Which marriage would you rather have?

[bookfiend]

I voted #1 and haven't read all of the replies. But I think working to add the s*xy is a lot easier than working to add the work.

Edited July 23, 2010 by bookfiend

[Smithie]

I think I might have marriage 1.5. I'm not sure. If so, I'm really happy with it.

 

But I picked option 2, and here's why - there are so many things that you can HIRE people to do, if you're married to a workaholic bringing home a big paycheck (and DH has sometimes been that way, thought now he is a WAHD and as involved as I have ever dreamed he'd be in daily life with the kids).

 

But I learned things in those years he was gone 100 hours/week. We have a cleaner. We have a lawn guy. We have a sitter I can call to come here when I have meetings/appointments. I have all kinds of support that I know the husband providesin other households, but in this hosuehold, it's done by people who get paid to do it.

 

I cannot pay somebody to make love to me. Or at least, I shouldn't ;) So 2 is the irreplacable stuff to me.

[DianeW88]

Neither option really works for me either. I've been married for 22 years and my dh and I still have a very passionate marriage (we make our kids gag all the time because we love being affectionate with each other...not in a vulgar way, just loving), and I couldn't imagine it otherwise. I think passion and even lust for each other is an integral part to a happy marriage. He is also my best friend and partner, as well as a great dad, and is always willing to help me with whatever I need.

 

Our mantra each day is "What can I do to make his/her day better and easier? And, how can I show my spouse I love him/her today in a concrete way?" It works wonders!!

 

Diane W.

married for 22 years

homeschooling 3 kiddos for 16 years

[EJCMom]

Well, I have number 2. With the notable exception that we ARE also best friends. It's not his fault, really. His job makes it that he is rarely home, so all of the household stuff and raising the kids just naturally falls on me. But, even when he is home, he really doesn't help. I guess it would be more of a problem if it bothered me. :)

[Tap]

I would say I live in scenario 'one' a lot of the time, but it isn't due to lack of love between dh and I. It has more to do with the fact that he was emotionally and physically neglected during his young childhood years. He never really learned to be affectionate or 'loving'. He has attachment disorder. He shows his 'love' in different ways that what most people would recognize as affection. I hear from his friends how he is full of complements of myself and the kids when ever they are together. I have had several of his single friends tell me that they can only hope to one day find the love that dh and I have....lol... all based on how dh describes our relationship. I can see that dh loves me....in his own way. It just isn't what most people would recognize or accept as affectionate love. I make sure to teach the kids to love affectionately, so they don't grow up reliving his awkwardness.

[caitlinsmom]

I choose option one. I think without respect and kindness love can not exist. If my partner was selfish and uninvolved it wouldn't matter how passionate we were, I would want to bean him with a pan! :) Love is built on respect, kindness and friendship not passion.

 

p.s. Combine option 1 with the passion in #2 and the world is one happy place. ;)

[HRAAB]

Both! I don't know how to choose just one. If I had option #1, I would want option #2, and vice versa. I don't think one without the other would make a successful marriage for me. Fortunately I don't have to.

[Tree House 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.

 

:iagree:

 

And my husband is a mix of both options. Also, as the years go by, things change back and forth. Sometimes we are still "passionately in love" and other times we aren't so much. Things ebb and flow...just like the rest of life, I guess.

[Mimm]

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.

 

 

People are dysfunctional and can manage to be in love with people who are very bad for them. Think of those volatile relationships where there's tons of fighting, screaming and yelling, but they stay together for year after year because they hate the thought of being apart and the good times are just so good that they can just forget about the bad times till it all explodes all over their lives again.

 

I think I just described my parents marriage.

[Mimm]

I would say I live in scenario 'one' a lot of the time, but it isn't due to lack of love between dh and I. It has more to do with the fact that he was emotionally and physically neglected during his young childhood years. He never really learned to be affectionate or 'loving'. He has attachment disorder. He shows his 'love' in different ways that what most people would recognize as affection. I hear from his friends how he is full of complements of myself and the kids when ever they are together. I have had several of his single friends tell me that they can only hope to one day find the love that dh and I have....lol... all based on how dh describes our relationship. I can see that dh loves me....in his own way. It just isn't what most people would recognize or accept as affectionate love. I make sure to teach the kids to love affectionately, so they don't grow up reliving his awkwardness.

