14 ms·

> Of course, we compromise: by taking turns, and by putting up with the fact that one of us is, to some degree, dragging the other along for the ride. But we ca

> Of course, we compromise: by taking turns, and by putting up with the fact that one of us is, to some degree, dragging the other along for the ride. But we can also tell that we are compromising, and that makes each of us feel sad, and somewhat alone. This is actually the problem. Compromise is when two people in an adversarial relationship both try to look out for themselves and inevitably walk away disappointed. When two people view marriage as a self-giving endeavor, rather than a self-serving one, happiness follows. You're happy to give and happy to be loved in return. The trouble is for so many people, a mutually self-giving relationship is unthinkable. I've been married for 15 years and my wife and I couldn't be more different. I'm an engineer working on my second Masters degree and she has a high school diploma. Our interests differ wildly but we're very happy because we both share a desire to serve and make the other one happy. Me first is the problem.

Qi_ 5y ago
I've heard good marriages described as a 100 / 100 partnership, not just a 50 / 50 one. You described that idea excellently, thank you.
dforrestwilson 5y ago
15 years is a long time. Congrats and may you have many more together!
Halnk 5y ago
Depends really on the Personality traits and Needs of the 2 people involved. Some differences complement each other. Some dont. And that too depends on the type of problem the couple faces which is not static and changes from year to year. The same couple that complement each other in one situation can be completely hopeless together in another. So its all about Awareness and Communication of what your traits, needs, strenths and weaknesses are. Obviously thats non trivial cause the chimp brain is not really designed for such things. The brain looks outward not inward. It takes much more work to look inward. So all chimps fail a test to produce a list of their personality traits and needs, strengths and weakness wrt to different situations that matches what their partner will produce of them and vice versa. Couples that minimize that gap, and its lifelong hard work, are usually the most long lasting.
ip26 5y ago
Why does it have to be all self-giving or all self-serving? Why not simply a team, with the team first?
- asplake 5y ago
  Interesting point, and you need both. Team for things involving challenge and purpose, mutual care to sustain it all.
- travisgriggs 5y ago
  Amen. “We” is a word that is different than “you and I.” It is a word that requires both a plurality and a sense of unity. It’s an entity that needs both “you and I”, but also transcends “you and I.” It does need to compete with or replace you or I.
  - travisgriggs 5y ago
    Dang autocorrect. Last sentence was meant to read: “It does not need to compete with or replace you or I.”
- nsomaru 5y ago
  Ultimately you can only control your actions and attitudes. What happens if the SO is not playing for the team? So again, team play comes down to self-giving, because you are not in control of the other person.
  - lupire 5y ago
    Same thing that happens in any team. the team fails.
- slothtrop 5y ago
  Exactly, it's an unrealistic depiction. And it's not a zero sum game. You can care about your spouse's happiness as well as your own, and can't rely on someone else entirely to make you happy.
AmericanChopper 5y ago
To me this sounds a lot like a distinction without a difference. My wife and I have different preferences for different things. We each routinely compromise by going along with the others preferences. We aim to do that in such as way as to achieve a healthy balance, where each of us feel satisfied and have our needs met. We do this by using communication. To my knowledge, neither of us feel any animosity towards those compromises, because we’re both very interested in taking care of each other, and meeting each other’s needs. Is this self-giving or self-serving? It just seems like using different vocabulary for the same thing.
88913527 5y ago
You can give your heart, but if your significant other doesn't speak your love language, no matter how much you give, it may not be right for you. If you're focused exclusively on giving, are you considering your own needs as a person? Granted, if both people are focused on giving, hopefully they can figure it out among one another.
- manmal 5y ago
  Languages can and have to be learned. This is also true for love language.
  - golemotron 5y ago
    Love languages were invented to sell a book in 1992.
    - feanaro 5y ago
      Is this an American thing? I had no idea the OP was talking about an actual thing until now and understood the phrase "love language" as figurative.
      - sammalloy 5y ago
        "Love language" is a hugely popular, but pseudoscientific concept in the relationship community in the US. It's BS, just like astrology, the law of attraction, and all that jazz. But people swear by it, and they won't back down from it if it works for them.
        giantg2 5y ago
        I mean, if you consider psychology psuedoscience, I suppose that could be true. It has numerous articles written about it in psychology publications.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
oconnor663 5y ago
> a self-giving endeavor This seems like a step 2 to me. I think when people try to be giving as a step 1, before their own needs are met, they can end up miserable and resentful. But when your needs are met, giving is natural and joyful. The NVC assumption is that when two people can identify each other's needs and connect with them, they find that their needs aren't actually in conflict. Compromise isn't necessary. That's the idea in theory at least.
didibus 5y ago
