Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« A Change Is Gonna Come | Rip-Off Artist »

Monday, December 18, 2006

Sane, Sensible Love

posted by on December 18 at 13:13 PM

The most-emailed article in the New York Times right now resembles a very tame, technical version of Savage Love: Undisclosed “relationship experts” compiled a list of Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying. The thing pretty much boils down to: hey! communicate with your partner! Yes, about finances, career goals, etc., etc., but also about sexual needs!

Here are some excerpts from the list of 15 questions:


1) Have we discussed whether or not to have children, and if the answer is yes, who is going to be the primary care giver?

5) Is my partner affectionate to the degree that I expect?

6) Can we comfortably and openly discuss our sexual needs, preferences and fears?

7) Will there be a television in the bedroom?

8) Do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas and complaints?

14) If one of us were to be offered a career opportunity in a location far from the other’s family, are we prepared to move?

15) Do each of us feel fully confident in the other’s commitment to the marriage and believe that the bond can survive whatever challenges we may face?

I feel like if you have to sit your partner down and ask them any of these questions on the night before you’re betrothed, you’re probably not ready yet to walk down the aisle. These are all the sort of fundamental bits of information that should seep out in conversation eventually and just be obvious after you’ve spent enough time in a relationship with someone. I hope no one uses this as a checklist, inviting his or her partner over for A Talk and then asking, “So, do we truly listen to each other and fairly consider one another’s ideas?” These are not so much “questions you need to ask” but “beliefs and opinions that you should figure out” before you decide you want them in your life FOREVER.

Disclaimer: I am young and naive.

The inclusion of the television question is also interesting… does watching TV while together have such a big impact on one’s relationship that it’s right up there with big choices like having children?

RSS icon Comments

1

Having a TV in your bedroom is a growing rpoblem it turns out:
- kills intimacy killers
- promotes a sedentary lifestyle, generally bad health, etc.

Posted by Ho' Know | December 18, 2006 1:21 PM
2

What if it's a "porn only" tv?

Posted by Baxter | December 18, 2006 1:33 PM
3

My fiance was kind of lobbying for a TV in the bedroom. But he hasn't mentioned it since that study came out that showed people with a TV in the bedroom have less sex.

Posted by giantladysquirrels | December 18, 2006 1:54 PM
4

Yes, you are young and naive.

What's here isn't anything that off from what John Gottman has written about or what's in any marriage counseling session.

Yeah, you should know all of this before you get married, but expecting that you'll "just know" how your partner would answer is a disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by dw | December 18, 2006 1:55 PM
5

To the young and naive:

John Gottman (and probably others, but he's the guy at UW I've heard of) have done research on marriage, and discovered that most of these questions aren't definitive when predicting relationship success. Which is not to say these are not important.

What they found, basically, is that if you put a couple together and have them discuss an issue where they have had conflict, the most important predictors of success and failure are whether they discuss the topic in a positive or negative way. By negative, they mean behaviors like disparaging your partner, rolling your eyes, treating your partner with contempt. Negative behaviors generally indicate the relationship will not last long.

Positive behaviors are those that indication affection, humor, respect, etc. toward the partner. If the discussion isn't negative, but isn't positive, either, the relationship tends to last longer, but still is unlikely to last a lifetime.

So while some of these questions might be deal-breakers in their own right, I'd say their main value would be in eliciting the sort of conflict that tells you how your prospective partner will treat you in the bad times. If they tell you you're an idiot because, say, you'd never consider moving to the East Coast, they're bound to tell you you're an idiot over and over again during the course of the time you're together. And that's not something you want to live with.

Here's a link to one of Gottman's books.

Posted by Greg Barnes | December 18, 2006 1:58 PM
6

Baxter @ 2 beat me to it.

Posted by eensy | December 18, 2006 2:20 PM
7

@6:

And yet no one has anwered. As usual, I consider silence to be consent.

Posted by Baxter | December 18, 2006 2:29 PM
8

The TV in the bedroom thing is actually a big deal to me. I will NOT have one. My first husband insisted on one - and then I wouldn't ever let him watch it. The bedroom is a place of sanctuary to me, and I do not want the noise and annoyance of TV in there. Maybe if I had just a DVD player hooked up to it, and no antenna or cable or anything, I could tolerate it. Barely. But I don't like watching movies or anything in bed. A partner who's dead set on doing that is someone who's going to be sleeping in a different room from me. So for some of us, that's a good question to settle before you decide on a long-term relationship.

Posted by Geni | December 18, 2006 2:30 PM
9

I am also young and naive.

