Feed on

People talk about good divorces and bad divorces, but what most of us consider a bad divorce typically has to do with money or nastiness and manipulations. I’ll agree that those can be pretty ugly, but there are some divorces that are beyond bad divorces, the “who would do that?” divorces, the Mother of All Divorces divorces. Those would be when splitting causes an additional incomprehensible pain to a spouse and the children.  Ready for surgery

For instance, John and Elizabeth Edwards. They separated after 32 years and Elizabeth filed for divorce within days after John admitted, yeah, I did father a baby with Rielle Hunter — at the same time that Elizabeth was battling the incurable cancer that ultimately killed her. How painful is that?

Sen. John McCain’s divorce was no better. His was schtupping a younger babe while wife No. 1, Carol, was barely recuperated from a devastating and disfiguring car accident. Then he dumped her to marry his mistress, now Mrs. Cindy McCain. Nice.

It seems especially callous to cheat on and divorce a partner who’s sick or suffering. And yet, it isn’t all that unusual. Not too long ago some doctors noticed an odd pattern in their oncology practices — too many of their patients, female patients that is, were suddenly getting divorced. A study last year, “Gender Disparity in the Rate of Partner Abandonment in Patients with Serious Medical Illness,” backed their observations.

The odd thing about the aptly named “partner abandonment” is how big a role gender plays in it. Women who are diagnosed with cancer or multiple sclerosis are six times more likely to find themselves separated or divorced shortly after their diagnosis than if they were a man, according to the study.

As if that wasn’t enough, the older the woman, the more likely she was headed for splitsville, resulting, not surprisingly, in some serious impacts on her health and quality of life. Great! And women get called out for initiating divorce more than men; maybe be sense they don’t fully buy into “in sickness … for worse” thing.

What would drive a man to abandon his wife at the time she needed him most? The study’s authors don’t quite answer that — who can really know? – but they cite other studies that indicate men are “less able to undertake a caregiving role and assume the burdens of home and family maintenance compared with women. Thus a woman becomes willing sooner in the marriage to commit to the burdens of having a sick spouse.”

As a twice-married and twice-divorced woman, I know what the researchers are talking about. One of my fantasies is that my partner wouldn’t mind — dare I say enjoy – pampering me just a little when I’m sick as I so willingly do when he’s feeling crappy.

What gives, guys?

Another beyond-bad divorce scenario is when a cheating spouse ends up shacking up with or marrying his or her lover and there are kids involved, as in McCain’s case. I can’t even imagine how to begin that conversation with your kids let alone spin it to be a good thing, especially if they now have to live with the woman or man who helped destroy their family. A few of my friends have been those kids, and the anger and resentment even decades later haven’t totally gone away.

Not that I think explaining why you dumped Mom when she was sick would be any easier.

Then there are the double betrayals — think Woody Allen, Mia Farrow and Soon-Yi Previn. Losing your spouse to a good friend — or to your own child — would pretty much suck.

All of which makes me so thankful that my divorce from my kids’ dad fell into the “good” category. Sure, there are many times that we’ve been frustrated and disappointed with each other, but his betrayal was just the good ol’ fashioned kind — an affair that eventually ended.

But in some weird stroke of luck, I ended up following Nora Ephron’s sage advice: Never marry a man you wouldn’t want to be divorced from.

How about you?

Interested in learning about ways to re-create your marriage? Read The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels (Seal Press, September 2014). Order the book on Amazon, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook. Let’s Occupy Marriage!


Tags: , , , , , , ,

It’s hardly new news, that the couples that are divorcing the most in the United States right now are boomers. We’ve been talking about that since Al and Tipper Gore decided to split in 2010 after 40 years together (although they’re not yet divorced, another trend — the undivorced). But a recent study once again pointed out that the divorce rate for Americans over the age of 50 has doubled since 1990, and more than doubled for those over the age of 65. Most of today’s divorces — 55 percent — are happening to couples who’d been married for more than 20 years.

What does that mean for us, the women and men of a certain age? 2011-04-06-Fotolia_784659_XS.jpg

A number of us have gone on to have loving partner-ships, which is great. But it’s also left many in dire financial straits, according to the study. And it has other ramifications, such as who will take care of all those divorced boomers? As one researcher noted:

“Now that they no longer have a spouse, divorced older people have less social support. Relationships with their older children could be compromised as a result of the divorce. As they age and experience health declines, who’s going to take care of them? Especially if they’re not able to afford the level of care that others with more economic resources have?”