 

I think it's beautiful that you've learned to recognize your husband's expressions of love when he has a hard time expressing it. That must have taken some patience on your part.

[Ginevra]

Of course, I'd rather have both of the "good" features and none of the bad. But I answered this the same way I answered a friend who who phrased it this way: "Would you marry someone who could make a good husband, someone you like but are not passionate about, someone who meets your logical standards, but that doesn't make you faint with passion?"

 

My answer? No. I could only have married the man I craved desperately when he was not around, the guy who could make me forget my name and what I was saying when he walked in the room. Thankfully, I got that and a fair amount of the "good husband" part of the package, too. But I wouldn't marry someone just because they fit the "good husband" part but excited me about as much as a plate of cold broccoli.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think what we're saying is Rick v. Victor Laszlo is a false dichotomy. :tongue_smilie:

[AlmiraGulch]

Um, neither.

 

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

 

astrid

 

:iagree:

[Embassy]

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've skimmed through the thread and wanted to comment on the partnership issue. I'm not an option one or two and didn't even vote! But why is a marriage not a partnership if one spouse brings in the income and the other takes care of the household? Aren't both necessary for the betterment of the family?

[Embassy]

I also wanted to comment on the love issue. Love is unselfish and it puts the other person first. The first marriage has love, but not passion. The second marriage may have lust/passion, but not true love. True love in marriage has both passion and unselfish acts, imho.

[Audrey]

Um, neither.

 

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

 

astrid

 

 

:iagree: I'm madly in love with my best friend and he not only helps willingly and lovingly with parenting duties, but also with household duties. I think he's the greatest thing since the world was born. He thinks I'm a living goddess. There's no way in the world I could ever choose to settle for less than that now. :D

[Ginevra]

I cannot pay somebody to make love to me. Or at least, I shouldn't So 2 is the irreplacable stuff to me

:lol::lol::lol:

 

 

But why is a marriage not a partnership if one spouse brings in the income and the other takes care of the household? Aren't both necessary for the betterment of the family?

 

That's a very good point. We are a pretty traditionally-roled household. My dh mostly does the "man" jobs and I mostly do the "lady" jobs. There's some crossover if it is needed by one or the other of us and we ask. But it would never occur to dh to throw a load of clothes in the laundry, unless I was bedridden; and even then, I'd probably have to ask. Twice. :tongue_smilie: OTOH, it never crosses my mind to go weed-eat or chop wood or stock the furnace when it's 20-degrees outside.

 

We do have a partnership. I'm happy with it and as far as I can see, he is too.

[Night Elf]

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?

 

Define best friends. :)

[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.

 

Define best friends. :)

 

See above. Mrs Mungo said it best.

[extendedforecast]

I find it interesting that several of y'all mentioned that the husband in option two was selfish or inconsiderate, yet others saw the relationship as having two separate roles that did not intervene. I think it's possible for a person to be passionate about another, but not be overly involved in other aspects of their partner's life.

[Night Elf]

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.

 

Thank you. This is what I was trying to articulate in a post that I revised so much I finally cancelled it. :tongue_smilie: I've been married 14 years and our relationship has changed and it will continue to change as we grow and mature both individually and as a married couple.

 

Some of these responses of choosing to be single reminds me of my reasons for my first divorce. My DH and I married with former marital experience so we expect those ups and downs. We've weathered quite a few. However, I will always wonder how my first marriage might have fared if my ex-husband and I hadn't given up, deciding that being single was preferable to weathering the downs.

[kalanamak]

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. :)

 

There are those of us who find #1 is "having it all".

