Relationship Points of No Return

[Tyjenks]

I have several friends with all kinds of relationship ups and downs. It has had me thinking lately about how much of relationship patterns are the same no matter who the two people. Is it really tied to how much effort each puts in or are some relationships destined to fail due to circumstances and personalities regardless?

One friend just about wished their spouse dead, stuck it out, and are now seemingly happy with kids.

Another who was at the end of their rope, had a series of long, "THis is the Way it is or it ain't gonna work" talks and made it through.

Others, ignored all signs of spousal infidelity, it ended badly.

Another, 10 to one ratio of bad times to good, but the "one" was good enough to stretch it out for 4 years.

I have read this book entitled Uncoupling (http://www.amazon.com/Uncoupling-Turning-Points-Intimate-Relationships/dp/0679730028), which is a compilation of hundreds of interviews with people who have had severely troubled relationships, most of which ended. All sorts of relationships, long and short, married and living together, etc. They all have the common thread that there is an "initiator" that for whatever reason becomes dissatisfied and starts to mentally move out of the relationship. There are many triggers and actions that support this move (Maturing differently, new job, allure of someone new, and so on), but it seems to happen consistently. The initiator is already effectively gone before the "partner" comes to the realization that the relationship is troubled. In all of these cases, efforts to fix it only rarely pay off once this point is reached.

Anyway, does it all just depend on the people or are there serious points of no return where if X happens, it is eventually going to be over? I can come to no conclusion based on personal anecdotal evidence, but the book makes it pretty clear that once a certain point is reached, there is little that can be done to make people back into a happy couple. That point does not have to be abuse or infidelity as plenty of relationships continue when those are involved. The point is more a state of mind of it being over for one of the two. It is not something one wakes up and decides, but a gradual shift over time after multiple events.

Thought this might be a little more enlightening than some recent relationship discussions here. :) With my 12th anniversary tomorrow and the attendant ups and downs in my own marriage, I have just been contemplating relationships and their struggles and the like and was interested in what the varied Qt3 populace thought.

[VictoriaWong]

Admittedly, my personal evidence is based on platonic and not romantic relationships, but I think that while it probably does depend on the people, there is a point of no return.

Once one partner dies, it's eventually going to be all over. Unless you believe in rebirth or an afterlife.

On the other hand, I'm pretty tolerant.
Edit: The last time I stopped talking to someone because of something they did was... well, The Hivemind knows about that one. Other than that, it's been about two years.

[BobJustBob]

I have read this book entitled Uncoupling (http://www.amazon.com/Uncoupling-Turning-Points-Intimate-Relationships/dp/0679730028), which is a compilation of hundreds of interviews with people who have had severely troubled relationships, most of which ended. All sorts of relationships, long and short, married and living together, etc. They all have the common thread that there is an "initiator" that for whatever reason becomes dissatisfied and starts to mentally move out of the relationship. There are many triggers and actions that support this move (Maturing differently, new job, allure of someone new, and so on), but it seems to happen consistently. The initiator is already effectively gone before the "partner" comes to the realization that the relationship is troubled. In all of these cases, efforts to fix it only rarely pay off once this point is reached.

This sounds like my work attitude.

[John Many Jars]

As soon as there's a problem, I dump her. JMJ ain't gonna hafta do without, know what I'm sayin'?

[Tyjenks]

Well, it is obvious that all the talk of the desire for intelligent discourse with regards to relationships is empty whining. The people who jump into the threads about imaginary girlfriends and state, "What is this board coming to with these awful threads?!?!" are just there to bitch. They do not want to discuss anything and would not if there were better options.

I will attempt this thread again in a month. The title will be "I cheated" and the intro line in my initial post will be, "So, I fucked some girl and I am not sure what to do. Qt3 guide me". Then a poll will be generated with whacky choices as that is the only way for people to communicate their thoughts..... through clicking.

[a] Tell her and duck LOL
[b] Keep it quiet and continue as if nothing happened
[c] Attend counseling and make it seem as if the problems are her fault because, really, it is always the woman's fault
[d] Go to an intensive weekend of marriage tough love boot campery
[e] Marriage applicable shit bonerz option

This sarcastic response brought to you by endless hours of work, study and periods of numbing by alcohol.

[BaconTastesGood]

Read Gottman's books and revisit this thread, he covers a lot of this -- not so much the point of no return but simply why relationships end up cratering at some point and the warning signs. For example, spousal infidelity is rarely the reason for a relationship to go to hell, it's a symptom of the relationship going to hell.

[Athryn]

This sarcastic response brought to you by endless hours of work, study and periods of numbing by alcohol.

Settle down, it's the weekend, nobody is really reading QT3. :P

[Kraaze]

Thought this might be a little more enlightening than some recent relationship discussions here. :) With my 12th anniversary tomorrow and the attendant ups and downs in my own marriage, I have just been contemplating relationships and their struggles and the like and was interested in what the varied Qt3 populace thought.

It's an interesting topic, but I've got no sage advice to give. I just hit my fifth anniversary so you've got seniority over me on this subject old man ;-)

[Lum]

Not sure what you're looking for but it's pretty simple; as long as both parties work on the relationship, it'll survive almost everything thrown at it. If one or both stop, the relationship will falter. Without communication and awareness of the others' needs, it's not a relationship, it's something else usually summed up in a shit bonerz poll option.