It’s a complicated situation, and one that I’ve thought a lot about since my parents got ill and then passed away. But my parents weren’t divorced; they were married for 61 years, although a few bad things happened that led them to live apart for about half a year and that had me flying back and forth every few weeks to Cleveland, where my mother had heart surgery and then suddenly died, and to Florida, where my dad lived in a nursing home not far from their condo.

As complicated as that may have been, it may not be as complicated as the situation I may face as I age. Despite the 70 percent of adult children polled by in-home care provider Senior Helpers who said they’d happily have Mom move in with them, daughters were more likely than sons to do so, as were children living in the Northeast and Southeast. I have two sons and I live in California. Bummer for me. And I have another, bigger, strike against me — I’m divorced, so it’s likely I may be fending for myself during my golden years.

Children of divorce tend to be less involved in the daily care of aging parents, according to a study by Temple University researcher and gerontologist Adam Davey. Not necessarily because they don’t want to but because they often live far away from each other. Except I wasn’t a product of divorce and yet I still lived on opposite coasts from my parents for decades, and I don’t think that’s all that unusual nowadays.

Others often struggle with having to care for an aging estranged parent and perhaps aging stepparents with whom they may or may not have been close, says Elizabeth Marquardt, director of the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values and author of Between Two Worlds: The Inner Lives of Children of Divorce. I have certainly seen that.

With low birth rates, high divorce rates, a burgeoning population of single mothers — including single mothers by choice — and about 60 percent of second marriages ending in divorces, “our families, our nation will soon confront a never-before-seen shift in how we die and whom we’ll have around us when we do,” Marquardt says. “And the likelihood is that on every level, we will be dying much more alone.”

For boomers already caregiving divorced parents, stepparents and sometimes multiple stepparents, it’s making “an already complex and emotional situation” even more problematic, says Suzanne Mintz, president of the National Family Caregivers Association. As When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions author Paula Span writes in “Years Later, Divorce Complicates Caregiving” on the New York Times’ The New Old Age blog:

Years after parents split, their children may wind up helping to sustain two households instead of one, and those households can be across town or across the country. Further, unmarried women (whether single, widowed or divorced) face significantly higher poverty rates in middle and old age, according to a study by the Institute for Women’s Policy Research that AARP published last year.

I can understand why some might not want to care for an estranged parent, but honestly there are no guarantees that children from intact families are going to care for their aging parents, either. There are plenty of people who have such troubled relationships with their still-married parents that just thinking about calling them — let alone caring for them one day — is enough to send them to a shrink. And it isn’t just divorce that’s complicating things; there are still many under- or unemployed boomers who may not be able to help their aging parents — or themselves.

Of course, the truth is that divorced, widowed, never-married, married, parents or not, close or far, we all die alone, or so psychiatrist Irvin Yalom says in his book Love’s Executioner:

“Though we try hard to go through life two by two or in groups, there are times, especially when death approaches, that the truth that we are born alone and must die alone, breaks through with chilling clarity. I have heard many dying patients remark that the most awful thing about dying is that it must be done alone. Yet, even at the point of death, the willingness of another to be fully present may penetrate the isolation.”

 Who is that other “fully present” person? Yalom doesn’t say. It could be anyone.

If you’re lucky, maybe a new partner. Or your child.

Photo © Przemyslaw Koroza/Fotolia.com



Tags: , , , , ,

Look at any website or magazine geared toward women and you’ll most likely see advice from “experts” — everything from “9 Ways to Save Your Marriage” to “10 Marriage Rules You Should Break” to “21 Secrets to a Happy Marriage” — to prevent a marriage from sliding into complacency and perhaps divorce.

The secrets, tips, tricks or rules will no doubt cover the usual suspects — go on date nights, appreciate each other more, boost communication, resolve conflict better, laugh together and schedule sex (or maybe have sex, period). 2014-10-08-Fotolia_13491317_XS.jpg

While I don’t have any objection to that kind of advice — who doesn’t want to have more sex or laughter? — the underlying message is that if couples just try harder (or maybe just the women, as saving marriages seems to be women’s work), things will turn out great and you’ll once again be the loving, happy and lusty couple you were when you first met.