What you say sounds nice, but either I don't understand it, or I feel it just isn't true. For example, you want to watch a movie together, but neither of you have the same tastes in movies. What do you do? Because both of you are self-giving, you both say that the other can pick, you're thus in a deadlock. At some point, there's going to need a compromise, because you can only pick one movie and neither of you happen to like the same movie. So best you can do is compromise by alternating, this time you watch your preferred movie, next time there's. Or you compromise by not watching movies together, but seperately.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  In a way in a good relationship the other person knows you won't like it, so either he will find something else to share for both pleasure, or he will make it enjoyable (don't just watch the movie with someone on the side, talk about the movie, make her part of the moment). The idea is that sharing together is more important than self pleasure. (as long as its reciprocal indeed)
- oblio 5y ago
  My guess? Have a relaxed, open attitude. Even if the movies you'll see are not what you'd watch, they are made for an audience and generally have some redeeming qualities. You try to find those and maybe even learn from them (about the actual movies or what they reveal about their target audience).
  - didibus 5y ago
    That's the best case scenario, that you end up enjoying the movie. But I'm saying in a scenario where you don't. You simply have very different movie tastes. So if you want to watch a movie together, I just don't see how you could both enjoy it without any compromise.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > That's the best case scenario, that you end up enjoying the movie. But I'm saying in a scenario where you don't. You simply have very different movie tastes. > So if you want to watch a movie together, I just don't see how you could both enjoy it without any compromise. It kinda seems like you're setting up the scenario to force a particular result. If both your tastes are so fixed and incompatible that you can't like a movie without your partner disliking it, then maybe decide to do something else besides watch a movie?
nvarsj 5y ago
I'll play devil's advocate. Your marriage doesn't sound like one of equals. You're doing a Masters while working full time I imagine. So who picks up the slack for household management? I'm guessing your wife. If you have kids, then it is even more unbalanced I imagine. I know people in similar marriages - it works great, as long as the spouse is happy being the dutiful house wife. But I also know people in this situation who are now separated - usually the man/provider is completely blind sided when their ever loving, house wife says one day "no" and just walks out. They had no idea there was an inequality in the first place, and assumed their spouse is happy like this. I personally believe that when marrying someone, "marry your equal" is incredibly important advice. Marry someone of similar earning power, with similar career and life accomplishments. This helps ensures a equal relationship that has the greatest chance of success.
- watwut 5y ago
  I know women in marriages you have in mind who, after they felt closed to me opened up and turned out they were super unhappy. They stay because of kids and because the have some feelings for husband still. But they don't like that and have a lot of resentment. But, it does not necessary describes his situation. It sounds like two people with different initial interests.
  - paulryanrogers 5y ago
    I've known some husbands in marriages who resent that they're expected to do half the housework and child rearing with a full time job when the spouse has no formal employment. Kids take a huge amount of time, and the pandemic has limited school and daycare choices for many. Still, kids become gradually more independent. And some housework can be outsourced (landscaping, no yard, surface cleaning). A career in the marketplace is often 40+ years before reaching retirement or financial independence.
    - watwut 5y ago
      I don't know any couple where husband would do half child caring while woman has no job. Like, not a single one. I do know couples with various splits including husband doing more. But this particular scenario, not really. > Kids take a huge amount of time, and the pandemic has limited school and daycare choices for many. I know couples that split it and the ones where it falls on woman. I know couples where women are resentful that work sacrifice is disproportionately on them. Women who would prefer job. And woman being intentionally at home and wanting it so. But like, only husband being employed and he doing half homeschooling is something I did not seen.
MillenialMan 5y ago
I think this is true, but it really comes down to: how much do you and your spouse like each other? If you both like each other, you'll want to give, and the relationship is probably going to feel mutually fulfilling. If it's not mutual, you won't want to give, even if you force yourself, and you'll resent doing things for them. Honestly I think all these reframings are a way of avoiding the basic fact that the main source of satisfaction in a relationship is just: how much you're romantically into the other person, and how much they return that. Throw trust in too, since that's sort of separate, but that's the meat and potatoes of the dish. Romance is romance, vast majority of relationship dissatisfaction I see comes from a lack of desire from one person.
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Romance is not the basis of marriage or any relationship. Romance is affective. It can coax us into a relationship, but it isn’t the basis. That is a sign of immaturity. You also end up in the absurd situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love”.
  - MillenialMan 5y ago
