far back into antiquity... its been written about by
    Homer, its been referenced in tales of the ancient Gods. 
    
    I am not maintaining that our form of love and marriage is better
    than any other.  Rather, I am saying that all forms of marital
    relationships have certain unique problems.  As a species, we have
    yet to find the solution to the social problems that often come
    with the institution of marriage.  I tend to think that marriage
    was intended to be a personal committment and not a social committment
    and that only the people involved can bind themselves to each other,...
    regardless of whether or not (whichever) society feels marriage
    is necessary to social stability.

    .40
    
    Your girlfriend deserves a round of applause.  The toilet seat
    issue is a "hot" one and until you've fallen in at 2 in the morning
    you'll never understand.

    Please reread my note!  I don't believe that any form of domestic
    violence is justifiable (though some may be understandable - big
    difference there).  Simply that 1)the incidence is blown out
    of proportion by our reporters, 2)arranged marriages don't have
    the corner on the violence market, 3)arranged marriages are not
    necessarily the reason for bride burning - the dowry seems to
    be the problem from what I've heard, as well as a traditional
    attitude regarding the worth of a wife, 3)we can't condemn something
    (arranged marriages) which we understand little, simply because
    we wouldn't do things that way.
    
    --Louuise

.39, .43

    Mary, I will say that even one incidence of bride burning is one
    too many.  
    
    However, if you were to look at from the point of sensational Western
    media, you would tend to believe that it is a common occurrence. Such is
    certainly not the case.  People of India gets equally horrified when
    such an incident takes place.  But if your understanding of it as being
    a widespread practice is blatantly untrue.

    In most of the arranged marriages that I have seen in my life-time,
    bride and groom make the final decision.  Very rarely a decision would
    be forced upon either the girl or the boy.  
    
    But all of the above points were already made by other contributors
    and they have expressed them lot more eloquently than I would ever
    be able to do.  Thank you Louise.
    
- Vikas

�    .40
    
�    Your girlfriend deserves a round of applause.  

    Are you condoning violence against men as the resolution of
    this situation?

� The toilet seat issue is a "hot" one and until you've fallen in at 2 in 
� the morning you'll never understand.

    1]	My toilet seat is not heated;

    2]	About 33% of the time I go 'potty' I, too, have to sit down
	and you know what *I* do?  I LOOK down before planting my tuchus
	firmly.  

It doesn't really sound as if it's "too easy" to get a divorce,
given the pain and legal wheeling-and-dealing involved.  It does
sound like it's "too easy" to get married, since the only real
restriction is age of majority (or parental consent).  Perhaps
the difficulty of divorce is directly proportionate to the ease
of marriage.

Why not make marriage more "legalistic"?  Let's make this
"marriage contract" stuff a reality--make a prenuptial agreement
MANDATORY, not something for the hesitant few.  So it's not so
much a case of hedging one's bets, as JimB makes it out, but a
case of affirming "this is the level of loss I am willing to
sustain if this marriage does not work for some unforeseen
reason".

Also, the idea of fixed-term marriages with renewability options
makes good legal sense, as long as provision for offspring is
clearly spelled out ahead of time.

    re: .0 and others
    
    Marriage:- I've said it all, I've heard it all (or most of  it).
    I've experienced some of its worst and best.
    
    There are many who have written in these files whose opinions range
    from the very bottom of the pit (in opinion) to its very penultimate
    zenith.
    
    Indeed, why buy the cow when milk is free: but salmonella from infected
    cows is not so free after the medical bills are paid. Marraige was
    never free, nor easy of all the participants take it seriously and
    with "best intent" for each other.
    
    Anything involving people involves risk. Risk of <something>. Risk
    can put excitement into ones life; and lack of risk doesn't mean
    life is any less exciting. Sometimes just driving into Boston can
    be 'exciting'. ;^)
    
    Its too bad, that for "mismatched people", Love, Marriage, and Sex
    become mutually EXCLUSIVE acts/feelings.
    
	To paraphrase another person: Love is that quality, that when
    practiced vigorously and faithfully; will cause any marrige to succeed.

    What is success ? To me, success is the process of continuing to
    work toward a goal. Failure is the act of stopping with no intent
    to continue.
    
    Bob
    

    
    re: .0 - .51
    
    Wow...I've read all of these notes over the past few days--and have
    been doing my own thinking (a lot of it) on the subject.  I'm getting
    married in less than two weeks (Oct. 10) and have known my spouse
    for about 6 years.  I know that we are both going into this marriage
    with level heads.  I also know that neither one of us has the attitude
    "Well, if it doesn't work, we'll get divorced." 
    
    I guess that means we're not starry-eyed.  I know at one time we
    were.  Sometimes, I wonder if we're still supposed to be, somewhat.
    People have told us that we have the right attitude, we are not
    setting ourselves up to be disappointed.  I wonder, is that true?
    Or are we supposed to be all starry-eyed like you see on tv??, and
    read in books??
    
    We love each other, and we have common goals.  We also make a great
    team.  We see something we want and we work together to acheive
    that goal.  We have the same feelings toward having a family, the
    way children should be raised.  We've been told that this is what
    is important.  
    
    I guess what I'm asking is what makes a new marriage last?  Is it
    the romantic love or the love I just described?  Any suggestions?
    
    

    >>I guess what I'm asking is what makes a new marriage last.
    
    You, .. you make it last, both of you.  You decide whether the color
    of the living room wall paper is worth arguing about.  You decide
    whether money is really as important an issue as it sometimes seems.
    You decide whether your spouse can be trusted.  You weigh all of
    the petty (and not so petty) little issues that come up in daily
    life against your relationship, you keep from taking each other
    for granted, you never put a relative or friend or job before your spouse.
    *You* make it work.... (and I know you will.... congratulations_:-)
    

    Change.  Diversity.  Open-minds make relationships work.

    It was interesting to look at some of the comments on arranged marriage
    by fellow readers. 
    
    60 minutes ran a story on bride-burning in India about six months
    ago. I was really shocked to see sensationalist journalism in such
    a high quality program - it sounded more like trying to run a segment
    on shooting deaths on LA freeways in India. Both are true incidents
    but reporting them would give a very false idea of a certain kind
    of violence. (Naturally everyone in India will also conclude that
    shooting is common on american freeways.) Surely, bride burning
    incidents have happened in the past, but it is something we hear once 
    in a while in the newspaper.

    There is a saying in India (reference to unstability of marriages
    in america...)
    In america, they marry the woman they love,
    In India we love the woman we marry. 
    
    Wish we all marry the ones we love and continue to love them!
                  
    anil.
    
    

        PLease remember that not only is bride burning uncommon in
        India, but that virtually all of the major cultures in history
        have had arranged marriages and that it didn't lead to bride
        burning, anymore than having freeways has always resulted in
        drivers taking shots at each other. 
        
        Bride burning is a dreadful practice and it should be pretty
        near impossible to find anyone who defends it. It has happened
        in India, but there is no reason to believe that it is a problem
        indemic to arranged marriages or cultures that have arranged
        marriages. They are separate topics. Confusing them doesn't
        help.
        
        JimB.