Honestly, how much faith do you actually have that it will? Yeah, me neither.

As Albert Einstein is famously — and incorrectly — quoted as saying, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Regardless of who said it, it’s true. The problem isn’t that couples aren’t working at their marriage; most are. The real problem is that all that work will only go so far because the traditional marriage model itself is broken.

Rather than telling couples to “work harder” — when throwing the same tips, tricks and secrets at it clearly isn’t working —why not tell them to try something different?

What might that look like?

Sex up by opening up
You’re in your fifth, 10th or 20th year of marriage and your sex life is ho-hum, if you’re even having a sex life anymore that is. You’ve tried new positions, all the latest sex toys, sexy lingerie, watched porn, maybe even dabbled in a little BDSM. It helped for a while and then, boom, you’re back to your old habits. What would really invigorate your sex life is to have sex with someone else. No, I’m not suggesting an affair; as exciting as that might be, it’s often incredibly damaging to a relationship. But you don’t need to cheat to fulfill your sexual desires.

While researching for our book, The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels, Susan Pease Gadoua and I heard from numerous couples who opened up their marriage for awhile. True, they struggled with jealousy, but giving each other the freedom to explore new partners honestly and safely not only brought them closer and made them feel sexier, but it also made them feel proud that they broke from the norm and forged a new path. It was “a badge of courage” they said. Who can argue with that?

Stay connected by living apart
About 20-something years into her marriage, my mother moved to Miami, bought herself a condo and got a job — leaving my dad and our Yorkie in New York City. The two came down to visit her for a long weekend every month for about 10 years, when my dad finally joined her and they lived in somewhat peaceful marital bliss until they passed away. My mom was a marriage rebel, although I didn’t realize it at the time.

I wouldn’t necessarily suggest that you do what my mom did, but living with someone 24/7 can create all sorts of conflict, disappointments and resentments, not to mention that couples start taking each other for granted. Why not give each other space and live apart, whether permanently in separate spaces, temporarily or sporadically? Research indicates couples that live apart feel just as stable, satisfied, committed and trusting as couples that live together do — and often more so. Other studies reveal that women who don’t live with their partners retain their sexual desire much more than women who do. That alone makes the arrangement mighty tempting!

From lovers to co-parents
Perhaps you are miserable in your marriage and at the brink of divorce but one thing stops you from making the leap — your kids. If your kids are young, that’s a valid concern. But as research has indicated, it isn’t divorce per se that’s bad for kids — it’s conflict, and it’s just as damaging to kids if that conflict happens in intact families as divorced families. So much for staying miserably together “for the kids.” But there are other concerns, financial among them, that often keep parents stuck in miserable marriages.

Thankfully, there’s an alternative to divorcing — a parenting marriage. Instead of viewing yourselves as the soul mates you once imagined each other to be, see yourselves in an entirely new role — co-parents. Instead of expecting your spouse to fulfill all your needs, remove romance from the equation and replace it with respectful and loving co-parenting.

The truth is kids don’t need their parents to love each other in order for them to thrive — they need their parents to love them, as well as have a conflict-free and stable environment. Becoming good co-parents can give kids exactly what they need. And isn’t that what you want for them, too?

Interested in learning about other ways to re-create your marriage? Read The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels (Seal Press, September 2014). Order the book on Amazon, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook. Let’s Occupy Marriage!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Susan Pease Gadoua and I had a fantastic book launch Oct. 5 at the wonderful Book Passage in Corte Madera for The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels, with more than 70 people in the audience, bubbly, petits fours by Dragonfly Cakes and two flower bouquets made by Bloomingayles. We were flattered that Book Passage sold out!

Susan and I talked about how the book came to be, and our own experiences with societal judgment based on our marital choices — a late first-time marrier (43), Susan was barraged with questions by people wondering what was wrong with her whereas I, a twice married and divorced woman, was seen as someone who “failed” at marriage (twice!) and who obviously is damaged and unable to commit.  love

That is exactly the kind of blaming and shaming we wish to end.