[Mr_PeaCH]

To sort of echo what Lum said... my gut feeling is that the difference between relationships that fail and relationships that succeed isn't as much as most people would suspect. That is to say; even the best ones have their moments of doubt and pain. It takes commitment and it takes understanding and most of all it takes communication. And not just when things go wrong but before and at all times.

[Tyjenks]

Settle down, it's the weekend, nobody is really reading QT3. :P

Yeah, sorry about the crankiness. I usually like to keep that all stuffed down inside where it belongs and off of public forums. ;)

I guess a more simple question (which I realize is far from clear in reading my initial rambling) is can two people grow apart through know real fault of one or the other. Or is that just an excuse that the one that wants out uses as an easy out. Say if one person matures and wants different things out of life and a partner, which are completely different from those that brought the two together.

I am 100% on board with communication being essential. Even with that, I think there can be a gradual shifting of wants and needs and then you wake up one day and you are miles apart. I have seen too many friends that are good folks and I know give it there all and they end up divorced or separated. Maybe the significant other is not doing his/her share. Maybe together, certain two people just don't work and won't in the long run.

A] Clearer
B] Muddier
C] WHa?

[Ephraim]

I agree with the advice to check out John Gottman's research (or his books, whichever you can access). He focuses in on the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse", those troubling signs that a relationship is turning sour. They are, for the interested: criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt. Contempt is the true relationship killer, though. If you see your partner's eyeballs rolling in contempt, sound the alarms!

Gottman's good for explaining what kills relationships. If you want to read someone who knows about keeping relationships working, you need to look to Dr. Sue Johnson. She's been in the news recently for the work she's doing with US Army veterans back from Iraq (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06marriage.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin). My girlfriend happens to be one of her graduate students, and I've read a lot of her work, the more clinical focused along with the popular. She basically uses John Bowlby's Attachment Theory as her theoretical foundation, and has co-created a form of couples' therapy that relies on emotional focus as the centerpiece. She's got a new book out on the market, it's called "Hold Me Tight (http://www.amazon.com/Hold-Me-Tight-Conversations-Lifetime/dp/031611300X)" and it's excellent.

It's not really about communication. Not at the root of things. Communication breakdown (Gottman's stonewalling) is a symptom. The underlying issues are all about attachment styles that we all possess, and the feelings of being understood, accepted, and cared for that are representative of secure attachment.

We have all, since birth, had a desire to feel safe with a primary attachment figure. This is as true of humans as it is in other primates. It is evolutionarily adaptive to be born this way, keeping young close to caregivers and out of danger. As infants, children, and early adolescents, the primary attachment figure is a parent, usually the mother. As we mature, we begin to form attachment bonds with others, and ultimately our romantic partners becomes our primary attachment figure. In today's Western world, where we are increasingly isolated from our families, and even neighbours, through the necessities of working away from where we grew up, the dyadic bond of a marriage/relationship is often the only attachment any of us have. When threats to that attachment appear, people tend to behave in very specific ways, ways which are remarkably consistent between infants who are put in a special "Strange Situation" where they are separated from their mothers in a laboratory setting. Mary Ainsworth, who created the "Strange Situation" to prove some of Bowlby's theories, basically found three major attachment styles.

Oh man. I could go on about this for ages. And probably will at some point, as I intend to specialize in this area if I can get myself into Grad school... If you want to know more, I'll get into it, but only if someone asks. I hate boring people with the things that I suspect only I find interesting. But if I were to continue, I'd start explaining how the different attachment styles influence how those relationship "points of no return" are reached.

[Tyjenks]

No, this is exactly the sort of thing I wanted. Maybe it is a function of reaching mid-life or the difficulties of marriage or simply being fascinated how a bond that at one times seems so strong can disentegrate and even turn harmful. All those and more I presume.

And thanks all for the Gottman suggestion. Thanks Ephraim for your abundance of insights. Don't hesitate to add. :) The Uncoupling book was suggested by a therapist several years ago and is both enlightening and scary at the same time. It is clear that once the bitterness and/or resentment set in (I imagine that Gottman's contempt subs in or goes had in hand with those), feelings have developed that have become obstacles, which are extremely difficult to peel away. The relationship has become pretty desolate and trying to find some sort off foothold to rebuild from seems a Herculean task.

Obviously, this is somewhat related to my own issues, but the whole topic of couples and how they come together and last or don't and the big 50% divorce rate figure really has me intrigued.

[armand v]

As Kramer once said "sometimes, people fall out of love"

[Tyjenks]

As Kramer once said "sometimes, people fall out of love"

See, I do often wonder if it is just that simple.

[fire]

Do you know what your needs are in a relationship?
Are your needs being met?
Do you tell your partner both when they are, and when they're not?
Do you anticipate and celebrate each other's accomplishments, or just your own?

Being in a relationship means you share your life and its ambitions with your partner, not just your bed and your apartment. The amount you're willing to give should coincide with your partner's ability to receive, and vice-versa. Fundamentally, there's gotta be balance.

As Paul Simon says, 'She makes the sign of a teaspoon, he makes the sign of a wave.'

[Ryan A]

As Kramer once said "sometimes, people fall out of love"

That all depends on what you believe "love" entails. If you connote romantic love with the feelings of mutual attraction, affection, and chemistry that we experience in a new relationship, then everybody falls out of love. It's just that successful couples manage to keep falling back into love with one another, and it doesn't happen by accident.

