Secular Thoughts on Choosing a Spouse

[KingM]

Although my perspective on marriage is secular, I've also come to see the wisdom in some traditional aspects of marriage, specifically in wisely choosing a marriage partner. There are three questions that the Victorians asked when choosing a spouse that our culture has largely abandoned. (Note that these questions can be asked by either a young man or woman, in spite of the traditional genders I've assigned below.)

 

1. What is his status and wealth?

2. Did he achieve his status and wealth honorably?

3. What is the status, wealth, education, and stability of his family?

 

#1 - We have developed a romantic viewpoint in modern times that says that status and financial security don't matter. A young woman in Victorian times couldn't afford to marry a young man with no prospects, because she wouldn't be able to support herself on her own.

 

In our times, of course, women have more financial independence, but for a young woman who marries a romantic poet or a laborer with no aspirations to learn a trade, it is realistic to assume that in most cases, this means a life of poverty. Not only will you be poor, but your children will be poor and you may struggle to afford the number of children you would like to have.

 

#2 - The Victorians knew that character matters. A man who earned a good deal of money under suspicious circumstances was unlikely to become an honorable husband and father. Similarly, in the modern world, people who earn quick fortunes, usually lose quick fortunes. Sometimes they end up in jail.

 

#3 - We're entering more controversial territory here. It seems unfair to blame a young man or woman for a mentally ill family member, or a younger brother perpetually in trouble with the law, or for a father who has perpetually declared bankruptcy due to bad financial decisions. And yet, isn't it true that there seems to be a family component to some of these things? You can call it family culture, or upbringing, or genetic, but if you marry someone with trouble in the family, you're increasing the odds of seeing this in your own children. Even divorce runs in families.

 

Now of course, people should be treated as individuals, not lumped together with other people's behaviors, and this is why #3 is hard for me to embrace. Nevertheless, there were a couple of times when I was dating when the girl came from a sketchy family background and this gave me pause. It was only years later when I recognized the reasons for my uncertainty. We still recognize these things instinctively, even if we don't fully accept them.

[simka2]

I agree with you on points 1 and 2, but not 3 ;).

 

Even though I met my dh at seminary, I was too level headed to spiritualize it to much.

 

These were the question I asked myself...

1. was he from a stable family?

2. was his dad a hard worker/good provider?

3. did he have the respect of college proffessors/buisness leaders/religious leaders?

4. did he have his teammates respect?

5. was he kind and generous?

6. what was the character/ values he was raised with, that I desired in a spouse?

 

These were all important for me to make a wise decision in a mate.

 

#1 has come back to bite me. What I couldn't see at the young age of 18 was that the "stability" of the family was false. It was a mask hideing the fear of dealing with conflict. In dh's family conflict=bad, faking it=good, and if you point out there's a problem...then you are the problem.

 

Thankfully, all the other things about dh have proven the test of time and hardship!

[Chris in VA]

Re #3--Remember correlation is not causation.

I do agree with your basic ideas, tho--and will be :bigear: for replies.

[Veritaserum]

I thnk those are valid things to consider. Dh and I got married while we were still undergrads, so eventual income was all hypothetical. ;) His chosen career was something I thought about. It was important to me to be able to stay home with my children, so I wanted a husband whose chosen field was likely to provide a comfortable income. Obviously I didn't marry him just because of that (I was madly in love, too), but I knew the importance of financial stability. That's a lesson I learned from my father, who graduated with a PhD and no debt. He supported six children on one salary in Southern California and we lived reasonably comfortably. I appreciated that.

 

Aside from potential income, I looked at dh's family's education. Both of his parents attended universities. His mom has a masters degree. I did not like the idea of marrying into a family in which education is not valued because it is very important to me. I was pleased to know that his parents had both received higher education. :)

[K-FL]

I think they're spot on. I've seen the Big 4 as:

 

Money How do you handle it, feelings re: debt, etc

 

Religion Are we compatible or the same faith? What about the kids training?