Then, we read select passages from the book and after, opened up the floor for questions — and there were many. Not surprisingly, several people wondered about love.

As in, where does love fit into our marital models?

For the record, Susan and I are not against love. We’ll both admit love was very much on our minds when we said “I do” to our husbands. At the same time, marrying for love has made a mess of marriage, as sociologist Stephanie Coontz has exhaustively detailed in Marriage, a History.

In truth, all of us are a bit flummoxed to describe love although we all have a vague idea of what it’s about. Isn’t it scary to think that we are hitching our lives, finances and children to love — something we can’t even adequately describe?

Last week I wrote a story on celebrated doctor Grace Dammann, the subject of a new documentary, “States of Grace,” that looks at how surviving a near-fatal head-on collision impacted her family. Dammann and her partner, Nancy (Fu)  Schroeder, the abiding abbess at Green Gulch Farm in Muir Beach, had long stopped being romantic partners, but agreed to stay together to co-parent their wheelchair-bound daughter Sabrina, Isabel Allende’s step-granddaughter, whom they adopted as an infant — born drug addicted and with cerebral palsy, and not expected to live long. But she did, and Dammann took on the mommying role. Then came the accident. As Schroeder faced caretaking her daughter and her former romantic partner, she came to this realization: “Love, it’s something more about devotion.” So she committed to be Dammann’s caretaker for five years — a time-limited contract, as it were. Sabrina would be 19 at that point and on her way.

Is that love? Or, is it being loving? Is there a difference, and if so which matters more in a partnership — especially one in which children and caretaking are involved?

So, as we answered people’s concerns about love, we explained it’s OK to love your partner, but romantic love needs to be booted from the top spot it’s greedily held onto for the past 200 years or so as the reason to marry. It certainly can be among the top five reasons, but couples need a little more to go on than love, especially if they want to become parents and raise their children in a respectful, loving, stable and conflict-free environment.

And we talked about the lessons we can learn from arranged marriages (not forced or child marriages), where common backgrounds, interests and goals matter more than  love at first — although as some women in arranged marriages wrote us, love occurs when you see your husband caring for your children, being a good provider (OK, I have some thoughts on that but I’m just quoting here) and treating his family with respect and kindness.

Which takes us back to, what does love mean when we’re talking about marriage? And, what kind of love do we want or expect in a marriage? It’s an important conversation. How clear about it are you?

Want to keep up with The New I Do? Order the book on Amazon, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook. Let’s Occupy Marriage!


Tags: , , , , , ,

tnid_flowchart_smallSusan Pease Gadoua’s and my book is finally out (yay!), and for those of you who are curious what we’re talking about, her’s a nifty flowchart that our publisher Seal Press put together. There are many more arrows that could connect the dots (or bubbles, as it were), such as a Parenting Marriage connecting to an Open Marriage, since the point of a Parenting Marriage is to marry the best co-parent — not necessarily a soul mate or the love of your life (in fact, we encourage you not to; don’t we all know how love leads to disappointments, resentments and frustrations?)

So, what do you think?

Want to keep up with The New I Do? Order the book on Amazon, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook. Let’s Occupy Marriage!


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Recently, the Brookings Institute published “The Marriage Effect: Money or Parenting?” — a report that looks into what matters more for children’s well-being — having married parents, being in a financially stable family or parents with good parenting skills.   Parenting

While the report acknowledges that marriage promotion efforts haven’t worked, marriage does seem to offer some benefits to kids. But, analysts wondered well, why — is it because there’s more money or better parenting, a combination of both or something else. As the report states:

The benefits of marriage in terms of children’s outcomes and life chances seem clear. The difficulty is teasing out the key factors. Our analysis suggests that both the higher incomes and the more engaged parenting of married parents count for a good deal. If anything, parenting may matter a little more. … Marriage is a powerful means by which incomes can be raised and parenting can be improved.

Not all married parents offer “engaged parenting” — marriage alone doesn’t make anyone a better parent. And although it’s often college-educated couples that are tying the knot nowadays, education does not necessarily make someone a better parent.

So, where should we be putting out efforts? Pushing marriage? It’s not working. Creating more jobs, raising the minimum wage and providing affordable childcare? Better, but still no guarantee that people will become better parents. So the report suggests “policies to increase the incomes of unmarried parents, especially single parents, and to help parents to improve their parenting skills, should be where policy energy is now expended.”