[Ephraim]

Alright, I've got a bit more time to kill, so I'll go on, thanks for indulging me! ;)

So, Ainsworth came along and started to do experiments with mothers and children. She basically discovered three different attachment styles. There were those who were "secure", and after separation from their mother, which was upsetting to all children, were able to quickly reaffirm that their mother was back (sometimes with as little as a glance, sometimes with a quick hug). They then went on to continue playing/exploring. Then there were the children deemed "anxious", or sometimes "anxious/ambivalent". Their level of protest upon separation was very high, and when the mother returned, they clung to them very tightly, sometimes even hurting their mothers in anger over their "abandonment". Finally, there were the "avoidant" children, who didn't display much, if any, emotional distress upon separation, and tended to ignore the mother upon her return. Just over 60% of tested infants were securely attached, 25% were avoidantly attached, and 10% were anxiously attached.

Modern researchers (people like Bartholomew, Mikulincer, Hazan, and Shaver) have probed further into the field of Adult Attachment. First, they did studies with adults and found that the percentages of people who are secure, anxious, and avoidant is consistent with the breakdown Ainsworth found in infants. Then they refined these three categories and added a fourth. They did this by creating a set of two different axes. One is labeled "Model of Self" and it can either be positive or negative. The other is labeled "Model of Other", with similar positive or negative poles. The breakdown became as follows:

1) positive self/positive other = secure
2) positive self/negative other = dismissive avoidant
3) negative self/positive other = preoccupied (previously anxious)
4) negative self/negative other = fearful avoidant

The question then became whether or not people can change attachment styles from infancy to adulthood. Evidence seems to indicate that yes, they can and often do. But it isn't easy. And it doesn't happen without effort. This is also true of attachment style change as an adult. Much like personality, all evidence seems to indicate that we mature and see some shifting around, but most stay the same over the long run. I should also state that the most recent attachment research has shifted away from the categories I've been talking about, and now really looks at two continua, "Avoidance of Intimacy" and "Anxiety over Separation". I'll continue to use the categories for simplicity's sake, though.

So, the question now becomes how people with different attachment styles (i.e., are at radically different places along those Anxiety over Separation and Avoidance of Intimacy lines) get along with each other? That's what's at the heart of most relationship issues.

People who have secure attachment styles are usually very resilient in their relationships. They tend to have very healthy attitudes and avoid most of the pitfalls Gottman mentions, almost instinctively. Of course this is a generalization. Shit happens in life, but people with secure attachment styles are more likely to do the things that keep a partner caring for them throughout the hardship. Studies also show that those with secure attachment styles are least likely to do the thing that most often causes marriages to break up: infidelity. Secure attachment is, both as an infant and an adult, about having a secure base from which to explore, and a safe haven to which you can retreat in times of distress. Now, imagine both of those needs as a grown-up.

Avoidantly attached people, well, I liken them to James Bond when trying to explain them to others. They're all about self-reliance, and distraction. Avoidant children focused in on the toys in the room when their mothers left, and avoidant adults focus in on work, or hobbies, etc... It would not surprise me in the slightest to find that game players whose spouses complain of their preoccupation when it comes to WoW would be significantly more likely to be avoidantly attached. When the inevitable relationship issues arise, the avoidant people tend to commit the stonewall "sin". They tune out, and they head out. They're the ones most likely to cheat on their significant others, and the ones least likely to carry out the hard work that study after study shows is what makes for successful marriages.

Anxiously attached people tend to see every minor issue in a relationship and amplify it 100x. Everything is a crisis, and they are very demanding of their partners' time and attention. They are often jealous of any relationship their partner has, no matter how innocent. They are more prone to anger and emotional outburst instead of calmness when issues arise. Contempt is their killer. They react with anger and hostility when their attachment is threatened.

All of these are generalizations, of course, but they are based on quite an accumulated body of research.

Now let's talk about relationships proper. Basically, the going theory is that it takes at least ONE secure partner for a relationship to have a chance at success. In studies, an anxious or avoidant person can become secure through the gentle "teaching environment" of a relationship with a secure person. The problem is, it is very challenging for a secure person to remain in a relationship with an anxious person, due to the constant unreasonable demands for caring. It is also difficult to be with an avoidant person, who may not provide obvious affection that is needed by most secure (and definitely all anxious) people.

People can and do move in and out of attachment categories for short periods on a regular basis. It only becomes a problem if they are locked into one of the insecure styles permanently.

Sue Johnson talks about what she calls "attachment injuries". They are the things that happen during relationships that make the other person doubt, consciously or unconsciously, that you are their secure base and safe haven. That you can be there for them. And different attachment styles react differently to attachment injuries. The anxious people lash out. When they are seeking comfort most, they often turn their partners away with their harsh words and seemingly insatiable needs. Avoidant partners, when injured, protect themselves by throwing up barriers. But, Johnson says, they all just fundamentally want what all humans want: connection. I've heard her speak, and she makes the excellent point that it's no coincidence that the toughest of the tough, soldiers on the field of battle, most often cry out for their mothers when injured or dying. That's a primal attachment. As adults, we transfer that to our significant others, and with the same depth of feeling. It's no surprise that relationships are hard, they're what we all, beyond everything else, need the most. Some of us, however, are wired from an early age, to be hypervigilant to attachment threats, and we react in inappropriate instead of constructive ways when we sense real or imagined dangers to our relationships.