    I'm not talking about the thrill of a new relationship. I would define a feeling of old, secure warmth towards your partner of 50 years as romance, and your satisfaction in a 50-year-old relationship is primarily a function of whether you have that. That's the kind of thing that makes someone happy to take care of their wife for 5 or 10 years as she suffers through alzheimers. But in any case, romance is absolutely the basis of a relationship, otherwise you could marry your best friend. If you don't have it, you're likely to be dissatisfied. Of course it can wane - but that's also why you work to get it back, because if it goes away for good, your relationship is going to suck.
    - saagarjha 5y ago
      Many do marry their best friends, or consider their spouse their best friend.
grasshopperpurp 5y ago
I think that's more of a symptom in this case. The problem is that the writer and, likely, her husband are driven by ego. Everything about the first few paragraphs screams, I'm putting on all sorts of fronts (bc I think I'm being smart/cool). If you feed your ego ahead of your soul, you won't know what you really want/need, and if you don't know what you want/need, how is anyone else supposed to satisfy you in any sustainable fashion? The good news is that relationships can help you develop as a person. You should be growing together and on your own. If you care for someone and feel you're failing them in some way, it should drive you towards self-examination, which should spur new perspectives and development. I would guess that you and your wife are less driven by ego than most. You probably don't reach a place where you're self-giving without at least corraling your ego. You may be at a point where you take it as a given. To be clear, everything in your post is good. I just think it's Step 2, rather than Step 1.
- true_religion 5y ago
  I think the problem is… I like many people know what it is to have an ego, but I can’t recognize a soul. Heck in many contexts soul is just a synonym for an ineffable immaterial thing that makes things better (e.g. the soul of a song). So how can you feed your own soul? How do you know the nature of your soul?
  - droopyEyelids 5y ago
    The word "soul" has been mixed up with a lot of confusing voodoo, but when I was trying to look up the historic definitions, it was basically equivalent to 'the part of you that thinks and makes choices' With that definition I feel like a lot of the soul talk makes sense. Like here you 'feed' your soul the information, experiences, and media you seek out, and that influences the 'nature of your soul' by creating the environment it reacts to. For example, now you've exposed yourself to the idea of a mutually self-giving relationship, and if you keep trying to figure out more about what that means, then your thoughts and choices can start falling in line with that concept.
    - 5y ago
civilized 5y ago
Yes. Reading this article is like watching Elaine from Seinfeld attempt to navigate a marriage. The expectations for how it works are so deeply, fundamentally off-base that it's kind of funny in a sad way. The main difference is that Elaine lacks self-awareness, so it's easy to just laugh and not feel bad for her. There's no need to write a bad review of marriage if it clearly wasn't made for people like you in the first place. (I do want to stress that Agnes Callard is a good, perceptive thinker on many other topics, even if this piece IMO really misses the point)
- suifbwish 5y ago
  I just wish people would stop with the “until death do us part” horse shit unless they are actually willing to do that. Just say “until I grow bored or decide it’s not in my favor anymore” do us part. Let’s be real.
  - civilized 5y ago
    I remember hearing that some people had changed it to "as long as love lasts". Imagine going to that wedding.
    - hackeraccount 5y ago
      There's a 100% chance your marriage will end in Death or Divorce.
      - ARandomerDude 5y ago
        Right, but the problem is marriage vows are supposed to be meaningful statements of commitment. Imagine if a president swore "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Or that I will become a tyrannical dictator. Either way. Hard to tell at this point."
a2tech 5y ago
Agreed. My wife and I are more likely to get frustrated with each other because we both are trying to take care of the others needs. We want the other person to be more selfish because we so much want to take care of each other. On the spectrum of problems to have it’s a pretty minor one.
slothtrop 5y ago
Your own happiness and your significant others' aren't mutually exclusive, or zero-sum. It's a distortion to characterize one as more or less important than the other. It's important to look out for both. You can't just rely on your SO to make you happy.
baryphonic 5y ago
This is exactly right. Marriage is a commitment to deny yourself so you put the good of the other first. When I hear people talk about marriage (or any commitment) these days, I sometimes wonder if they're from a distant planet. When any long-term commitment is some form of oppression from which we must be liberated, bonds like marriage cannot work. This is justified in the pursuit of happiness. Ironically, those who seem happiest are those willing to make (and keep) binding commitments.
redisman 5y ago
Exactly - I don’t go to my wife to gush over the latest database optimization details I discovered expecting to have a deep technical discussion. Maybe the executive summary. I talk to my coworkers or friends or online people who are excited about the same details. If someone can only feel close to you when they speak of crossword puzzles I wonder if they’re on the spectrum or need to join a crossword club or something. We do have a baseline of shared philosophies and views but even there we often find that we slightly disagree on details.
- two_dimes 5y ago
  My SO and I do this to each other but neither of us are neurotypical. I’d be so bored with someone who just yammered on about their daily life
  - redisman 5y ago
    In relationships, above all - whatever works. Didn’t mean to sound judgmental of people who are like that and find happiness

