Which marriage would you rather have?

[extendedforecast]

Option One: One in which your spouse is a loving, involved, and patient father/mother, as well as helpful around the house, and works together with you to raise your family. However, there is little to no affection between the two of you. Essentially, you love and respect each other, you are best friends, but you are not "in love."

 

Or...

 

Option Two: One in which you are passionately in love with each other, you are affectionate verbally and physically, but your spouse isn't as thoughtful or as helpful raising your family, nor as involved or patient with the children. You love each other, but are not best friends with each other. ETA: I was imagining the spouse who thinks it's his/her job to bring in the income and his/her spouse's job to handle the household and child-rearing.

Edited July 23, 2010 by extendedforecast

[newbie]

I believe its a partnership and helping out is A1 in my book.

[astrid]

Um, neither.

 

But I guess if I had to choose, I'd pick #1. But seriously, neither.

 

astrid

[vonfirmath]

If my spouse is my best friend, I don't care if we fell we are in love at the moment or not. Love is not as necessary as our culture makes it out to be. It's something that comes and goes. Best Friends can weather quite a few more thunderstorms.

[teachermom2834]

I'm living option 1 here right now...but we are working on improving it and getting the good stuff from option 2 :)

 

Seriously, I sometimes long for the kind of passion you speak of in option 2 but it is very rarely. All that love and respect stuff would be hard for me if he wasn't acting as my partner. I wouldn't be able to feel loved if he wasn't attentive to the needs of the family and willing to assist with the children and home.

 

I probably would not last very long in the option 2 scenario.

[kokotg]

Honestly, I can't imagine being "passionately in love" with a man who isn't thoughtful, helpful, and involved in raising our children. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really can't imagine it. So, yeah, I guess I vote neither. ETA: I mean, I guess if I have to vote, I vote for 1. But neither sounds especially appealing.

Edited July 23, 2010 by kokotg

[Melinda in VT]

I'm still tripping over the idea that one can be best friends with someone and have "little to no affection" between them. :confused:

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Um, neither.

 

 

I agree. I feel very lucky to be in a marriage that would probably have been Option 1.5 in your poll. :D

Edited July 23, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[MindyD]

Hmm, option 3? How about "One in which your spouse is a loving, involved, and patient father/mother, as well as helpful around the house, and works together with you to raise your family, and you are passionately in love with each other, you are affectionate verbally and physically." Not helpful, I know! But if I'm choosing what I'd rather have, then I want it all! :)

[Hockey Mom]

Um, neither.

 

But I guess if I had to choose, I'd pick #1. But seriously, neither.

 

astrid

 

If my spouse is my best friend, I don't care if we fell we are in love at the moment or not. Love is not as necessary as our culture makes it out to be. It's something that comes and goes. Best Friends can weather quite a few more thunderstorms.

 

 

:iagree:

 

And I am so incredibly blessed to have married my best friend who I am madly in love with after 11+ years together. He's a hard-working man who supports us financially, spiritually, and with day-to-day stuff. I feel like I have the best of option 1 & 2.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Honestly, I can't imagine being "passionately in love" with a man who isn't thoughtful, helpful, and involved in raising our children. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just really can't imagine it. So, yeah, I guess I vote neither. ETA: I mean, I guess if I have to vote, I vote for 1. But neither sounds especially appealing.

 

Totally agree. It's one of the things I find most attractive about DH.

[Spy Car]

I don't think Option 2 is "valid" on semantic grounds. As in, I don't believe you can be in love with someone and consistently be inconsiderate towards them and unhelpful about sharing the load of daily life. You might be "in lust" with the other person, but that is a very different thing (in my mind) from being "in love" with them.

 

Bill

[extendedforecast]

I'm still tripping over the idea that one can be best friends with someone and have "little to no affection" between them. :confused:

 

I was imagining the husband who thinks it's his job to bring in the income and his wife's job to handle the household and child-rearing.

[Mrs Mungo]

Um, neither.

 

But I guess if I had to choose, I'd pick #1. But seriously, neither.

 

astrid

 

:iagree: If I can't have it all, I'd rather not be married.