Wow, OK. Enough for now. I didn't even get into all the other huge relationship killers (infidelity, incompatibility, substance use, abuse, etc..) that often sit on top of attachment issues. And then there's a huge list of psychological biases that make us prone to ending relationships (things like the fact that we notice declines in others' regard for us far quicker and more easily than increases).

Hope this has been educational, and I'm happy to answer specific questions if I can. Even if I don't know the answers, I can dig into my textbooks. Interpersonal Relations are an awesome area of study!

[Robert Sharp]

That was fascinating! Thanks! What happens if you are secure, but something happens that makes you lose that security? An attachment injury to a secure relationship. You focused on how the other two would be affected, but not on how the secure relationship would be affected by a slip.

[Tyjenks]

Ephraim: excellent post and thanks for going to the effort. I imagine it is easy as you seem most passionate about the subject. SO wait, your girlfriend is studying within the same field? Man, so I guess you two have it all figured out and will live happily ever after. What to avoid, warning signs, relationship nurturing activities. ;) Kidding, of course. I know it is hard work no matter what the circumstances.

Wow, OK. Enough for now. I didn't even get into all the other huge relationship killers (infidelity, incompatibility, substance use, abuse, etc..) that often sit on top of attachment issues. And then there's a huge list of psychological biases that make us prone to ending relationships (things like the fact that we notice declines in others' regard for us far quicker and more easily than increases).

Well, I for one would like to hear more about the killers and the biases in brief or at length.

People often, correctly, describe the constant need for communication and also the work/effort that is required after that initial emotionally charged love wears off. That fact alone makes me wonder how much of a crap shoot each and every relationship is. You get together, in most cases, under what seem like the rosiest of circumstances. The "good times" can last a considerably long time in those early stages and so much can be "lived with", maybe even for years. There are issues you deal with as part of the other person that you can easily tolerate as the benefits appear to outweigh the drawbacks of the individual. Then the layers of responsibilty are applied with children, houses, finances and the need for a continued maturing of goals and actions is necessary. Two people really need to evolve and that can happen at drastically different rates if at all.

Separation seems so easy in today's society and the pressures on couples are so numerous and varied. I wonder, sometimes, how any, but the most dedicated and diligent stay together. Are they trying that much harder? Do their backgrounds allow them to adapt more readily? Did they just luck up and fall for the "right" person that fits with them? So many questions.

[Aeon221]

I know a point of no return: When you and your partner prefer playing Uno to having sex, the relationship is over.

[Tyjenks]

I know a point of no return: When you and your partner prefer playing Uno to having sex, the relationship is over.
I know you are being a silly poo-poo head, but....

the sex becomes just part of the deal rather than a dominant facet as it is in the early going, so it may very well be that a rousing game of Uno complete with good music, drinks and conversation is the sign of a healthy relationship.

THe sex thing is a pretty easy one though. Relationships based on sex alone are d0med, d0med, d0med.


EDIT: I have other things to cover too, but I do not want it all getting lost in one post. So if you would all please stay riveted to this thread, I will get to it all.

[RickH]

Read Gottman's books and revisit this thread, he covers a lot of this -- not so much the point of no return but simply why relationships end up cratering at some point and the warning signs. For example, spousal infidelity is rarely the reason for a relationship to go to hell, it's a symptom of the relationship going to hell.

My wife the divorce attorney agrees with you.

Also, a huge factor is commitment to the idea of the relationship, and the devotion of time & effort in support of that relationship (as opposed to one's own agenda). It is work.

[Tyjenks]

My wife the divorce attorney agrees with you.

Yeah, committed, happy folks, generally, do not go out looking for new "stuff" unless there are things that have already gone awry.

[Ryan A]

People often, correctly, describe the constant need for communication and also the work/effort that is required after that initial emotionally charged love wears off. That fact alone makes me wonder how much of a crap shoot each and every relationship is.

I know you're using the phrase figuratively, but it's really not a crap shoot at all. In other words, chance has very little to do with it. I think it has more to do with the beliefs and values of each partner. If either is the type that looks for excuses (or "reasons") to act on their selfish desires, the relationship will likely be one of the "unlucky" breakup statistics. When both remain committed to the continued growth and well-being of their partner, the relationship will likely endure the most random of life's difficulties.

Of course, it's easy for me to talk about all that because I was fortunate. My wife is the best human being I know and she has tons of patience with all of my annoying quirks.

[Robert Sharp]

I think too many people today miss the work aspect of relationships. We have this romantic idea that love is the most important factor in a good relationship. It isn't. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but falling in love is pretty easy. Relationships are not easy. They always require work.

[Ephraim]

Hey, today's your anniversary proper, right Tyjenks? Happy Anniversary!

As for my girlfriend, although she is one of Sue Johnson's grad students, it was a late switch to having her as a supervisor, so no, actually, her research is not actually focused on relationships - she specializes in adolescents and sensation seeking behaviour. Which, it turns out is a good thing! In another interesting set of psychological research findings into relationships, it seems that we can support and appreciate our significant others better if they have success in a field NOT OUR OWN. Otherwise, studies show (and I can't quote you the exact info as I'm not at home with my notes) that we can bask in the reflected glory of a partners' success only if they aren't competing in the same area of expertise. Competing in the same "domain" (which was the technical term used) can be dangerous to a relationship! I remember finding it an interesting finding. As your post jokingly points out, just being knowledgeable in a field does not mean that you practice your knowledge on a day-to-day basis. Most psychologists I know, and I know quite a few at this point, make the all of the same mistakes as non-psychologists in all the areas of their lives.