As Isabel V. Sawhill of Brookings states:

Because the conversation has focused so heavily on marriage, we have lost sight of the fact that it is the quality of parenting that really matters, not just the structure of the family. …. We also need a new ethic of responsible parenthood. That means not having a child before you and your partner really want one and have thought about how you will care for that child.

Well, amen (although her language assumes that the person who wants a child must have a partner; there are many single men and women who are financially secure enough to have a child solo). But I agree — people who want to have kids should give parenting a lot more thought, regardless of whether they are partnered or not. But how do we make that happen?

Some have suggested that parents be licensed — even in the U.S., one of the wealthiest countries in the world, a staggering 15 percent of children suffer from hunger and many more from abuse — but as I’ve written before, based on what criteria and supervised by whom?

Others have suggested mandatory premarital training, but that has mixed results. Plus, what marital skills do we teach and what kind of marriage are we talking about — traditional marriage? And therein lies the problem.

As Susan Pease Gadoua and I suggest in The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels, if we continue to raise kids in a love-based marital model, we will continue to see the same results. And if we continue to create policies catering to a traditional nuclear family structure when so few families look like that, we will continue to see the same results.

But what does it really mean to ask for a “new ethic of responsible parenthood” for the many young, poor women who see having children as “an absolutely essential part of a young woman’s life, the chief source of identity and meaning” as well as a mature, responsible choice, as Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas discovered in their ground-breaking book Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage. It’s dangerous to view the expectations of less-privileged single moms through the myopic expectations of the middle class.

Maybe society’s focus should be on promoting responsible caregiving — that removes the stigma of  “single moms” as being “bad for society” (and let’s not forget, every single one of those child also has a single father who does not seem to suffer the same stigma), and it also elevates all caregiving, an essential part of society that includes caring for the elderly and the ill and disabled (91 percent of welfare benefits go to the elderly, disabled and working households).

What do you think?

Want to keep up with The New I Do? Pre-order the book on Amazon, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook. Let’s Occupy Marriage!



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I don’t know how anyone can make a love triangle feel good for everyone, but there are some love triangles that just appear downright, I dunno, weird.

Take the Mark Sanford-Jenn Sanford-Maria Belen Chapur saga. Mark_Sanford

The Sanfords’ bitter divorce drags on — five years after the married South Carolina Representative mysteriously disappeared only to be found in Argentina with his lover — thanks to complications over visitation arrangements for their four sons. This week, more twists and turns have occurred. On Sept. 12, Sanford suddenly ended his two-year engagement with Chapur (for some odd reason, quite publicly on Facebook.

Say what you will about Sanford’s methods when it comes to relationships (then and now), but there are a few unhappy circumstances surrounding his divorce from his former wife and potential marriage to his fiancee that make me pause.

Sanford turned to Facebook (bad idea!) to respond to what clearly had been somewhat privately discussed with Chapur first. Sanford evidently told his fiancee that he needed two more years before they tied the knot. Why? That’s when his 16-year-old son would no longer be a minor and thus no longer a legal issue to tussle over with his former wife. Sanford also acknowledged that creating family with a person who helped bust up an existing family is, well, a bit complicated. Anyone who has had to live with a cheating parent and his or her lover knows that all too well; it’s one of those worst-case scenario divorces, and the anger and resentment can last decades. As Sanford wrote:

“No relationship can stand forever this tension of being forced to pick between the one you love and your own son or daughter, and for this reason Belen and I have decided to call off the engagement. Maybe there will be another chapter when waters calm with Jenny, but at this point the environment is not conducive to building anything given no one would want to be caught in the middle of what’s now happening.”

His affair and divorce have been in the public eye for years (and I’m not saying they shouldn’t be), which adds an extra layer of angst to a new relationship. I just can’t help but feel bad for his kids, especially the 16-year-old still at home, who are most likely expected to accept (embrace?) the partner who in their eyes helped “destroy” their family.

So, what’s the problem now, years after the affair became public, the marriage disintegrated and the mistress became a respectable fiancee?