 

eta: I would not be married to someone who relegated all household and child rearing responsibilities to me. I wouldn't be married to someone that I wasn't in love with or affectionate with. I even TOLD my dh that before he married me. I don't want an okay marriage, I want a GREAT marriage or I don't see the point, I'd rather be single.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Punchie]

1. Marriage is a partnership. If love is there, so much the better. Being "in love", isn't as necessary as ppl like to think it is. Once the cloud 9 giddiness fades, do you still have a foundation?

[extendedforecast]

I don't think Option 2 is "valid" on semantic grounds. As in, I don't believe you can be in love with someone and consistently be inconsiderate towards them and unhelpful about sharing the load of daily life. You might be "in lust" with the other person, but that is a very different thing (in my mind) from being "in love" with them.

 

Bill

 

I see your point. Look at my post below your post to see my clarification. I should have been more specific.

[Melinda in VT]

I was imagining the husband who thinks it's his job to bring in the income and his wife's job to handle the household and child-rearing.

 

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but now I'm more confused than before. This doesn't seem to match your earlier description:

 

One in which your spouse is a loving, involved, and patient father/mother, as well as helpful around the house, and works together with you to raise your family. However, there is little to no affection between the two of you. Essentially, you love and respect each other, you are best friends, but you are not "in love."

[Porch Swinger]

I live option 2. I'm happy. I've never known life with a helpful man. We've been married 13 years. He does make a living, which I guess I consider helpful.

 

Now if he just sat home all the time and didn't provide for us, that'd be a totally different story. I guess I kinda see that he is doing his job, and I'm doing mine.

 

I make him happy, we love each other, and I have no expectations, don't nag, and if he ever decides to do something nice, it's a big deal (like every blue moon, he'll mow the yard).

[Daisy]

Option 1 sounds like love to me. The best kind. The kind that thinks of others first and is sacrificial. The kind that results in the closest of friendships.

 

The emotional state of passion is over-rated, imo.

[Hockey Mom]

Hmm, option 3? How about "One in which your spouse is a loving, involved, and patient father/mother, as well as helpful around the house, and works together with you to raise your family, and you are passionately in love with each other, you are affectionate verbally and physically." Not helpful, I know! But if I'm choosing what I'd rather have, then I want it all! :)

 

And that is exactly what we have taught our children wrt marriage. Don't settle or compromise yourself just for the sake of picking someone. The right one will come along eventually and you CAN have it all. :)

[nukeswife]

:iagree: If I can't have it all, I'd rather not be married.

 

eta: I would not be married to someone who relegated all household and child rearing responsibilities to me. I wouldn't be married to someone that I wasn't in love with or affectionate with. I even TOLD my dh that before he married me. I don't want an okay marriage, I want a GREAT marriage or I don't see the point, I'd rather be single.

 

:iagree:

[extendedforecast]

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but now I'm more confused than before. This doesn't seem to match your earlier description:

 

One in which your spouse is a loving, involved, and patient father/mother, as well as helpful around the house, and works together with you to raise your family. However, there is little to no affection between the two of you. Essentially, you love and respect each other, you are best friends, but you are not "in love."

 

I'm sorry, I was referring to option two. I guess I misunderstood you.

[kwickimom]

thats a hard one. I cant even comment much without breaking the no talking about husbands rule to explain it. I bascially live number 2 but I am in love with him and we are best friends. He is a great father, but needs husband work. He is great person and me my family and friends love him, he just has issues to work through. Alcoholic father, mentally ill mother, abuse....etc. He is not thoughtful on his own, nor does he help out unless I ask.

 

So basically he would do anything for us, I just have to ask him 50 times to do it :lol: (sometimes its not so funny ;))

 

Anyways, it is possible to be in love with a person who on his own is not thoughful or helpful. That doesnt make them a bad person.

 

BTW- I would choose option 1 :)

[dragons in the flower bed]

I'd eventually fall in love with One, and quickly fall out of love with Two.

[Carrie12345]

Option Two: One in which you are passionately in love with each other, you are affectionate verbally and physically, but your spouse isn't as thoughtful or as helpful raising your family, nor as involved or patient with the children. You love each other, but are not best friends with each other. ETA: I was imagining the spouse who thinks it's his/her job to bring in the income and his/her spouse's job to handle the household and child-rearing.