As for Robert's question about secure people hitting attachment injuries, I briefly touched on the fact that they are less prone to causing and reacting to those in the first place (they are generally more confident in their partners' affection, and secure in their relationships, and don't tend to cheat or act jealously). Of course with roughly 60% of people being secure, and the divorce rate still being quite high (though falling quite a bit since the worst times in the late eighties and early nineties), then obviously there are still ways in which secure people can switch over to insecure attachment styles and relationships collapse. Typically they involve those killers that I listed earlier. And there are many different competing theories of relationships that happily co-exist with attachment theory, and likely also help account for the failures of secure attachment. There are views that see relationships as equity based, with partners keeping conscious or unconscious tabs of their inputs and outputs in the relationship, and if those don't balance out, then the underbenefitted partner leaves (or perhaps shifts attachment style, that's worth investigating...). There are others that say that relationships, when working, are about need fulfillment, and not about careful balancing, and that if it does become about quid pro quo then the relationship is obviously already in distress.

But I'm off track once again. Getting back to your question, Robert, at least from Sue Johnson's perspective: two people with secure attachment styles that are in a relationship are usually absolutely fine, even under injury conditions. They employ successful coping strategies for defusing dangerous attachment injury situations that might otherwise result in Gottman's Four Horsemen appearing (the negative coping strategies of contempt, criticism, stonewalling, and defensiveness). They just don't start down those paths. But if something particularly threatening to the attachment occurs, then it could evoke what Johnson terms "primal panic", which is that fundamental fear that we feel (perhaps not consciously, if we're shifted into avoidance, but still remains very real) of the loss of the attachment. Primal panic provokes bad behaviours, and bad cognitions. It can lead to the focus shifting from a couples mutual needs and mutual support, to a selfish focus (perhaps on sex, perhaps on financial burden). The key to breaking out of that cycle, is to bring the conversations and communication back to the underlying attachment needs.

There's also an interesting pattern that Johnson describes as "the dance". It is a cycle of pursue/withdraw, in which one partner pursues while the other withdraws. Eventually the pursuer becomes the withdrawer, either because they give up pursuit, or because they are succesful, but the pursuit leads them to the anxious conclusion that they weren't really wanted in the first place, so they engage in protective withdrawal. I suspect many of you have participated or witnessed "the dance" in action.

I'm far away from my references and notes at the moment, Tyjenks, so I can't get into more detail about those other relationship killers now, so I'll leave you instead with a link to the textbook that I used in my Interpersonal Relations class. I'm pretty much citing it from memory at this point, but I highly recommend it to anyone interested in relationship science. It's called "Intimate Relationships (http://www.amazon.com/Intimate-Relationships-Sharon-Stephens-Brehm/dp/0070074526)" and it's a great read. It's not designed for the layperson in the same way as Dr. Johnson's "Hold Me Tight", but if you're willing to put in the time, it's worth checking out.

[Ephraim]

I think too many people today miss the work aspect of relationships. We have this romantic idea that love is the most important factor in a good relationship. It isn't. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but falling in love is pretty easy. Relationships are not easy. They always require work.

Research bears out your point, Robert.

Interestingly there are different underlying beliefs about relationships that we all hold. Researchers such as Knee and Dweck looked into a dichotomous Destiny vs. Growth set of relationship beliefs. Destiny views are those that believe in "love at first sight", and that relationships should be passionate throughout.

Then there are Growth views. These are the people that believe that relationships take hard work, and that they often transform from passionate love to deep companionate love over time.

Guess what? People who score high in Growth scales have much more success in marriage than Destiny believers. Again, I'm far away from my books, so a quick Google search turned up this (http://books.google.ca/books?id=P0Mccblm6eUC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=destiny+versus+growth+relationship&source=web&ots=328zuT5FlU&sig=fghhthEz8Fzai2DEOo2SqotqSw0&hl=en) if you'd like to read more.

I should really have started with an examination of the various models of "Love". Maybe later! :)

[Tyjenks]

I know you're using the phrase figuratively, but it's really not a crap shoot at all. In other words, chance has very little to do with it. I think it has more to do with the beliefs and values of each partner. If either is the type that looks for excuses (or "reasons") to act on their selfish desires, the relationship will likely be one of the "unlucky" breakup statistics. When both remain committed to the continued growth and well-being of their partner, the relationship will likely endure the most random of life's difficulties.

I agree that the long-term, successful relationships have almost zero chance, which factors in, but what about that initial choice. How many of us make that selection based on the work and commitment that has to be put in eventually? In the beginning, for the majority, I would say it is much more about attraction, passion, and excitement. A familiarity and attachment can develop from that, which then forms into a very tight bond. That said, how much of these early stages are over when you decide to marry (or live together monogamously). There is no definite period, obviously, where the "honeymoon" period ends and the work begins.

My point is that what if you have a wonderful first year, let's say, marry, and begin a life together and are perfectly secure in the fact that this person is someone who fits well with you, has common interests, and shares similar beliefs or just that they are someone you believe you can spend the rest of your life with. Communication of needs and desires can continue throughout the entire process. However, each of you are still maturing and changing at this point. The receding of the feelings from that first stage can be slow and the "work" stage builds just as gradually. Internal and external pressures change and couples deal with them, but, as Ephraim begins to describe, the requisite work (equity) input can become unbalanced. I realize, this is a point where communication becomes essential, but the individual's views of what is required of each may then have an entirely different light shed on them. SOmething which could not have been forseen 3 or 4 years prior.