Qi_ 5y ago

I've heard good marriages described as a 100 / 100 partnership, not just a 50 / 50 one. You described that idea excellently, thank you.

dforrestwilson 5y ago

15 years is a long time. Congrats and may you have many more together!

Halnk 5y ago

Depends really on the Personality traits and Needs of the 2 people involved. Some differences complement each other. Some dont. And that too depends on the type of problem the couple faces which is not static and changes from year to year. The same couple that complement each other in one situation can be completely hopeless together in another. So its all about Awareness and Communication of what your traits, needs, strenths and weaknesses are. Obviously thats non trivial cause the chimp brain is not really designed for such things. The brain looks outward not inward. It takes much more work to look inward. So all chimps fail a test to produce a list of their personality traits and needs, strengths and weakness wrt to different situations that matches what their partner will produce of them and vice versa. Couples that minimize that gap, and its lifelong hard work, are usually the most long lasting.

ip26 5y ago

Why does it have to be all self-giving or all self-serving? Why not simply a team, with the team first?

asplake 5y ago
Interesting point, and you need both. Team for things involving challenge and purpose, mutual care to sustain it all.
travisgriggs 5y ago
Amen. “We” is a word that is different than “you and I.” It is a word that requires both a plurality and a sense of unity. It’s an entity that needs both “you and I”, but also transcends “you and I.” It does need to compete with or replace you or I.
- travisgriggs 5y ago
  Dang autocorrect. Last sentence was meant to read: “It does not need to compete with or replace you or I.”
nsomaru 5y ago
Ultimately you can only control your actions and attitudes. What happens if the SO is not playing for the team? So again, team play comes down to self-giving, because you are not in control of the other person.
- lupire 5y ago
  Same thing that happens in any team. the team fails.
slothtrop 5y ago
Exactly, it's an unrealistic depiction. And it's not a zero sum game. You can care about your spouse's happiness as well as your own, and can't rely on someone else entirely to make you happy.