 

Kids How many? Behavior expectations. SAHM or working mom?

 

In-laws Relationship with & how involved?

[Jennifer3141]

DH and I both examined each other pretty deeply prior to marriage. One of the things I loved most about him was that we did delve into this stuff. He wanted a SAHW. I thought I'd enjoy it.

 

1. I married DH in his residency. I made more money than he did for a long time!! And I had cushy hours. :)

We joked that he hit his jackpot when he needed it and I hit mine after he graduated and became a practicing doctor.

 

2. I could have married a man with far more money than DH. But he was a liar and a coward and I knew we'd lose it all eventually. He's still got it though - so far. But he became far meaner than when I cared for him. Yuck.

But I knew DH was the most honorable person I'd ever met and if he had any flaw, it was that he was frequently TOO honest. (It's ok to tell me that the meal I spent the day preparing wasn't to your taste. But do you have to yell out, "Don't make me eat this crap!! Let's go out!! :001_huh: )

 

3. We did both examine each other's families with a sharp eye. And I'm glad we did because that childhood stuff comes up for everyone!! We had a really hard time breaking past DH's view of a wife's position in his career and the other stuff he thought a man was "supposed" to do. And I had a hard time sharing because for the first few years of our life together, it was MY money that supported us when he'd been thinking all along that my money was for "fun" because his mom's income had always been the "fun" money. We all got abig laugh when his Mom piped up that she bought the groceries and school stuff and household stuff with it - REAL fun! :lol:

We did have lots and lots of family discussions though in those first few years before we married. I'm so very grateful for our years spent living together without marriage because we had so much stuff worked out when we got married - it was just a big party celebrating that we had made it.

 

Jen

[KingM]

I had the beginnings of these ideas in my head when I was in my early twenties. I dated one nice, hard-working girl who was paying her way through college. Her father was in prison for shooting a cop in a drug bust and her mother had four different children by four different men and couldn't stop smoking and drinking while she was pregnant. The girl was raised by her grandparents. All three of her brothers turned out to be a mess.

 

This unsettled me for reasons I couldn't quite define at the time, but the main reason I didn't go forward was because I didn't respect her intellectually. I was always attracted to really smart girls and she was average-ish. It sounds shallow for me to write it out like that.

 

A second girl came from a rich family. Her father sold his business for 25-30 million dollars, sent his daughter to UCLA with her tuition and housing paid for and 20,000 to pay for living expenses for the year. She blew through the money in 90 days with nothing to show for it, not even a car. No consequences ensued. She would run up her credit cards and then call her father to pay them off. Dates with her were very expensive. All of this seemed like a very obvious bad sign.

 

Shortly thereafter, I met the girl I married. She'd just finished college, which she'd attended on a full scholarship. She graduated Magna Cum Laude. Her family was more modest financially than mine, with her father a school teacher and her mother staying home. Her older sister married an engineer who worked for Boeing and her younger brother was getting a degree in nuclear engineering through the ROTC. None of them had ever been in trouble and the family genuinely enjoyed each other's company. Apart from my romantic attraction, this all seemed a very obvious good sign.

[6packofun]

Related to all 3, to some degree, I think in Victorian times most men established their careers much *earlier* and young women could choose among men of all ages--and it seems many times they chose a man at least a decade older--who had proven their work ethic and success. Now, it takes much longer for most people in general to settle into their "career", with at least one or two stepping stone positions (or tide-me-over paying jobs to get through college or while waiting for that major opportunity) along the way that may or may not demonstrate their dependability, character, work ethic, and ability to provide.

[Lisa R.]

 

1. What is his status and wealth?

2. Did he achieve his status and wealth honorably?

3. What is the status, wealth, education, and stability of his family?

 

 

 

Interesting topic. I confess I'm not a student on Victorian times, but it seems that during that time much of the status and wealth was transferred from one family onto the next generation. Thus, it was not earned.