Well, a lot that speaks to all that can go wrong in love. Sanford’s former wife’s latest motion asks that both she and her former husband be banned from having overnight guests of the opposite sex who could be considered a “paramour” while their sons are in the house. Meanwhile, Chapur has been pressuring him to marry, saying that she didn’t want to “continue in the category of mistress.”

Wait, what? How does a fiancee, a woman you’ve proposed marriage to and who responded with a yes (and presumably has a pricey rock to show the world), remain in the “mistress” or “paramour” category? Well, she doesn’t although it’s clear that in Jenny and Maria’s mind she does.

I’d like to ask all the newly engaged women of the word, are you a mistress?

Shoving a fiancee into that category speaks more to the fact that the former Mrs. Sanford is angry and resentful that her former husband has not only found happiness with someone else, but that he also happens to be finding that happiness with the woman who caused her marriage to fall apart. I’m sure that hurts.

And I’m sure the the former mistress is upset, too. She wants to move on with the relationship and become legit — aka the next Mrs. Sanford.

It’s pretty much a recipe for disaster, but I worry less about the adults, who created this mess, than the 16-year-old still at home. As poorly as Sanford treated his marriage — and by extension, his family and perhaps his constituents — I have to give him credit for recognizing that at this point he’s a father first. It is never too late to decide to do the right thing, and Sanford is — finally — doing the right thing. He’s thinking of his kid first. It may be out of exhaustion from fighting his former wife or it may be spurred by his desire to be re-elected (although he is unopposed so it won’t be too hard) but regardless — his kid is coming first. The bad party now isn’t Sanford but his former wife.
Jenny, let go. Just let go.


Tags: , , , , , ,

Last week, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie tied the knot — or finally tied the knot if you’re a follower of pop culture websites or mags.

While they didn’t follow the typical trajectory — meet, date, fall in love, become a committed couple, move in together, wed, have kids — they ended up in the same place anyway, (presumably) marital bliss. They just decided to have the kids — all six of them, although Angelina came with one — first. Is there something wrong with that? Smiling kids

Gaby Hinsliff of the Guardian says no. In fact, she wonders if they didn’t do it a better way, given the fact that one in four unmarried couples ties the knot within five years of becoming parents:

Some, perhaps, might have been brought together by the baby but for many marriage was probably always the long-term plan; it’s just that they have good reasons to put the cart, as my granny would have said, before the horse.

I would be concerned for those who were “brought together by the baby”; we used to call those shotgun weddings, and they rarely were healthy for the couple or the kid. The “good reasons” speak to financial realities for Millennials nowadays:

The gloriously unattainable fantasy for many young women now isn’t a man and a meringue, but a house. It makes no economic sense for a couple struggling to save £30,000 for a deposit to blow everything on a frock and a honeymoon. And given the age at which first-time buyers finally get the keys, the next most urgent priority for many is probably to get pregnant before it’s too late. Marriage naturally gets shuffled to the end of the list, becoming less the starting point of family life than the full stop at the end of it – invariably parked until someone has the time and the energy to think about it.

Well, you don’t need a house to be happily married. But whatever. By 2016, half of all the babies born in Britain will be born to unmarried women, she notes. In the United States, that number is closer to 40 percent. As sociologist Philip Cohen detailed this week, just 34 percent of all young children are being raised in what we consider a “normal” modern family — two working parents.

Times are changing.

There’s a lot of hand-wringing over children born to couples that aren’t married. Sometimes that concern is justified, especially for fragile families. Yet as many scholars have pointed out, telling them to just get married will not get them out of poverty. (Interestingly, poverty rates for unmarried moms are high across the world, but they are highest in the United States, Cohen points out. That speaks volumes.)

Clearly, Brad and Angelina don’t have this financial problem. But they also didn’t delay marriage because of “troublemaking men,” incarceration, abuse, unemployment or because they can’t afford to get married — many of the reasons poor women cite as delaying marriage (an institution they value, perhaps more than their middle-class sisters). It was a choice they made that speaks to a bigger issue that Hinsliff and others aren’t addressing — commitment to parenting.