 

I'm having a very hard time imagining how one could be madly in love with a person, but not consider them a best friend. Unless, like a previous poster mentioned, you meant lust.

 

Otherwise, based on the qualifier "as", that's fairly close to what I've got, and I'm very, very happy. :D

I would like dh to be *more* thoughtful, helpful, involved, and patient, but he does do a respectable job. ;) We are very much best friends though.

[RoughCollie]

I don't think Option 2 is "valid" on semantic grounds. As in, I don't believe you can be in love with someone and consistently be inconsiderate towards them and unhelpful about sharing the load of daily life. You might be "in lust" with the other person, but that is a very different thing (in my mind) from being "in love" with them.

 

Bill

 

:iagree:

[elfgivas]

scott peck's "the road less travelled" mentions somewhere that love is not a feeling, it is an intentional choice to behave in a loving way towards someone else.

 

i reckon as long as you both choose that most mornings, its a good thing. (and works best if the mornings one of you has trouble, the other is fully committed to being loving).

 

folks do have different expectations around housework and child rearing and different love languages, too, and relationships have seasons...

 

its good to recognize the season you are in, and the direction you'd like to head in, but the bottom line is that "being in love" is a daily choice involving tons more work some days than others....

 

a really long way of saying relationships shift and change and are a lot of hard work and a lot of joy, so i didn't answer the poll, because (1) i have the husband i have and i'm not contemplating another one (and its important that i don't!), and (2) our relationship shifts and changes and my goal is to keep it more or less on the rails most of the time...

 

if its missing something i absolutely must get in my primary relationship, then we need to talk. if its missing something that i can get elsewhere, then a cleaning lady is a good investment, KWIM?

 

scott peck is a good read : )....

[extendedforecast]

Hmm, a few posters have brought up the impossibility of being in love without being best friends. Do you think it's possible to be friends, and in love, but not best friends?

[Old Dominion Heather]

Yes, someone who was passionatly in love with me would want to make me happy and that would mean being an involved parent/partner.

 

So I vote that neither of those is good enough, but either option could grow into something more.

[Mrs Mungo]

i reckon as long as you both choose that most mornings, its a good thing. (and works best if the mornings one of you has trouble, the other is fully committed to being loving).

 

folks do have different expectations around housework and child rearing and different love languages, too, and relationships have seasons...

 

its good to recognize the season you are in, and the direction you'd like to head in, but the bottom line is that "being in love" is a daily choice involving tons more work some days than others....

 

I agree with all of that.

 

I also think it would be really easy to say "well, this is what I have to live with" and be defeated instead of fighting for your relationship.

[Mrs Mungo]

Hmm, a few posters have brought up the impossibility of being in love without being best friends. Do you think it's possible to be friends, and in love, but not best friends?

 

I do not. But, what do you think it means to be best friends? He knows me better than anyone. We have other friends, but *nobody* knows either of us better than we know each other.

[mammaruss]

I would like a #1 & #2 combo please!;)

[Momma2Many66]

Definitely number 1, I need an equal partner in the marraige and parenting roles.

 

I figure for number 2, I can just have something going on on the side ;)

 

 

Just kidding !! :lol:

 

Acutally, I would take number 1 anyday over number 2, I want that best friend and partner and a loving and involved father for my children.

 

I would just get a lot of good romance books off of amazon and live vicariosly through those romantic dramas and invest in some "toys".

 

I would just make number 1 work for me !

 

I can do without the affection and "in love-ness" in a marraige, but I can't do without an equal partnership and companionship.

[kokotg]

Hmm, a few posters have brought up the impossibility of being in love without being best friends. Do you think it's possible to be friends, and in love, but not best friends?

 

I think it's possible because I've heard lots of people say this is what their relationship is like. It was actually something of a revelation to me, though, when I realized lots of people are happily married to someone they don't consider their best friend. For ME, it makes me sad to think of DH not being my best friend.

[extendedforecast]

scott peck's "the road less travelled" mentions somewhere that love is not a feeling, it is an intentional choice to behave in a loving way towards someone else.