 

However, these are interesting questions. I do feel a highly motivated person of good character that makes wise choices regarding their education can still do well in our country today. In that sense, I agree with questions one and two. I'm not a big fan of encouraging kids to "follow their dreams" when it's potentially leading them down a path of a poor paying job. You like photography, philosophy, or drama? How about making this your *hobby* and finding another career you enjoy that is in demand and pays well. Then pursue those other interests as your hobby. Yes, there are some that make good money pursuing those fields. However, it's not a gamble I'd encourage my kids to take.

 

I married dh when he had just graduated from college. Neither of us had any money. However, he was smart, motivated, and had earned a degree in a field that was in demand and paid well. We started out with nothing (but debt) and have made a good life. (I realize we have also been blessed with good health and live in an area where the economy has not hit too hard. It's important to admit that this has played a factor.)

 

As far as number three, it's hard to something against a person when they have endured bad circumstances that are no fault of their own. However, these are things to consider carefully as family background impacts a marriage. So number three is not a deal-breaker, but something to consider-with eyes open wide.

[snickelfritz]

I think #3 is something to consider, as one piece of the puzzle. Their relationship with their family can show you a lot about how they will treat a spouse and kids. The way the parents earned/spend money can show you how they will. But, like everything, the kids will deviate -both GOOD and BAD. Everyone knows a family that has one bad egg.

[Impish]

Thank God that those criteria don't weigh in for everyone...or I'd never have been married.

 

My family of origin has abuse and addiction issues.

I was a single mom when Wolf met me.

He was adopted, had serious addiction issues in his bfamily, and his amom is as NPD as mine.

 

Its because of that shared history that we're as good as we are together, and define what we wanted (and didn't) as both spouses and parents.

 

I had the opportunities to marry men who had far more income than my dh. I can honestly say though, that nobody has ever 'gotten me' the way he does.

 

All strikes were against us...Both of us had had long term relationships, but no marriages.

 

And eight years together now, two more children, loss of employment, disability later, we're better than we ever were.

 

The heart is sometimes far wiser than the intellect.

[KingM]

As far as number three, it's hard to something against a person when they have endured bad circumstances that are no fault of their own. However, these are things to consider carefully as family background impacts a marriage. So number three is not a deal-breaker, but something to consider-with eyes open wide.

 

I think that's how I'm leaning, too. It would be the same sort of thing as marrying someone from a very different religion or culture. Something that deserves serious discussion, even if it makes you uncomfortable, but not necessarily a line in the sand beyond which you'd never cross.

 

As for your comment about transferring wealth, I think this would have applied to the middle or lower classes as well. A poor girl would have considered this when deciding between a man who sells moonshine for a living versus one who works at honest labor, and a middle class girl would have had different thoughts about a man involved in speculative ventures versus the son of a shopkeeper who would some day run the modest family business. One choice is likely to keep food on the table, the other to leave you and your children in the gutter.

[Gratia271]

I agree completely with #1 and #2. The issue of family stability in #3 is tough. With the first two, a potential partner exercises direct control over the outcome. Financial stability is very important, and unimpeachable character is essential.

 

Regarding #3, children don't choose their parents and have limited control over their upbringing. I certainly understand the concern, but I don't think it is fair to judge someone on the basis of a background over which they had limited (or no) control. What they do in response is, of course, a different matter.

 

There are many people who grow up in negative circumstances and choose a life in contraposition. I was raised by one, and I married one. In both of those situations, though, the instability was veiled from public view because there was significant financial stability. Far less attention was paid to the emotionally oppressive aspect of their upbringings. The upshot is their respective "families" taught them what not to be.

[dhudson]

I think you have to atleast look #3. In our marriage, I am the one with the unstable family background and it has caused us considerable trouble. I

eventually had to take a large step back from my family and choose my husband and then only son to save our family from ruin. It was hard but it had to be done.

 

I would advise everyone to look at #3 and atleast come to a realization that there could be trouble because of an unstable family and then make a plan to deal with them. You cannot come into a marriage without taking a long, hard look at these things.

