Mejane Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 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. :iagree:The teenage years are far, far behind us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan in TX Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 The second marriage may have lust/passion, but not true love. True love in marriage has both passion and unselfish acts, imho. Yes, but there can still be unselfish acts in the 2nd marriage. The description doesn't say the spouse isn't thoughtful, helpful, or involved. It says that the 2nd spouse isn't AS thoughtful, helpful, and involved as the first with home and children. Personally, I don't want to be married to Mr. Mom. And I'm very surprised that over 70% of the women in this poll would (theoretically) choose to be married to someone they weren't in love with and who wasn't in love with them. Susan in TX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTMindy Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 I think that option 1 could grow into option 3 easier than option 2 could grow into 3. All the pieces are in place for a GREAT marriage. I would start with option 1 and then find a way to make the passion happen. I can think of a few ideas off the top of my head. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfgivas Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 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? hi cindy - its a choice. our bodies are wired to respond to physical touch. as part of marriage councelling, one of the things that we sometimes suggest is that a couple hug/kiss goodbye each morning, each evening and whenever one or the other of them is leaving the house or coming home. it has always struck me as dreadfully unfair, but the reality is that if you behave in a loving way, the emotion often follows. in that way, you can choose to refind the physical loving that has dwindled... or even choose who to "fall in love" with (in this case, all over again). (if you used to hug a fair bit and don't now, its likely a consequence of something BUT you get to choose to overcome that... and hugs are often most important when we don't feel like it. it can be like brushing our teeth - at least twice a day whether we like it or not). good luck! ann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosy Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Yes, but there can still be unselfish acts in the 2nd marriage. The description doesn't say the spouse isn't thoughtful, helpful, or involved. It says that the 2nd spouse isn't AS thoughtful, helpful, and involved as the first with home and children. Personally, I don't want to be married to Mr. Mom. And I'm very surprised that over 70% of the women in this poll would (theoretically) choose to be married to someone they weren't in love with and who wasn't in love with them. Susan in TX I voted for #1 because I don't know what "in love" means. To me, being "in love" with someone has much more to do with my state of mind than the reality of the situation. I can choose to fall in love with a good man (or a bad man). Passion is based on character and state of mind, not feelings. Affection, and the enjoyment of it, is also a choice. I don't need a Mr. Mom, but being married to a good man who is faithfully fulfilling his responsibilities fills me with love much more than being in a relationship that is emotionally exciting. However, 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. That changes things for me. We believe it's DH's job to bring in the income and mine to handle the household. He is a great dad and he does pitch in around the house, but he is the breadwinner and I am the homemaker, and we work together to raise the kids. I'm not sure where that falls on the spectrum?? :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love2Smile Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Living option one right now, but now that the kids are older and I am lessed stressed out working on option 2! I think I have the best of both! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoyfulMama Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Yes, but there can still be unselfish acts in the 2nd marriage. The description doesn't say the spouse isn't thoughtful, helpful, or involved. It says that the 2nd spouse isn't AS thoughtful, helpful, and involved as the first with home and children. Personally, I don't want to be married to Mr. Mom. And I'm very surprised that over 70% of the women in this poll would (theoretically) choose to be married to someone they weren't in love with and who wasn't in love with them. Susan in TX :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 I voted #1. He is my best friend. My love for him is not the same as that all-encompassing, passionate "love" you see portrayed in the movies. I had that once (as did he), but after that ended badly -- we were both a bit more practical. It's not that I don't love him -- it's just different. We are intimate, and it's enjoyable -- but in my world, the attributes of #1 are so much more important than being "hopelessly devoted" to someone who really didn't care about my daily needs. Some would say I "settled." But, when I look at all of my friends from college and my career days who have divorced (because they no longer "felt" the same), or my SIL who is so in-love with my brother she behaves as a door-mat -- I am not merely content with my choice, I am thrilled. Of course, if my dh and I were in better shape -- I have a feeling I'd be a lot more physically attracted to him too (girls need a reason, guys just need a place) :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 How could a girl NOT be in love w/ #1? I mean, at least, eventually? Whereas, the passion in #2 is bound to die w/ that kind of day-to-day scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckens Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 When I divorced (more than a decade ago), I decided that: "Cooking and cleaning is first; love is secondary. I could learn to love a man who cooks and cleans!!!" Loverboy is good at both, and I love him for it!:001_wub::001_wub::001_wub: Loverboy also quotes the study often that says if guys want more action in the bedroom, they had better wash some dishes in the kitchen first! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgehogs4 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 none of the above. i have a marriage that has both, and i don't see why it has to be one way or the other of your options. i didn't vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzyfizzle Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I'd much prefer #1! Love is an action, not a feeling. The feeling of being "in love" comes and goes during a marriage... This is very interesting to me. I would totally disagree. I would never have this definition, and we have been through the worst of times. It is a feeling that has never left me, even then. The action just followed the feeling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amy g. Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I did not read everyone's answers. For me, my romantic emotions would follow husband #1's heart of service and commitment. I would be in love with him no matter what. When I see women with men like husband #2, I think that they might have self esteem problems and not think they deserve someone better. I don't like even being in the same room with men like husband #2, so I would sure not want to be married to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LND1218 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I agree with neither. Being a good husband, father and being my best friend isn't IMO synonymous with doing housework. I don't think I could live in a loveless marriage. I have pretty much the whole package - dh and I are best friends, he's a great husband and father and helps a lot around the house. If I had to settle, I would take a combination but not either extreme. I can't love someone I am not friends with. And I can't deal with him checking out of the relationship. While my dh helps out a lot, I wouldn't mind if divided the chores and he did less in the house. (I wouldn't have married someone who thought I should "take care" of him and all that.) But I am good with me doing certain things and him doing others. I don't need him to do certain things to love him. I can't vote for either of these options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annandatje Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Assuming that I knew for certain the future held only those two marriage options posed, I would undergo tubal ligation and live happily as a single woman. Naturally I would enjoy the company of appropriate lovers from time to time. If someone were holding a sword to me forcing me to choose one of the two marriages, I would choose the 2nd marriage with passion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 The action just followed the feeling. Yikes! This idea scares me. I belive 100% that love is an action and that the feeling follows the action. If it didn't, then you would be at the mercy of your feelings which are truly untrustworthy. If that's not true for you so far, that's wonderful. But what happens if your feelings do diminish? Would you then let your actions follow? We are committed to loving each other with actions no matter how we feel and that committment has produced a marriage full of passion and adoration. But definately, the feelings follow the action. (The main action here is committment.) I adore my DH totally. But if tomorrow, I did not FEEL madly in love with him, my behavior toward him would not change. That is the promise I have made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzyfizzle Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Yikes! This idea scares me. I belive 100% that love is an action and that the feeling follows the action. If it didn't, then you would be at the mercy of your feelings which are truly untrustworthy. If that's not true for you so far, that's wonderful. But what happens if your feelings do diminish? Would you then let your actions follow? Mmmm. Good question. I mentioned that we have been through the worst of times, and if my feelings didn't diminish then, then I am pretty solid they won't at another time. I have just never felt this way, that love is an action rather than a feeling. Of course I make the decision to act on the love and stay committed, but it is still a feeling. I have to say that concept feels foreign to me, but I can try to understand how it works for others. How would you relate that to your children? Would you say that your love is a choice/an action, rather than a feeling? Trying to understand. :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I have just never felt this way, that love is an action rather than a feeling. Of course I make the decision to act on the love and stay committed, but it is still a feeling. I have to say that concept feels foreign to me, but I can try to understand how it works for others. How would you relate that to your children? Would you say that your love is a choice/an action, rather than a feeling? Trying to understand. :001_smile: It's a cycle. 1. I act lovingly towards Person. 2. Person feels loved. 3. Person acts lovingly to me. 4. I feel loved by Person. 1. I act lovingly towards Person. . . . It works with my kids, my partner, my siblings, complete strangers. Yeah, there's a biological impulse to act lovingly towards my kids and a hormonal one to act loving towards someone I'm attracted to, but I can and do choose consciously to kickstart the cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzyfizzle Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) LOL Even more interesting. What if you are Person #2 -where the feeling came first? Also adding- Why would you choose to 'act' lovingly with someone (of the opposite sex), if you did not already have a feeling? I would say I naturally loved my children from the start, I didn't make a choice to act lovingly, the feeling was there. I asked DH when he arrived home from work, which did he think is the natural progression a. You have a feeling and you choose act on it b. You act towards someone and they have a feeling I was glad to hear he also felt A. LOL Edited July 25, 2010 by jazzyfizzle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 LOL Even more interesting. What if you are Person #2 -where the feeling came first? Sometimes that happens. It's called a crush. The cycle just starts elsewhere then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzyfizzle Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Could it be said that all relationship beginnings, could be defined something like a crush? Adding- But that scenario throws your theory off, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragons in the flower bed Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Could it be said that all relationship beginnings, could be defined something like a crush? Adding- But that scenario throws your theory off, right? No, and no. :D It's a cycle. It can start anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzyfizzle Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 :D We might have to agree to disagree on this one Rose. Try as I might I just can't see it that way. But I am always on the odd side. :tongue_smilie: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 How would you relate that to your children? Would you say that your love is a choice/an action, rather than a feeling? Trying to understand. :001_smile: Well, absolutely! I can tell you for a fact that my mother FELT she loved me and that she said she loved me my whole life. She will even cry today, talking about how much she loved me when I was little. But her actions proved otherwise in spades! Her "love" was simply a feeling that she had that she liked. But I can say for sure that she did not love me. Not according to my definition of love. There are millions of children in homes where thier parents FEEL love for thier children but don't ACT with love towards them. Obviously, the definition of love is the problem here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz CA Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 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. Very true. This has made a big difference here. I used to just think nothing much would or could ever be changed. When both are willing, a lot of positive changes can happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeidiKC Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I'm not crazy about either option but chose #1 for the sake of my kids. An involved and patient father is very important to me. #2 sounds like it would sad for the kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizzie in Ma Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 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. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.