Couples don’t have to be married to raise kids well (after all, same-sex couples who weren’t able to marry have been doing that for decades). And as I’ve written before, kids don’t need their parents to love each other. What kids need is stability, and Angelina and Brad gave their kids stability because they were committed to them (as well as each other) and probably could have continued that way forever. The marriage license and wedding — as symbolic as they are — didn’t make them be or act any more committed than they already are, nine-years into a parenting relationship. The pressure they felt to tie the knot supposedly came from their kids (and I suddenly feel a great need to ask my long-time cohabiting parent friends how — or if  — they have dealt with that even though they clearly have resisted that pressure). Even if that’s true, the kids most likely absorbed that from societal expectations that people, especially parents, should be married. For whatever reason, society tends to see cohabiting couples as “less than.”

While I’m supportive of childree couples who choose to marry (or not), I recognize that not everyone feels the same way. While it’s lovely to imagine that society worries about childfree couples, the truth is we don’t; no one outside of family and friends cares whether you stay together or not if kids aren’t involved.

Not that I know them (I don’t) and can say this with 100 percent conviction, but by all appearances Brad and Angelina have been doing a fine job of co-parenting their kids. That’s really all that matters, right? I don’t think we need to encourage couples to have kids first and then tie the knot or vice versa, even though I agree with Hinsliff that having kids first may create couples that “have already weathered plenty of ups and downs, who know exactly what is meant by ‘for better, and for worse’ and are still willing to sign up for a lifetime of it.” I’d feel much more comfortable supporting the commitment couples make to co-parent once they have kids, married and living together or not. What about you?

Want to keep up with The New I Do? Pre-order the book on Amazon, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook. Let’s Occupy Marriage!


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does marriage change you as a person?

According to Maroon 5’s Adam Levine, who has been married all of six weeks so we’ll have to take whatever he says with a grain of salt, being married makes him feel more “masculine.”

“If it’s the right marriage, if it’s the right person, the guy feels a little bit more like a man,” says Levine, People magazine’s sexiest man alive for 2013.

Really? Masculine?  marriage femininity

What about being married might make a man feel more like, well, a man?

At Role Reboot, Eric Sentell realizes that his evolution from an independent bachelor into an interdependent married man meant, yes, he’d have to give up some power — thus, his masculinity. But rather than lose his manliness, he benefited (as, presumably, did his wife):

Whereas a codependent person cedes identity and power to his or her partner and can hardly function independently, an interdependent person retains individual identity while also forging a partnership based on shared power. The unique benefits of interdependence convinced me that sharing power does not equate to a loss of masculinity. In fact, far more is gained than lost.

Still, I am curious what about being a husband makes a man feel more manly. A part of me wonders if Sexy Man Levine’s masculinity is coming less from a place of power, like Sentell, and more from a place of believing that as a man, he should protect and cherish his wife — what’s known as benevolent sexism.

On the surface, benevolent sexism doesn’t sound so bad; who among us doesn’t want to be cherished or protected or both? What’s so wrong about that?

Nothing — unless it’s based on the belief that “women are wonderful, but weak.” Thus a man can be more of a man (whatever that means) and a woman can be more of a woman (ditto). Insert gendered expectations here. But in general it would reinforce some women’s feelings of entitlement, that they somehow deserve to be made to feel special by their lover. As long as they are “nice,” that is.

So does that mean that some women feel more feminine after saying “I do”?

Asked, “What makes you feel feminine,” on Reddit, not one woman said being a wife or being married. Same at the Frisky, where women name painted nails, makeup and bubble baths as markers of femininity.

Becoming a Mrs? Nope.

In fact, being a wife is often a complicated reality for women; as poet Jill Bialosky wrote so succinctly in The Bitch in the House: 26 Women Tell the Truth about Sex, Solitude, Work, Motherhood and Marriage, “I had wanted to get married, but I realized now that I had never wanted to be a ‘wife.'”

Still, being married makes people feel grown-up, or at least that’s what Susan Pease Gadoua and I heard from the engaged couples we interviewed for The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels.

“Marriage is just the next thing you do,” a bride-to be said as her fiance nodded in agreement. “You graduate, you get a job, you get married.”

“Our married friends just seem more adult,” another bride-to be said, despite the fact that she and her fiance had been living together for five years and are well established in their careers.