[6packofun]

And on the flip side, seeing the success of other family members does not necessarily equate to potential in another family member. Each person has to "prove" him or herself and has a separate set of experiences, related to family relationships or NOT, that determine their outcome.

 

Dh's father was successful, his uncle is a genius in the AI/computer field, cousins are all successes and have traveled the world working in fascinating careers (chef, archaeology, computers and animation for a large studio)...and yet dh, in comparison is quite a loser. Really, he can't support his family even though he's a decent good guy. Just can't seem to pull it together like they have. I think some people take a long time to become the person they really are--it's a crapshoot of many, many factors whether they will become great or mediocre and often it's difficult to see or predict.

[Gratia271]

I think you have to atleast look #3. In our marriage, I am the one with the unstable family background and it has caused us considerable trouble. I

eventually had to take a large step back from my family and choose my husband and then only son to save our family from ruin. It was hard but it had to be done.

 

I would advise everyone to look at #3 and atleast come to a realization that there could be trouble because of an unstable family and then make a plan to deal with them. You cannot come into a marriage without taking a long, hard look at these things.

 

I agree. Undoubtedly, you have to be aware of it and plan for how to handle it! I don't think family background is necessarily determinative of outcome, though.

[katemary63]

Well, I didn't calculate my life out like this. I just fell in love. Probably for all the wrong reasons. Both my DH and I come from desperately disfunctional families and both of us were desperate to get out of our respective situations. We met and were engaged 3 months later. But we didn't marry for 2 years due to finances.

 

When we married, I was 20, he 22. He was a shelf stocker at a grocery store at night. I worked part time and went to school full time. It turns out, I married the hardest working, cleverest shelf stocker ever. A year after we married, he found a new job as a chemical operator at a pharmaceutical company. He was 1 step up from the janitor in a company of 125 employees. 12 years later, he was vice-president with a company car! Go figure!

 

Thing is, I couldn't care less. He is the most wonderful husband and father ON THE PLANET and if he had stayed a shelf stocker all these years, he still would be. As long as I fall asleep in his arms every night, I don't care about anything else - literally. We've had our times of lean and then plenty and then lean again. None of it ever mattered, we've been happy as clams either way. When there's financial difficulty, we work the problem together as a team.

 

If there were 1 good reason that either of us should have not married the other, it would have been family. Ours are both INSANE and IMPOSSIBLE. Neither of us had a single example of how to be an adult let alone a spouse or parent. Guess what? We're normal and healthy. We've been blissfully married for 27 years, we have tons of friends, we have 4 great kids who turned out great ( 1 college grad and 2 half way there) and still adore us (three are adults so there is proof in the pudding). Our families have presented us with many difficulties over the years, serious, painful, heartbreaking difficulties. But those have only served to bind us. We work the problem together as a team. I count it a blessing that we have climbed so many mountains and come out victorious!

 

So, gosh, no I don't think it's wise to choose a spouse based on those 3 criteria. I'd have turned my man down in a flash. What a mistake that would have been. We tell our kids to look for character in a potential spouse: honestly, faithfulness, perserverance, determination, a hard work ethic, gentleness, kindness, compassion, humility and faith. These are the things that make a person worth considering. Money bears absolutely no consideration for us. An honest, hard working man will do his best to provide for his family and what ever that means, he will deserve honor for it.

 

My son is now engaged. His fiance is from a wealthy family and will inherit millions over the next several years. Her dad is a hard working, self made man but he wasn't a very good father or husband. In addition, her mother (parents are divorced) is an alcoholic and mentally unstable. She has asked us for advice on marriage and parenting. She looks to us for guidance on how to be in a relationship. She is a doll and we love her as our own. I would never judge her in any way for her family situation or discourage our son from marrying her. How could I knowing where I've come from? We think he's blessed to have her.