Again, this is when the hard work really kicks in, but I have seen that this is where the breaks begin to form. Both sides think they are working their asses off to make things work and one or both get the first inklings of bitterness and resentment. I don't think it is like a fire you can just stamp out, but a hidden cancer that grows without much in the way of symptoms.

Robert: Yeah, the romanticism of love is all well and good for TV and films, but that is not the stuff of 50 year marriages. It still has to be alive to some degree, but is certainly not the constant that exists early on.

Ephraim: Hey, thanks for the anniversary wishes and your continued participation in the thread.

With regards to "Destiny", am I misreading or is there actually research that supports the success of the "love at first sight" view. Part of my ineptly laid out points is that I believe we start out thinking that that it is Destiny and then the need for the Growth shows up and makes it all too much like work for some couples. The shattering of that view of destiny needs to happen early on, preferably before a long term commitment is made, but that is rarely the order in which things occur.


Pardon my posts if they seem to repeat the same info or jump around. I have, it seems, thought about these sort of things much more and bounced them around in my head as opposed to putting them down anywhere. They all sorta come out in a rush and I fear I am leaving things out.

Um, hooray for good relationships or something. Off to have anniversary Chinese with my wife and two lovely daughters. A gift certificate for a manicure/pedicure for her along with the rather large gift later that all women desire from me. (That's right, a new purse). All this philosophizing had to be balanced with some immaturity.

[BaconTastesGood]

Yeah, the romanticism of love is all well and good for TV and films, but that is not the stuff of 50 year marriages.

I fucking blame romantic comedies for a lot of the dysfunction of relationships. I am not shitting around, when women watch Princess Bride and When Harry Met Sally and other epic love stories constantly that sets the image of a romance, and those are not ideals that are possibly for people to reach.

I guess when it comes right down to it, I blame Meg Ryan. That bitch.

[Sol Invictus]

I think the moral of the lesson is to not date someone who bases their life around what they watch in movies. The fucking simpletons.

[Ephraim]

Ephraim: Hey, thanks for the anniversary wishes and your continued participation in the thread.

With regards to "Destiny", am I misreading or is there actually research that supports the success of the "love at first sight" view. Part of my ineptly laid out points is that I believe we start out thinking that that it is Destiny and then the need for the Growth shows up and makes it all too much like work for some couples. The shattering of that view of destiny needs to happen early on, preferably before a long term commitment is made, but that is rarely the order in which things occur.

To answer your question: No, all evidence seems to indicate that people who hold "destiny" beliefs in terms of relationships have higher failure rates in their relationships. At a later point, when I'm home, I'll post some of the questions from the surveys that capture destiny vs. growth beliefs. I think you're right in that people often switch from destiny to growth beliefs as they either mature, or as they experience the realities of relationships with real people, as opposed to Hollywood fantasies.

I just wanted to start by pointing out another interesting fact: relationship satisfaction is usually at its highest point... just before you get married! No big shock there, but it is interesting to note that it's basically a downhill ride from there for the majority of couples, successful or not. It's not a surprise because otherwise people would not be getting married in the first place. Research tends to indicate that the big problems arise when:

1) one of the partners continues to hold destiny beliefs
and/or
2) the decline in the relationship satisfaction is quite steep (i.e, a big, relative sudden drop-off instead of a slow decline over time)

#2 is particularly intriguing, because it turns out that if you start off with low expectations, and relationship satisfaction declines slowly but steadily (as it pretty much always does), it's OK! You end up unsatisfied, but in a solid relationship. Maybe not ideal in the romantic view of things, but I'd argue (from an attachment perspective of psychopathology) that it's still better than being alone! But those who are immensely satisfied at Year 1 in their marriages, if the decline is steep and brings them to a level of satisfaction still much higher than those of the initially kinda "meh" people, will break up! Being too much in love can actually be a relationship killer. You notice the big drops and they really, really hurt.

Again, this is likely mediated by a host of other factors, ranging from personality variables (scoring high on neuroticism and/or low on agreeableness is very dangerous in terms of relationships), to attachment styles.

And now I've brought up the big topic of relationship satisfaction. It turns out that it's correlated, but not extremely highly, with relationship success. Satisfaction is a well studied thing, and ties into that question of "equity" I mentioned early. Some are only satisfied when things are equitable, and that inputs = outputs (i.e., what you put into the relationship is reciprocated). Others, more successful in their relationships, are able to achieve satisfaction under a "communal sharing" model, where as long as everyone's needs are met, regardless of relative effort expended and specific benefits derived, all is well. Relationship satisfaction is often a question of comparison, too. Research indicates two key forms of comparison that affect relationship satisfaction: comparison level (CL) and comparison level of alternatives (CLalt).

The first, CL, is all about what you have personally experienced in the past in other relationships. If you're coming off an amazing relationship, and your current partner is good, but not amazing, then you might want out (again mediated by things like attachment style).