 

i reckon as long as you both choose that most mornings, its a good thing. (and works best if the mornings one of you has trouble, the other is fully committed to being loving).

 

folks do have different expectations around housework and child rearing and different love languages, too, and relationships have seasons...

 

its good to recognize the season you are in, and the direction you'd like to head in, but the bottom line is that "being in love" is a daily choice involving tons more work some days than others....

 

a really long way of saying relationships shift and change and are a lot of hard work and a lot of joy, so i didn't answer the poll, because (1) i have the husband i have and i'm not contemplating another one (and its important that i don't!), and (2) our relationship shifts and changes and my goal is to keep it more or less on the rails most of the time...

 

if its missing something i absolutely must get in my primary relationship, then we need to talk. if its missing something that i can get elsewhere, then a cleaning lady is a good investment, KWIM?

 

scott peck is a good read : )....

 

Thanks for the author suggestion. I can see how love could be a daily choice. I choose to do many things out of love for my husband that I would not normally do. He also does a lot of things for me, just for me, out of love. However, do you think that the same applies to being physically affectionate? If I do not hug my husband often to show my love in that way, is that a choice, or a consequence of something else?

[DebbS]

Neither. The foundation of a marriage is not just sex nor is it just friendship and working together. Given these two options, I'd stay single. The first option could possibly be considered a good loving marriage if neither person needs affection. But if one is feeling a lacking in that area and the other won't give it, then I would not consider it good marriage. The second option lacks an important element of bonding - that is doing life together. But, I don't think all marriages that divide tasks/responsibilities according to mid 20th century ideals is as you have stated here. You can have such a division of tasks and still have strong bond with one another. An absent father is not a particularly good thing for children. A father that works all day really needs to connect with his kids and wife when he's at home.

 

When I read these option, what struck me was that neither looked like my definition of love. Love isn't always a feeling such as in option 2 - that would make it lust. Nor is love about self - which could be a factor in the withholding of option 1. Rather, love is a choice. A choice to give of yourself to another. When both people in the relationship do this, it's a wonderful thing. That's the option I go with.

[Susan in TX]

I would rather be "in love". I think it would be very hard to be in a passionless marriage.

 

Susan in TX

[extendedforecast]

I do not. But, what do you think it means to be best friends? He knows me better than anyone. We have other friends, but *nobody* knows either of us better than we know each other.

 

That pretty much sums up my definition.

 

My marriage happens not to be option 2, so I can't imagine not being best friends with someone I am in love with. However, just because I cannot imagine it, doesn't mean that it's impossible.

 

 

ETA: Sorry for all the "nots." I can't think of a better way to get my thought across. Blame in on pregnancy/mommy brain.

Edited July 23, 2010 by extendedforecast

[Mrs Mungo]

Thanks for the author suggestion. I can see how love could be a daily choice. I choose to do many things out of love for my husband that I would not normally do. He also does a lot of things for me, just for me, out of love. However, do you think that the same applies to being physically affectionate? If I do not hug my husband often to show my love in that way, is that a choice, or a consequence of something else?

 

My dh is not as naturally physically affectionate as I am. He gives that to me because it's something I need. It's a choice.

[DebbS]

If I do not hug my husband often to show my love in that way, is that a choice, or a consequence of something else?

 

It is a choice. It could be a choice made because of something else. One responsibility in a marriage is to take a right step to make the marriage better, even if the other person hasn't taken their right step yet. It's part of carrying each other. Sometimes it's up to one person to take the heavy load. Also, a marriage isn't going to work based on pay-backs.

[Tammy]

n

[Caitilin]

I think this is an "Are you Elinor or Marianne" (from Sense and Sensibility) question. ;)

 

I think I have the best of both. I would tend to value #1 more; I think DH would tend to value #2 more; but I think that we both feel we have a healthy mix of each. :D

 

ETA: I agree that the true marital love is the choice to choose your spouse again, above all others, everyday.

[Food4Thought]

Hmm, a few posters have brought up the impossibility of being in love without being best friends. Do you think it's possible to be friends, and in love, but not best friends?

 

I think it's possible. We have a little saying in our household that goes, "I love you AND I like you."