AmericanChopper 5y ago

To me this sounds a lot like a distinction without a difference. My wife and I have different preferences for different things. We each routinely compromise by going along with the others preferences. We aim to do that in such as way as to achieve a healthy balance, where each of us feel satisfied and have our needs met. We do this by using communication. To my knowledge, neither of us feel any animosity towards those compromises, because we’re both very interested in taking care of each other, and meeting each other’s needs. Is this self-giving or self-serving? It just seems like using different vocabulary for the same thing.

88913527 5y ago

You can give your heart, but if your significant other doesn't speak your love language, no matter how much you give, it may not be right for you. If you're focused exclusively on giving, are you considering your own needs as a person? Granted, if both people are focused on giving, hopefully they can figure it out among one another.

manmal 5y ago
Languages can and have to be learned. This is also true for love language.
- golemotron 5y ago
  Love languages were invented to sell a book in 1992.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    Is this an American thing? I had no idea the OP was talking about an actual thing until now and understood the phrase "love language" as figurative.
    - sammalloy 5y ago
      "Love language" is a hugely popular, but pseudoscientific concept in the relationship community in the US. It's BS, just like astrology, the law of attraction, and all that jazz. But people swear by it, and they won't back down from it if it works for them.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I mean, if you consider psychology psuedoscience, I suppose that could be true. It has numerous articles written about it in psychology publications.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

oconnor663 5y ago

> a self-giving endeavor This seems like a step 2 to me. I think when people try to be giving as a step 1, before their own needs are met, they can end up miserable and resentful. But when your needs are met, giving is natural and joyful. The NVC assumption is that when two people can identify each other's needs and connect with them, they find that their needs aren't actually in conflict. Compromise isn't necessary. That's the idea in theory at least.

didibus 5y ago

What you say sounds nice, but either I don't understand it, or I feel it just isn't true. For example, you want to watch a movie together, but neither of you have the same tastes in movies. What do you do? Because both of you are self-giving, you both say that the other can pick, you're thus in a deadlock. At some point, there's going to need a compromise, because you can only pick one movie and neither of you happen to like the same movie. So best you can do is compromise by alternating, this time you watch your preferred movie, next time there's. Or you compromise by not watching movies together, but seperately.

agumonkey 5y ago
In a way in a good relationship the other person knows you won't like it, so either he will find something else to share for both pleasure, or he will make it enjoyable (don't just watch the movie with someone on the side, talk about the movie, make her part of the moment). The idea is that sharing together is more important than self pleasure. (as long as its reciprocal indeed)
oblio 5y ago
My guess? Have a relaxed, open attitude. Even if the movies you'll see are not what you'd watch, they are made for an audience and generally have some redeeming qualities. You try to find those and maybe even learn from them (about the actual movies or what they reveal about their target audience).
- didibus 5y ago
  That's the best case scenario, that you end up enjoying the movie. But I'm saying in a scenario where you don't. You simply have very different movie tastes. So if you want to watch a movie together, I just don't see how you could both enjoy it without any compromise.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > That's the best case scenario, that you end up enjoying the movie. But I'm saying in a scenario where you don't. You simply have very different movie tastes. > So if you want to watch a movie together, I just don't see how you could both enjoy it without any compromise. It kinda seems like you're setting up the scenario to force a particular result. If both your tastes are so fixed and incompatible that you can't like a movie without your partner disliking it, then maybe decide to do something else besides watch a movie?