CLalt is all about "looking around", it's what else is available out there. A female homemaker who stays home and takes care of the children is not as exposed to alternatives to her husband. She is less likely to be unsatisfied, even if he is abusive, for example. It's one of the many reasons why women have been found to stay in abusive relationships, they'd don't realize that they have alternatives due to the cloistering that often coincides with spousal abuse. But there is an interesting interaction between relationship satisfaction, and another well-studied factor: relationship commitment. And commitment also ties into comparison level, which people highly committed being a) usually highly satisfied, but not always and b) likely to devalue (or ignore) attractive alternatives.

So, yeah, more factors to watch out for in relationships. You need to keep commitment high (and people with secure and anxious attachment styles are big into commitment), along with satisfaction (which is very important to people with avoidant attachment styles -- if they're not satisfied, their commitment levels drop, and they seek out alternatives more readily).

This is turning into quite the course in relationship science. :)

[Ephraim]

I fucking blame romantic comedies for a lot of the dysfunction of relationships. I am not shitting around, when women watch Princess Bride and When Harry Met Sally and other epic love stories constantly that sets the image of a romance, and those are not ideals that are possibly for people to reach.

I guess when it comes right down to it, I blame Meg Ryan. That bitch.

I, for the record, blame John Cusack and "Say Anything". Chuck Klosterman agrees with me on that one. Or is it that I agree with him? I forget.

[Sidd_Budd]

Ephraim is doing a great job summarizing academic perspectives on relationships. I'd add one brief comment -- successful couples also are more likely to hold positive illusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_illusions) about one another. Basically, they view one another through slightly rose-colored glasses, and this tendency increases both commitment and satisfaction. For example, if one partner does something disruptive to the relationship, or injures attachment, positive illusions allow the other person to attribute the problem to something temporary, rather than a dispositional negative feature of his or her partner. As an example, if one partner is late meeting the other for dinner, an attribution like "She's not great at being on time, but I love the intensity with which she gets into her work" is going to be more helpful than "Here's *another* example of her constant disrespect for me."

I'm interested in emotionally-focused therapy (Sue Johnson's attachment approach to therapy summarized by Ephraim), but I have more practice in working with couples in a broad cognitive-behavioral framework. I've found that couples who are willing to develop these positive illusions about one another tend to have the most success in couples therapy. Of course, if one or both partners have significant problems, it may be eventually non-adaptive to consistently give your partner the benefit of the doubt. In general, though, my beliefs about long-term compatibility are very similar to Lum's short post (#9).

[DoomMunky]

I like this thread and hope it continues. This kind of thread -- and the 'shit bonerz' kind, too -- is what I love about Qt3.

[ElGuapo]

What a wonderful thread. I can identify with and confirm a lot of things Ephraim has said so far.

[Ergo]

My sister-in-law is a great example for this thread. She's 37, intelligent, extremely good-looking and a successful attorney. Yet she cannot keep a boyfriend to save her life. She picks either complete dipshits, or dumps them after 6 months "because it isn't like it was." She's under the assumption that relationships will always stay like those giddy first two months where you can't stand being away from each other and spend most of your time fucking like bunnies.

[Sidd_Budd]

See if she can find a psychiatrist to date who can prescribe her dopamine-enhancing medications. That's the neurotransmitter that seems to be released when we experience those giddy passionate feelings at the early stages of relationships (readable summary here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993160-1,00.html); skip to page 3 for the specific stuff). It eventually stabilizes back to normal, but maybe she can ride the love waves a little longer with pharmaceutical assistance.

[Tyjenks]

RE: Positive illusions

SO say you have operated with these and relied on them to sustain your relationship. Then, some changes occur, for whatever reason and you see that once the curtain is peeled back, there just ain't much there over and above the illusions. The truth is that you have put up with a lot and shouldered much of the weight of the relationship in holding to them. Hypothetically, of course. ;)

RE: Comparative Level alternatives:

This actually feeds off the above. If you are secluded due to job situation, geography, etc. and have a reduced availability of comparisons, it seems it would be substantially easier to hold to those positive illusions. If you are freed from whatever restriction or barrier that has sheltered you from comparative alternatives, you may realize just how much of your relationship is based on your needs being met and how much is simply because the illusions have enabled you to continue the assumption that this is what is best for you.

This chain of events can make for a stark and shocking reality check that can make you question a lot of things. One would theorize.

[Flowers]

I think the moral of the lesson is to not date someone who bases their life around what they watch in movies. The fucking simpletons.

My wife and I had a problem like that, because there was something in our relationship that we were relying too much on, but it wasn't as strong as we thought it was. But then we realized that our strength did not come from the Glaive, or from me, it came from us. Long story short, my wife took the fire from my hand, we defeated the alien in the teleporting castle, and our son is going to rule the galaxy. I still think we should have stuck to puppies.

[Tankero]

My wife and I had a problem like that, because there was something in our relationship that we were relying too much on, but it wasn't as strong as we thought it was. But then we realized that our strength did not come from the Glaive, or from me, it came from us. Long story short, my wife took the fire from my hand, we defeated the alien in the teleporting castle, and our son is going to rule the galaxy. I still think we should have stuck to puppies.

You don't know how many times I've had to go through this in my own relationship.

Then again, I'm Colombian.

Being fucking high is just a national passtime. That, and soccer.

[Tyjenks]

Flowerseseses posts sometimes are simply sublime. Even when you know what is coming, they still deliver.