But, I agree with smirk that that it seems like common sense that partners should know everything on the list about each other before considering marriage. I think she (and I as well) are naive in not realizing how foolhardy people have traditionally been in pursuing marriage as a goal in and of itself. For instance, about the thing mentioned above regarding how couples interact with each other; I have no idea why someone would remain in a relationship in which meaningful conversations took place in the frame of one or both partners looking down on the other like that.

I'm even more radical than that, though - I don't believe the much-vaunted tradition of marriage makes much sense in the modern world, nor any pretense of relationships being permanent. We constantly learn and evolve, and I think that to make two lives static enough for certain endless intimacy (or, the trappings of it) would be like living death. Which is not to say it isn't possible to find a partner to have a lifelong relationship with; just that it's very hard, and I don't think people should think the world is ending if a relationship doesn't work out.

And the fact that the TV question made the NYT list is just a sad reminder of what a large, destructive element of our culture TV is.

Posted by Noink | December 18, 2006 3:01 PM
10

The television question should have a follow up question. The question should be "Will there be a television in the bedroom and if so, will you be for or against watching porn with me on said television?"
Because you know that is really what they want to ask.

Posted by lilblackcat | December 18, 2006 3:03 PM
11

The television question should have a follow up question. The question should be "Will there be a television in the bedroom and if so, will you be for or against watching porn with me on said television?"
Because you know that is really what they want to ask.

Posted by lilblackcat | December 18, 2006 3:03 PM
12

Noink @9:

"I have no idea why someone would remain in a relationship in which meaningful conversations took place in the frame of one or both partners looking down on the other like that."

I agree that if your partner shows contempt every time you have a 'meaningful conversation', you're relationship is clearly in trouble. The point is that Gottman looks not at every meaningful conversation, but areas of conflict, where the couple is known to be in disagreement. Most people when they're dating avoid conflict, at least at first. And most people expect some nastiness during an argument. The point is that certain kinds of nastiness are destructive, whereas others are not.

The list from the NYT is like a compatibility test from a dating service. It's great if you can find someone who agrees with you on most things, particularly important stuff like children and where you want to live. But conflicts will inevitably arise. Gottman's research shows that it isn't the existence of conflicts that indicate trouble, but how the couple treats each other during a conflict.

(As well as how they treat each other the rest of the time. I can recall a rule of thumb like you want 10 positive gestures to every 1 negative, but here I'm really fuzzy.)

Here's an exercise I'm in the middle of: Watch the 'Up' Series by Michael Apted (a series of films of British people filmed every seven years in their lives: 7 Up, 7 Plus 7, 21 Up, etc., up until the latest one, 49 Up --- all but 49 Up are available on a recent 5-disc set as 'The Up Series'). As the people inevitably settle down, guess whose marriages will succeed or fail. I know there are a few divorces, but I've only gotten through 28 Up, so far, with no divorces. So I've made a few guesses, but don't know whether I'm right or not. C'mon you 88 people ahead of me on the SPL hold list, get a move on!

Posted by Greg Barnes | December 18, 2006 3:26 PM
13

It all seems like common sense but a lot of couples don't talk about any of this stuff and then they get married and, WHOOPS, its an issue. I don't think having a list of questions like this is a bad thing, yes kind of silly in a way but better to get it all out there in the open before getting married.

Posted by Suz | December 18, 2006 3:32 PM
14

this questionnaire seems to ignore the fact that people (and circumstances)change. "oh yes honey, i'd totally move anywhere with you!" but in 5 years, "but now i love my new job here, it's different." often people don't want kids, but later one person changes their mind and is miserable. it's nice to pretend someone out there is perfect for you and will never change, but it's kind of silly. are you the same person you were 10 years ago?

100% compatibility isn't the point. surviving the compromises is. sesame street had it right. "co-op-er-ATION!"

Posted by jessiesk | December 18, 2006 5:16 PM
15

You may be young and naive, but in my experience, you are also very correct.

I'm married and have been with my husband for ten years and we were friends for years before that. Long before we were married we learned to communicate. You just have to get in there and talk to each other and when you do, you don't just find out how their day went, but how they feel about religion, where they stand on abortion, fisting, and whether or not they want a tv in the bedroom. And you don't have to ask, if you listen, you'll know by the time you are REALLY ready to get married.

Posted by Married in California | December 18, 2006 7:40 PM
16

As someone who has been married, twice, now for almost 20 years, I would say that these checklists are a good idea if only because they make people start to think.

I think that there is a period when people are in LOVE that lasts at most for two years. This has been proven both anecdotally and in the behavioral sciences. When you are in this phase you are wearing the emotional equivalent of beer goggles. People don't always ask the core questions that they should ask.