[misidawnrn]

I didn't pick either because I like my marriage but it doesn't fit either really. My DH and I love each other but it isn't fireworks, just comfortable KWIM. He is the main breadwinner, I am the breadbaker :001_smile: he takes care of all of the household bills, I take care of the incidentals like internet, cell phone, health insurance (because I work at a hosp and he is self employed) and I buy most of the food at the store, he pays when we go out. He fills my car with gas and takes care of the maintenence and I take care of all the shopping, housework, laundry etc. He is an awesome dad and even changes cloth diapers! I give him a break though, I rinse the poopy ones. I do all of the schooling for DD.

I wouldn't have all of the above any other way. He is patient and loving and kind and supportive....he just doesn't do housework, but he is OK with me only working 2 days a week and being a SAHM the other 5! so that is a good trade off!

[Mrs Mungo]

Some of these responses of choosing to be single reminds me of my reasons for my first divorce. My DH and I married with former marital experience so we expect those ups and downs. We've weathered quite a few. However, I will always wonder how my first marriage might have fared if my ex-husband and I hadn't given up, deciding that being single was preferable to weathering the downs.

 

All marriages have ups and downs. What I was saying about a great marriage means that we go to each other and say "this is a problem, how do we fix it," instead of simmering in resentment or feeling sad and ignored.

[coffeefreak]

Other: Someone who loves me and is passionate about me, AND is my partner. His job is not more important than mine and we work together to raise the kids and keep the household running.

[Pamela H in Texas]

goodness...

 

I'd take much less than both of those; and to be honest, I sure hope my hubby feels the same!

 

The people in this house are WAY imperfect.

 

(eta: looking up the page a little. I believe people may be able to "have it all," but I think people can be quite satisfied and content without it being considered settling. Sure, I'd *like* ideal as I see it; but I'm thankful for what I have and thankful that what I am is enough. That works well enough here and "good enough" *IS* good enough for us.)

Edited July 23, 2010 by 2J5M9K

[Mrs Mungo]

goodness...

 

I'd take much less than both of those; and to be honest, I sure hope my hubby feels the same!

 

The people in this house are WAY imperfect.

 

(eta: looking up the page a little. I believe people may be able to "have it all," but I think people can be quite satisfied and content without it being considered settling. Sure, I'd *like* ideal as I see it; but I'm thankful for what I have and thankful that what I am is enough. That works well enough here and "good enough" *IS* good enough for us.)

 

BUT...maybe this is partly an attitude issue? Maybe some people aren't easily satisfied or some people are happy and content and therefore they believe they have it all?

[Pamela H in Texas]

Oh, I agree it's partly an attitude issue. If I had different attitudes, no doubt we'd be divorced. If he did, same thing. But instead, we decide to look at marriage and OUR marriage the way we do which allows for a lot more contentment than if we settled for more negative attitudes.

[HappyCrazyMama]

Didn't vote.

 

I don't think I could be passionately in love with someone who, "isn't as thoughtful or as helpful raising your family, nor as involved or patient with the children." But I do think my love language is acts of service so if I am not getting help I'm not feeling the love.:)

[orangearrow]

I thought about this a little bit and voted Option Two. Now, I might have felt differently a few years ago when my kids were younger - but now?

 

I just can't imagine living with my husband this long if I didn't still totally have the hots for him. :lol: I mean, I have to live with this person after the kids have grown up and left home!

 

So. Assuming that he is working hard, providing for the kids and I, plus keeping up with all the "manly man" chores around the house, affectionate to me... but just not that interested in changing diapers, or cooking dinner, or folding laundry, or doing the dishes, or giving the kids baths at night... so, assuming he's still the same basic person - just a much, much less "helpful" one (and, apparently, a much less "modern" one! LOL) - I'll take the lovebird marriage.

 

I just can't reverse the situation and still see my husband. My husband is awesome, but the love/attraction thing is definitely a cement in our marriage. I wouldn't feel the same if he was all kinds of "fun" with our kids and ho-hum about me.

[Carrie12345]

I find it interesting that several of y'all mentioned that the husband in option two was selfish or inconsiderate, yet others saw the relationship as having two separate roles that did not intervene. I think it's possible for a person to be passionate about another, but not be overly involved in other aspects of their partner's life.