 

Post note: It may seem odd to some, but to be honest, her money is a concern for us. Much more of a concern then if she were poor. We sort of wish she didn't have it as we think it is very easy to loose perspecive on what's truly important in life when you have that much money. (Her own family is a blaring example.)

[WarriorMama]

It all seems perfectly reasonable...but I surely wouldn't be married if we'd tried to follow those guidelines! :tongue_smilie:

 

We both come from dysfunctional messes (but *educated* dysfunctional messes, if that helps my case, lol). We married young and broke. I won't say these things haven't given us a lot of struggles, because they certainly have!

 

But we're still here and there's still nobody else I'd rather be living my life with.

[Ester Maria]

I followed the "guidelines" intuitively, I guess. :tongue_smilie:

 

Primarily, I was looking for an emotionally stable, mature person willing to grow with me. Somebody that would love me, and that would learn to love me, somebody I could learn to love, not a few-years romance. I didn't want to be completely overcome by Amor and blindly end up bound to somebody that way; while there was definitely a heart element in there, I also thought rationally about what I neeed, what he needs, and whether we'd be a good match.

 

It was important to me to marry a person from my own culture (in a somewhat broad sense), with similar values and education. We ended up being from a fairly similar socioeconomic background (mine was a bit better), though I didn't really "calculate" money and houses when considering a marriage, because I know how deceiving those can be; also, I'm a firm believer in "you aren't responsible for what you're born, but for what you become", so such concerns, or family concerns, would have been of a lesser importance to me, something to keep in mind as a part of the big picture, but not a decisive factor in any way.

 

The only issue we somewhat struggled with was religion / the amount of adherence to tradition, but other than both of us undergoing some compromises there, we were a perfect match. Much of it was intuitive, though, plus some open talking, some thinking, and very little "calculating" actually.

[Parrothead]

I don't know about your number one. Yes, that is the way it was back then, but today not so much. I would caution any young woman planning to marry a poet, painter, writer, etc that unless and until he makes the big time the financial responsibility will be largely up to her. It does not necessarily mean the family will be poor or lacking. In many fields women bring home good pay checks.

 

The biggest mistake she could make would be to assume once they are married that he will change. Then again this goes with any marriage. In dh's profession (lawenforcement) I hear so many women complain about the hours, life. I just want to shake them. They get mad, go back to mom, refuse to move when he gets transferred. What were they thinking when they dated?

[Laurie4b]

So, gosh, no I don't think it's wise to choose a spouse based on those 3 criteria. I'd have turned my man down in a flash. What a mistake that would have been. We tell our kids to look for character in a potential spouse: honestly, faithfulness, perserverance, determination, a hard work ethic, gentleness, kindness, compassion, humility and faith. These are the things that make a person worth considering. Money bears absolutely no consideration for us. An honest, hard working man will do his best to provide for his family and what ever that means, he will deserve honor for it.

 

 

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I, too, would have been a no-choose based on criteria #3. We, too, have had a very happy marriage.

 

In addition to character, there are some things that it is very helpful that a couple be in agreement on *prior* to marriage: how they will handle religion, money, in-laws, children, etc. Discussing these issues prior to marriage and getting to a place of agreement (or at least how to handle differences) rather than sticking one's head in the sand and hoping it will all work out bodes well for the marriage.

 

Still further, if one wants children, it's really important to know both whether the potential partner does and evaluate what kind of parents s/he would make--but again, that's character--just viewed through a specific lens.

 

I think if you have a person of character and agreement on how you want to handle areas that have high potential for conflict, that is better criteria than the Victorian ones.

 

I never aspired to be wealthy, so that would have never been a criteria for me; in fact, having worked in a country club as a teenager, i decided I would not like to be wealthy based on the interpersonal relationships I saw from the invisible (to the patrons) position of a waitress. Ugh. But that would have made me a poor match for a man who was ambitious to make a lot of money, regardless of the impact on family.