Two things I have learned in life. One--you will go through predictable phases of rebellion in your 20's, a process of finding oneself in your 30's and hitting your stride in your 40's. This is somewhat similar to the storming/norming/forming formula organizations are said to go through. Each stage is wonderful and rich. And two--you will ultimately return to a level of comfort somewhere between where your parents were and what you would like to be. I know many people have difficult lives, but we all are what we know to some extent.

TV in the bedroom is a horrible idea. Modern life is too distracting to not have one room where you might actually pay attention to one another.

Posted by been there, done that | December 18, 2006 7:58 PM
17

No TV in the bedroom for me ever that's insane. And hopefully no crap tv watching at all either. I wouldn't seriously date someone who watched sitcoms or "reality" shows, for example.
They don't call it "programming" for nothing, you know.

Posted by treacle | December 18, 2006 8:43 PM
18

I have a TV in the bedroom (of course I live alone right now) but I'm not in the habit of watching it every night. It's mostly for watching movies while snuggling with my S/O. It's off much more then it's on. It's not HAVING a TV in the bedroom that's the problem, it's having a partner who's in the habit of watching it when you'd like to be sleeping or getting naked or talking or whatever....

Posted by Em | December 18, 2006 9:21 PM
19

I think the biggest problem with marriage, aside from being outdated and obsolete LOL, is that people are much too quick to undertake it. I think a couple should date at least a few years, even live together for a spell, before even considering it. And given an adult is still developing his/her sense of life and purpose throughout his/her 20's, it's probably something you shouldn't do right out of high school or college.

And yet supposedly educated people are so quick to tie the knot, and we wonder why the divorce rate is so high.

Posted by Gomez | December 18, 2006 9:42 PM
20

I think that the dating a few years makes sense if people are in their 20's. But, now that I'm in my 30's my friends are getting married after knowing each other for a shorter amount of time. That makes sense because we are older and know ourselves better. Also, at 32 I only date people who have similar ideas about the "list" or have ideas that are okay with me, even if they are different. In the end, it boils down to attraction and how we deal with conflict, but usu. the conflict is not about "major" issues.

Posted by Papayas | December 18, 2006 11:35 PM
21

I think that the dating a few years makes sense if people are in their 20's. But, now that I'm in my 30's my friends are getting married after knowing each other for a shorter amount of time. That makes sense because we are older and know ourselves better. Also, at 32 I only date people who have similar ideas about the "list" or have ideas that are okay with me, even if they are different. In the end, it boils down to attraction and how we deal with conflict, but usu. the conflict is not about "major" issues.

Posted by Papayas | December 18, 2006 11:35 PM
22

I've always thought living together before marrying was a good idea. It's what you're going to do for (supposedly) the rest of your lives ... it seems clever to try it out first, and not foolishly believe that somehow living with someone is the same as seeing them on a semi-regular date basis.

Posted by Gloria | December 19, 2006 5:26 AM
23

G Barnes @ 12:
You've gone a good job summarizing Gottman's work, and I'm sure you know it's not as simplistic as that. It's not *just* conflict resolution, it's bids for attention and how each partner answers those bids, it's "love maps" and building a relationship that has it's own culture, etc. But I'm glad to see that Gottman is being cited more than planet-monkey John Grey.

Gomez@19:

Actually, data has shown that the highly educated adults you speak of are far LESS likely to marry early; in fact, the more education you have the later in life you will marry.
Don't blame divorce rates on the educated segment, or you'll start sounding like Forbes magazine.

Posted by Cassandra | December 19, 2006 6:55 AM
24

"I've always thought living together before marrying was a good idea. It's what you're going to do for (supposedly) the rest of your lives ... it seems clever to try it out first, and not foolishly believe that somehow living with someone is the same as seeing them on a semi-regular date basis."

I've read that people who live together before getting married have a much greater chance of getting divorced. People who live together people before getting married have more liberal notions about relationships than do conservative folks who usually don't believe in living together before getting hitched. So the idea is that more liberal couples would be faster to use divorce as an option when things go bad than the conservative thinkers.

Not that any of this makes conservative marriages happier...


Posted by Bosco | December 19, 2006 7:48 AM
25

I've heard the point, Bosco, but that notion discounts a variety of other factors that apply in the modern day and age, like the fact that women today can have careers instead of being saddled at home with kids.

People who don't live together until married also carry a lot of conservative true love and matrimony myths that coerce each other into staying together even when the relationship sours and, in some cases, is no longer worth it. That, not some magical correlation between not living together and divorce rates, is why those relationships have lower divorce rates.

In other words, it's backwards horseshit.

Posted by Gomez | December 19, 2006 10:07 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).