 

I find it interesting that so many interpreted it that way when the wording seemed to clearly indicate (to me, at least!) "not AS" thoughtful, helpful, etc. as husband #1. A giant leap was made to an idea of a lazy, selfish, self-absorbed cretin.

 

Personally, I don't want my husband to do "just as much" at home and with the kids as I do. And neither would his boss. :tongue_smilie:

[katemary63]

Um, neither.

 

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

 

astrid

 

:iagree:I didn't vote. I could not vote for either of those states of being. If I found myself in either type of marriage, I would be working non-stop and over time to change it.

[FourSweetBoys]

I'd much prefer #1! Love is an action, not a feeling. The feeling of being "in love" comes and goes during a marriage but the work is always there. We have 4 kids to raise and a household to manage and that depends more on us respecting each other and working together than being in love all of the time. If I divorced dh the time I lost that "in love" feeling, well, I'd be missing my best friend right now. :( He may not always give me warm fuzzy feelings but we work together and have a lot of fun. :)

[LibraryLover]

These two options are pretty limiting...

 

But. If I had to choose one of the options, I would choose the one of passion. I can always hire help, and plenty of fathers who don't do grunt work love their kids and their kids love them. I am 'ass'uming because we are so passionately in love he isn't going to cheat or be abusive. ;)

 

But why those two options when there are so many more life possibilites? Plus, I cannot imagine not being in love with, yet staying with the father of my kids. 'Best buddies' doesn't cut it for a life time. I know a couple of gay friends who would fit that bill. :) Not enough. People go through pahases of lesser and deeper passion, ime. That's fine. No passion, not fine.

Edited July 24, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Peela]

We have aspects of both.

think if there is love and respect, there is a good foundation. My dh is far more affectionate than me and we hug regularly, and snuggle, but that whole ' in love' thing tends to mature into a different sort of love.

It has not been such a problem for us to have our different roles in marriage. Dh doesn't help much,but it works ok.Iget plenty of time and space to myself- he always makes sure of that.

[Mergath]

I've had both kinds of relationships in my life, and I'd definitely have to go with number one. Passion and lust are fun, but they almost always fade. You can't build a life on passion. If I want love in the fashion of Twilight, I'll read a book. Seriously. At the point I'm at in life, there are many more important things to me than being passionately in love, like creating a stable life for my child, making the world a better place than I left it, and finding peace. When I look at the state of the world, I just can't feel too sorry for myself because I don't hang on my dh's every word and breathlessly await his coming home from work.

 

I'm not saying you can't have both, because obviously you can, and it must be great. But if I had to pick only one option, one all the way.

[CactusPair]

i wouldn't last long in marriage #2. i'd be mad all the time and picking fights. the sexiness couldn't carry me through, especially bec. i'd be too tired from all the work i had to do around the joint.

 

i'll take #1, and if it it gets too dull, we'll both go in for viagra scrips.:)

[Mrs Mungo]

I find it interesting that so many interpreted it that way when the wording seemed to clearly indicate (to me, at least!) "not AS" thoughtful, helpful, etc. as husband #1. A giant leap was made to an idea of a lazy, selfish, self-absorbed cretin.

 

Personally, I don't want my husband to do "just as much" at home and with the kids as I do. And neither would his boss. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Hm, I didn't interpret it to imply that he should do just as much as I do. I took it to imply that the fictional dh in question did not do as much as the other fictional dh?

[AuntieM]

So if you pick option two, how will your marriage fare if something happens that renders one spouse virtually unable to participate in physical affections? Does that marriage survive? Does it survive without bitterness?

 

Just felt the need to complicate things...

[StephanieZ]

I'd be sad, depressed, and so lonely if I were in either marriage. TBH, I am pretty sure I couldn't do it. I'd hate dh in no time flat either way. Thank God I am lucky in the dh department.

[Wildiris]

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.

 

 

Not much of a choice here. I'd stay single mother if I had to suffer one of these two choices.

[Mrs Mungo]

So if you pick option two, how will your marriage fare if something happens that renders one spouse virtually unable to participate in physical affections? Does that marriage survive? Does it survive without bitterness?