nvarsj 5y ago

I'll play devil's advocate. Your marriage doesn't sound like one of equals. You're doing a Masters while working full time I imagine. So who picks up the slack for household management? I'm guessing your wife. If you have kids, then it is even more unbalanced I imagine. I know people in similar marriages - it works great, as long as the spouse is happy being the dutiful house wife. But I also know people in this situation who are now separated - usually the man/provider is completely blind sided when their ever loving, house wife says one day "no" and just walks out. They had no idea there was an inequality in the first place, and assumed their spouse is happy like this. I personally believe that when marrying someone, "marry your equal" is incredibly important advice. Marry someone of similar earning power, with similar career and life accomplishments. This helps ensures a equal relationship that has the greatest chance of success.

watwut 5y ago
I know women in marriages you have in mind who, after they felt closed to me opened up and turned out they were super unhappy. They stay because of kids and because the have some feelings for husband still. But they don't like that and have a lot of resentment. But, it does not necessary describes his situation. It sounds like two people with different initial interests.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  I've known some husbands in marriages who resent that they're expected to do half the housework and child rearing with a full time job when the spouse has no formal employment. Kids take a huge amount of time, and the pandemic has limited school and daycare choices for many. Still, kids become gradually more independent. And some housework can be outsourced (landscaping, no yard, surface cleaning). A career in the marketplace is often 40+ years before reaching retirement or financial independence.
  - watwut 5y ago
    I don't know any couple where husband would do half child caring while woman has no job. Like, not a single one. I do know couples with various splits including husband doing more. But this particular scenario, not really. > Kids take a huge amount of time, and the pandemic has limited school and daycare choices for many. I know couples that split it and the ones where it falls on woman. I know couples where women are resentful that work sacrifice is disproportionately on them. Women who would prefer job. And woman being intentionally at home and wanting it so. But like, only husband being employed and he doing half homeschooling is something I did not seen.

MillenialMan 5y ago

I think this is true, but it really comes down to: how much do you and your spouse like each other? If you both like each other, you'll want to give, and the relationship is probably going to feel mutually fulfilling. If it's not mutual, you won't want to give, even if you force yourself, and you'll resent doing things for them. Honestly I think all these reframings are a way of avoiding the basic fact that the main source of satisfaction in a relationship is just: how much you're romantically into the other person, and how much they return that. Throw trust in too, since that's sort of separate, but that's the meat and potatoes of the dish. Romance is romance, vast majority of relationship dissatisfaction I see comes from a lack of desire from one person.

bobthechef 5y ago
Romance is not the basis of marriage or any relationship. Romance is affective. It can coax us into a relationship, but it isn’t the basis. That is a sign of immaturity. You also end up in the absurd situation where you seek divorce because you’re no longer in “love”.
- MillenialMan 5y ago
  I'm not talking about the thrill of a new relationship. I would define a feeling of old, secure warmth towards your partner of 50 years as romance, and your satisfaction in a 50-year-old relationship is primarily a function of whether you have that. That's the kind of thing that makes someone happy to take care of their wife for 5 or 10 years as she suffers through alzheimers. But in any case, romance is absolutely the basis of a relationship, otherwise you could marry your best friend. If you don't have it, you're likely to be dissatisfied. Of course it can wane - but that's also why you work to get it back, because if it goes away for good, your relationship is going to suck.
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    Many do marry their best friends, or consider their spouse their best friend.

grasshopperpurp 5y ago

I think that's more of a symptom in this case. The problem is that the writer and, likely, her husband are driven by ego. Everything about the first few paragraphs screams, I'm putting on all sorts of fronts (bc I think I'm being smart/cool). If you feed your ego ahead of your soul, you won't know what you really want/need, and if you don't know what you want/need, how is anyone else supposed to satisfy you in any sustainable fashion? The good news is that relationships can help you develop as a person. You should be growing together and on your own. If you care for someone and feel you're failing them in some way, it should drive you towards self-examination, which should spur new perspectives and development. I would guess that you and your wife are less driven by ego than most. You probably don't reach a place where you're self-giving without at least corraling your ego. You may be at a point where you take it as a given. To be clear, everything in your post is good. I just think it's Step 2, rather than Step 1.