 

Loving someone means making that choice to be there no matter what. I'd differentiate it from lust even - this kind of love is not a feeling, but a choice.

 

Liking someone means you want to be with them and share with them and trust them and you are encouraged by them and they make you smile. All that fluffy stuff about actually enjoying that person.

 

Passion or lust is a different thing altogether. Maybe I'm just cynical, but it seems like passionate love is for 19-year olds, and then kids come along and it's over. :tongue_smilie:

 

Sometimes, I don't like my husband. Like, today. But I continue to stick around because I've chosen to love him. Othertimes, I love him and I really like him too. Different feeling altogether.

[AuntieM]

I have to say that I value commitment over anything else. I'm in it for the long haul. The scenarios you describe are but two seasons that most marriages seem to cycle through year after year. If I'd have chosen to camp on just one of the choices offered by the OP, there's no way I'd be going on 20+ years of contented wedded life.

[extendedforecast]

I think it's possible. We have a little saying in our household that goes, "I love you AND I like you."

 

Loving someone means making that choice to be there no matter what. I'd differentiate it from lust even - this kind of love is not a feeling, but a choice.

 

Liking someone means you want to be with them and share with them and trust them and you are encouraged by them and they make you smile. All that fluffy stuff about actually enjoying that person.

 

Passion or lust is a different thing altogether. Maybe I'm just cynical, but it seems like passionate love is for 19-year olds, and then kids come along and it's over. :tongue_smilie:

 

Sometimes, I don't like my husband. Like, today. But I continue to stick around because I've chosen to love him. Othertimes, I love him and I really like him too. Different feeling altogether.

 

I like what you wrote, and I pretty much agree with all of it. I bolded a section of your quote because I'm not sure want to agree:tongue_smilie:

I would like to think that five, ten years from now, there will still be some passion in my marriage.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

Um, neither.

 

But I guess if I had to choose, I'd pick #1. But seriously, neither.

 

astrid

 

:iagree: After 21 years together, he is still my best friend and I am madly in love with him. We both consider it our responsibility to take care of the kiddos and bring in income when necessary. I try not work unless his freelance thing dries up, which sometimes it does. We both pitch in.

[SproutMamaK]

I voted #1, though that's certainly not my ideal.

 

#2.... well, truthfully, I don't think that's being "in love". That's being infatuated, and I think it'd wear off REALLY fast. If one person doesn't care enough about the other person to help them, show love for their own children, etc, that's not being "in love". That's selfishly looking out after your own interests (the husband, well, gettin' some and the wife, presumably, getting a walking paycheck and the ego boost of having someone lust after her) and, IMHO, is doomed to failure in the long run when their needs deepen and change.

[BeckyFL]

For years my friend had option one and I had option two. I always thought that option 1 looked more appealing (in the middle of major child-rearing). I have to say that now my marriage has matured so that I have ended up with both. One thing I HAVE learned.... when you stick it out through things, the rewards are huge.

It really takes time sometimes to end up having it all.

[Sara R]

I don't know about option 1 or 2, but I think there is such a thing as being too involved with the running of the household. My friend's husband will sometimes look at a cupboard and not understand the organization of it, and feel compelled to reorganize. She has to label things so that doesn't happen. Something like that would drive me nuts.

[kwickimom]

I voted #1, though that's certainly not my ideal.

 

#2.... well, truthfully, I don't think that's being "in love". That's being infatuated, and I think it'd wear off REALLY fast. If one person doesn't care enough about the other person to help them, show love for their own children, etc, that's not being "in love". That's selfishly looking out after your own interests (the husband, well, gettin' some and the wife, presumably, getting a walking paycheck and the ego boost of having someone lust after her) and, IMHO, is doomed to failure in the long run when their needs deepen and change.

 

Well, I am 7 years in and I think that I must be in MAJOR love to put up with it. Believe me, it is more than lust. But, my DH does show love for his children and he will do things for them. That would be a dealbreaker IMO. Me, he just expects things out of. He truly couldnt function without me and tells me this on a daily basis. Also, its not that he wont do things, I just have to ask a bunch of times. Like, things honestly do not occur to him unless I point them out.