[sleepymommy]

These were things were not just thought about in the Victorian Era, there are still many societies that take these factors into serious regard. I do think that they are taken much less into consideration into our current culture in this country and some others, not out of negligence but it seems more like verbalizing that these things are important in one's search for a spouse can often lead to unwarranted "'labels". For example, if a woman is being wooed by a handsome young man with no job and no prospects of a job and she turns him down she may be called "gold digger". If someone is not considering another due to their familial background, let's say a not so stable father or mother, then that person may be labeled as "stuck-up", "acting holier than thou", etc.

 

These are influences from society in general, whereas in cultures where the concerns of money, stability, family honor etc are still highly regarded it is considered the norm.

[lisabelle]

The things that attracted to dh were his sense of humor and his intelligence, kindness, patience and respectfulness. We met in college and he was an electrical engineering student, so I knew he had prospects. I won't be disingenuous about it; looking back, the fact that he had prospects probably was a factor. I don't know that I could have had a serious relationship or married someone with dh's qualities that was studying something like Russian Literature as I was.

 

Dh's family, at the time, was wealthy. I don't know that I consciously gave it much thought, but it was incredibly nice that when we went out on dates he was able to take me out to nice restaurants. Or that we could get away for a weekend. Money wasn't really an object, though I did try to reign him in. I was a poor student. I paid my own way through college and wasn't entirely comfortable with him footing the bill for everything when we were together so I tried to make sure some of our dates were of the variety that I could pay for or that we could split the bill. And I wasn't entirely comfortable with his parents footing the bill for *me* as well as him (he worked while at school but I *knew* he couldn't be making enough to be as lavish with the spending as he was or wanted to be).

 

I didn't meet dh's parents for a long time after we started dating. I thought it was because he was ashamed of me. As it turned out, he was ashamed of them. For one thing, his dad did *not* come to his wealth honorably. I won't go into the gory details, but suffice it to say he was a physician who "retired" after having his license revoked for a second time. His dad was abusive as well. Dh was the first guy I'd ever dated who I believed, despite the wealth of his family, to have had a worse childhood than me.

 

I think, when dh did finally take me to meet his parents, that he was afraid I'd look at their beautiful home and all their stuff and decide they were great people. But in that first weekend of interacting with them I...understood. And I hated both of them...dh's dad for his crazy and his cruelty, dh's mom for being an intelligent and educated woman and *not* getting her boys out of there (she is a physician too).

 

I think dh's and my relationship is based on that shared history of crazy, abusive same-sex parents. We both crave peace and harmony. I grew up being a mom to my younger brothers, being someone stable who took care of them, protected them and loved them unconditionally. Dh never got that. He loves his mom, don't get me wrong, but she had a busy practice and wasn't home much and when she was, she didn't protect her boys from their mean and crazy dad. So I mother the dh. It fills a need for me and it fills a need for him.

 

Dh has been very successful in his career, which fills my need for security.

 

The only missing piece is extended family. It wasn't until recently that I've started to really regret that between the two of us, ds doesn't have once decent set of grandparents. I'm jealous that both my brothers have that for their kids.

[jld]

I was pretty surprised when dh declared his love for me, because I thought we were just friends. But I took a day and thought about it, and decided he would be a good father, husband, and provider. All were important.

 

He is so committed to me and the kids. That's probably the number one quality a man can have.

[Crimson Wife]

I actually did not want to date someone who had grown up wealthy because it's my observation that the majority of guys who grow up rich develop major "entitlement" attitudes and make lousy boyfriends & husbands.

 

My mom has a saying: "beware a guy who drives a fancy car because he'll treat it better than he treats you."

 

My DH drove a hand-me-down Honda Civic coupe with 150k miles when we met :lol:

[Impish]

My mother quit talking to me for a bit when she found out I'd quit dating the immigration lawyer. :glare:

[Rosie_0801]

. I was always attracted to really smart girls and she was average-ish. It sounds shallow for me to write it out like that.

 

No it doesn't.

 

It is a good thing to know what you need in a partner. What virtue is there in ignoring that self knowledge?

 

 

Rosie