true_religion 5y ago
I think the problem is… I like many people know what it is to have an ego, but I can’t recognize a soul. Heck in many contexts soul is just a synonym for an ineffable immaterial thing that makes things better (e.g. the soul of a song). So how can you feed your own soul? How do you know the nature of your soul?
- droopyEyelids 5y ago
  The word "soul" has been mixed up with a lot of confusing voodoo, but when I was trying to look up the historic definitions, it was basically equivalent to 'the part of you that thinks and makes choices' With that definition I feel like a lot of the soul talk makes sense. Like here you 'feed' your soul the information, experiences, and media you seek out, and that influences the 'nature of your soul' by creating the environment it reacts to. For example, now you've exposed yourself to the idea of a mutually self-giving relationship, and if you keep trying to figure out more about what that means, then your thoughts and choices can start falling in line with that concept.
  - 5y ago

civilized 5y ago

Yes. Reading this article is like watching Elaine from Seinfeld attempt to navigate a marriage. The expectations for how it works are so deeply, fundamentally off-base that it's kind of funny in a sad way. The main difference is that Elaine lacks self-awareness, so it's easy to just laugh and not feel bad for her. There's no need to write a bad review of marriage if it clearly wasn't made for people like you in the first place. (I do want to stress that Agnes Callard is a good, perceptive thinker on many other topics, even if this piece IMO really misses the point)

suifbwish 5y ago
I just wish people would stop with the “until death do us part” horse shit unless they are actually willing to do that. Just say “until I grow bored or decide it’s not in my favor anymore” do us part. Let’s be real.
- civilized 5y ago
  I remember hearing that some people had changed it to "as long as love lasts". Imagine going to that wedding.
  - hackeraccount 5y ago
    There's a 100% chance your marriage will end in Death or Divorce.
    - ARandomerDude 5y ago
      Right, but the problem is marriage vows are supposed to be meaningful statements of commitment. Imagine if a president swore "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Or that I will become a tyrannical dictator. Either way. Hard to tell at this point."

a2tech 5y ago

Agreed. My wife and I are more likely to get frustrated with each other because we both are trying to take care of the others needs. We want the other person to be more selfish because we so much want to take care of each other. On the spectrum of problems to have it’s a pretty minor one.

slothtrop 5y ago

Your own happiness and your significant others' aren't mutually exclusive, or zero-sum. It's a distortion to characterize one as more or less important than the other. It's important to look out for both. You can't just rely on your SO to make you happy.

baryphonic 5y ago

This is exactly right. Marriage is a commitment to deny yourself so you put the good of the other first. When I hear people talk about marriage (or any commitment) these days, I sometimes wonder if they're from a distant planet. When any long-term commitment is some form of oppression from which we must be liberated, bonds like marriage cannot work. This is justified in the pursuit of happiness. Ironically, those who seem happiest are those willing to make (and keep) binding commitments.

redisman 5y ago

Exactly - I don’t go to my wife to gush over the latest database optimization details I discovered expecting to have a deep technical discussion. Maybe the executive summary. I talk to my coworkers or friends or online people who are excited about the same details. If someone can only feel close to you when they speak of crossword puzzles I wonder if they’re on the spectrum or need to join a crossword club or something. We do have a baseline of shared philosophies and views but even there we often find that we slightly disagree on details.

two_dimes 5y ago
My SO and I do this to each other but neither of us are neurotypical. I’d be so bored with someone who just yammered on about their daily life
- redisman 5y ago
  In relationships, above all - whatever works. Didn’t mean to sound judgmental of people who are like that and find happiness