They’re not the only ones. “I was surprised how much I liked it when I first heard my wife refer to me as her ‘husband,’ and how much I liked saying ‘wife.’ I’m not sure why. Maybe it made me feel kind of grown up,” says former Salon columnist King Kaufman, then 34 years old.

And that’s why people who live together don’t really have the full experience of what it’s like to be married; not only do others view them differently (typically “less than“), but they themselves feel different about their relationship and each other.

But feminine? I have never heard a woman say that marriage makes her feel more feminine, although we are often advised by people like The Surrendered Wife author Laura Doyle to be feminine, aka “soft, delicate, and receptive,” in our marriage (and if we have to be told to be more feminine as a wife, it would seem as if marriage itself doesn’t automatically make us feel feminine). Which sounds a lot like perpetuating the benevolent sexism model — some women tend to be “soft, delicate, and receptive” therefore women who aren’t are seen as the problem.

I’m happy Mr. Levine feels more masculine in his marriage. I’m hopeful his wife, Behati Prinsloo, thinks it’s great, too. She hasn’t weighed in on whether marriage has made her appreciate her hubby’s boosted masculinity and/or have a new-found appreciation of her own femininity. But it’s clear that anyone who wants to tie the knot might want to pay attention.



Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Women want sex and passion — surprised?

If we are to believe a recent study by AshleyMadison.com, that’s why married women say they cheat. They’re not interested in ending their marriage, they’re just looking to put some spark in their sex lives and, let’s face it — once you’ve tried new sex toys, new positions, new porn flicks and new lingerie, there just isn’t much more that a married couple can do.

Except there is. 2014-08-22-Fotolia_5649786_XS.jpg

Married women (as well as men) looking to get some action from others are forgetting, or perhaps just ignoring, an important reality about infidelity — it often ends marriages, painfully. Which is sad because, according to one study, 56 percent of cheating men and 34 percent of cheating women considered their marriage “happy” or “very happy.”

So why risk it? Why cause all that pain and anger, not to mention the potential loss of your marriage, your family, your home, when all you have to do is sit your husband down and say, “Honey, I think we are both aware that neither of us is enjoying sex all that much lately. Actually, we haven’t enjoyed it for a long time. What do you think about opening up our marriage?”

After the shock — or maybe relief — you might actually be able to have the first honest discussion about monogamy you’ve ever had as a couple.

Not to say it will be easy. Talking about non-monogamy is hard; everything we think about non-monogamy is about cheating and deception, or promiscuity. We don’t have any healthy models of consensual non-monogamy. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening.

While researching for our book, The New I Do: Reshaping Marriage for Skeptics, Realists and Rebels (Seal Press, Sept. 28, 2014), Susan Pease Gadoua and I heard from numerous couples who had open marriages, or who opened them up for a while. It isn’t as rare as you think; somewhere between 4.3 percent to 10.5 percent of all relationships identify as open, which can be anything from couples “in the lifestyle,” to the occasional threesome to poly arrangements.

All the couples that decided to experiment with non-monogamy told us they were happy they did it, even though, yes, they sometimes struggled with jealousy, managing schedules and setting boundaries. Not only did opening up their marriage bring them closer, but they also were proud that they broke from the norm and forged a new path. It was “a badge of courage” they said.

“Our sex life was better because we felt invigorated,” one husband told us. “We found each other very compelling because we were both embarking on this experiment and it takes a certain kind of bravery, and we found that attractive in each other and ourselves.”

“For a lot of people, it doesn’t even occur to them that they can be anything other than monogamous,” his wife told us. “Monogamy can be dangerous even without sleeping with other people. Just having a sense of your own sexuality, being attracted to other people, being able to flirt with other people; when you can’t do that, it just shuts down a part of you. It changes who you are in your marriage and so long-term, that can be really damaging.”

By opening up their marriage, they got to have sex with other people safely and honestly, and with their partner’s knowledge and approval. How refreshing is that?

No lying, no deception, no cover-up, no sneaking around. Of course, that might be a turn on for some people; about 30 percent of people admitted they cheated because it’s exciting.

So, is bringing up the idea of an open marriage a tough conversation to have with your spouse? Of course it is. But trust me — it’s a heck of a lot easier than the conversation you’ll have after your affair has been discovered!

Want to keep up with The New I Do? Pre-order the book on Amazon, follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Older Posts »