 

Just felt the need to complicate things...

 

What do you mean?

 

Do you mean a person being paralyzed? Can I still cuddle upon him? If he's willing to put up with that, then I think that's participating.

 

Did you mean something else, like psychologically unable? I think counseling and understanding during counseling would be in order.

[Denisemomof4]

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:

 

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

[Debbie in OR]

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

 

That's just pretty wise. :001_smile:

Edited July 24, 2010 by Debbie in OR

[Denisemomof4]

Feelings of "love" come and go. That can be worked on. Friendship, thoughtfulness, helpfulness, those are rooted in character. I figure that I can learn to love a person of good character and he would learn to love me. What is love if not kindness, thoughtfulness, friendship and respect?

 

Truthfully, I have no illusions about marriage being this land of bliss or something. I know we are each flawed individuals and as long as my dh was kind and a man I could respect, I would deal with the rest. Of course I say this from the vantage point of having an amazing dh who loves me, is helpful, kind, financially supports us and is a man worthy of respect. Of course it's easier to say you could deal with something when you are not dealing with it.

 

:iagree: this is excellent.

 

 

Dh and I are, and have always been, the best of friends. Our deep passion waxes and wans and I've learned that it's normal. And when the fires are burning, it's almost as if we just met, 23 years later.

 

Dh is such a special man and worthy of respect. I sometimes feel like I don't deserve him.

[katemary63]

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

 

:iagree:Clever, I think and very valid. How could you NOT fall "in love" with a wonderful #1?

[katemary63]

People are dysfunctional and can manage to be in love with people who are very bad for them.

 

 

 

Many, many times, when someone says, "I love him/ her." What they are really saying is, "I need him/ her." The kind of disfunctional relationship described above is not love no matter how many times it is called that.

[LaissezFaire]

Umm...neither. Is there a neither option?

[naturegirl7]

I voted #1 but only cuz 2 is horrifying to me. between the two, I could live with #1 but can't imagine having such a wonderful helpmate I wasn't in love with. But perhaps it is because the definition of "in love" is so varied....

 

I am lucky enough to be married to Option #3.

 

An amazing man, husband, father. He is literally my best friend and my rock. He is super involved in daily life and has been a SAHD at times. We split our schedules so that DS is never in daycare, leaving us with little time together and him with alot more domestic chores. He is loving, caring, hysterically funny, and my biggest cheerleader. He is as good FOR me and he is TO me.

On top of that, we have been together over 12 years and still love each other like crazy. Granted the passion is not as crazy intense as it was 10 years ago - but we have alot less time together now and have alot more serious demands on us now too. And when we are luckily enough to have some time together, we are still quite passionate and affectionate. maybe not having a lusty throwdown in the kitchen, but snuggling and kissing while we talk about the day, dance, cook together, play with DS - it is even more amazing. It is a much deeper, fuller love.

 

I also don't think that lust is love, nor that lust and passion are the same. Lust is so animalistic, like rutting - while passion, passion is just a much deeper source of physical affection and intensity of feelings.

 

Anyways, I vote for Option#3 :D

[Carrie12345]

I find it interesting that so many interpreted it that way when the wording seemed to clearly indicate (to me, at least!) "not AS" thoughtful, helpful, etc. as husband #1. A giant leap was made to an idea of a lazy, selfish, self-absorbed cretin.

 

Personally, I don't want my husband to do "just as much" at home and with the kids as I do. And neither would his boss. :tongue_smilie:

 

Hm, I didn't interpret it to imply that he should do just as much as I do. I took it to imply that the fictional dh in question did not do as much as the other fictional dh?

 

Oh, the latter part was just my own personal input. My own husband is simply unable to to do as much as I picture when reading the description of #1, and much less than what I picture when reading some of the comments from others.

 

Not that a situation like mine should be everyone's ideal, lol. But I'm cool with having full responsibility for dishes and laundry and the vast majority of child rearing in exchange for dh's willingness and ability to take all of the kids to all of their dental appointments, even if that's (normally) just a couple of times a year! ;)