[Ephraim]

I said I'd post "The Romantic Beliefs Scale" when I got home, and I'm finally home, so:


How romantic are you? Rate how much you agree or disagree with each of these statements by using this scale ([Strongly Disagree]1 - 7 [Strongly Agree])

I need to know someone for a period of time before I fall in love with him or her.
If I were in love with someone, I would commit myself to him or her even if my parents and friends disapproved of the relationship.
Once I experience "true love," I could never experience it again, to the same degree, with another person.
I believe that to be truly in love is to be in love forever.
If I love someone, I know I can make the relationship work, despite any obstacles.
When I find my "true love," I will probably know it soon after we meet.
I'm sure that every new thing I learn about the person I choose for a long-term commitment will please me.
The relationship I will have with my "true love" will be nearly perfect.
If I love someone, I will find a way for us to be together regardless of any opposition to the relationship, physical distance between us, or any other barrier.
There will be only one real love for me.
If a relationship I have was meant to be, any obstacle (such as lack of money, physical distance between us, or career conflicts) can be overcome.
I am likely to fall in love almost immediately if I meet the right person.
I expect that in my relationship, romantic love will really last; it won't fade with time.
The person I love will make a perfect romantic partner; for example, he/she will be completely accepting, loving, and understanding.
I believe if another person and I love each other we can overcome any differences and problems that may arise.To get your score, reverse the rating you gave to Question 1 (e.g., a 2 becomes a 6, a 3 becomes a 5 and so on, 4 remains the same). then determine the average of your responses by adding them up and dividing by 15. The mean score for men (4.8) is higher than the mean score for women (4.6) but typical scores range a points above and below those averages for each sex. So, for a male, > 5.8 is pretty Romantic, and for a female > 5.6. Below 3.8 is lower than average for a guy, and below 3.6 for a woman. This is a bit different from Destiny vs. Growth beliefs, it's a measure of Romanticism, but based on our discussion of how Hollywood has spoiled relationships, I thought it relevant :)

Eidelson and Epstein, in 1982, did some research and found the following to be the most dangerous ideas people in relationships could hold:

Disagreements Are Destructive
"Mindreading" Is Essential
Partners Cannot Change
Sex Should Be Perfect Every Time
Men and Women Are Different
Great Relationships Just HappenHolding any of these unrealistic beliefs puts people at risk of relationships cratering.

Sidd talked about the protective usage of the rose-coloured glasses. Attributions for how you think about your partner are definitely very powerful (i.e, do you blame the situation, or your partner when something goes wrong). Interestingly, people who hold Destiny beliefs get very angry when forced to confront their partners' flaws (the internal attributions). If they can't employ a situational attribution, they react very poorly. People with growth beliefs are able to handle both poor internal and external reasons for bad behaviour in their partners.

Ty, you've tied (ha ha!) the theories together very nicely. It sounds as if you have a case study in mind...

Oh, yeah, I also remember mentioning I'd bring up some of the psychological motives/biases that make people prone to screwing up relationships. Here's one:

The self-verification motive. People hold an image of themselves in their own minds. In the long run, they prefer people who confirm that image. What does this mean practically? Say you have very low self-esteem, and suffer periodically from depression. If you enter into a relationship with someone who is flattering, who compliments you (accurately, we're not talking about false-flattery here) regularly, initially you might find this very gratifying. This is fine as long as you're just dating. If you get married, however, Swann et al. (1996) showed that your self-verification motive will kick in, and you will begin to doubt your partner. You will wonder what is really motivating their compliments, and it leads people to avoiding their spouses as much as possible.

OK, I've dropped another knowledge bomb on this thread. I, too, am glad such a beast exists, it's what makes Qt3 different from all other forums, as far as I'm concerned. Especially the Flowers posts.

[Jason McCullough]

"Men and Women Are Different" is the only one that surprises me - what's the details on that one?

This is a fascinating thread, thanks for the discussion.

[Robert Sharp]

It's the Men are from Mars idea, but in laypeople way. I bet a lot of couple drift apart because of that idea. You can see how they would think it's normal not have any shared interests or desire to do things together. Once you start thinking like that, it's all over.

[Ephraim]

It's the Men are from Mars idea, but in laypeople way. I bet a lot of couple drift apart because of that idea. You can see how they would think it's normal not have any shared interests or desire to do things together. Once you start thinking like that, it's all over.

You've nailed it precisely. The whole "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" schtick is repudiated throughout the Intimate Relations textbook I linked above, and backed with hard evidence. When it comes to examining male and female differences in relationships, the overlap of the normal curves on almost every measure is huge.

I thought I'd get some comments on how strange it is that men score higher on Romanticism than women, on average! It's a finding that definitely flies against current "common sense".

[RepoMan]

I need to know someone for a period of time before I fall in love with him or her. - YES. 6

If I were in love with someone, I would commit myself to him or her even if my parents and friends disapproved of the relationship. - NO. Been there, didn't work. 2

Once I experience "true love," I could never experience it again, to the same degree, with another person. - NO. After maybe five years of mourning, who knows? 2

I believe that to be truly in love is to be in love forever. - NOT NECESSARILY. Terrible things can sometimes break relationships, as can wishful thinking eventually dispelled... even if you were truly in love to start with. 2

If I love someone, I know I can make the relationship work, despite any obstacles. - NO. There are some obstacles that can't be overcome -- like a lack of mutual willingness to deal with problems and grow through them, even when it sucks rocks to do so. 1

When I find my "true love," I will probably know it soon after we meet. - SORT OF. In the case of my wife, I knew right away there was a big spark, but there wasn't any sense of "OMG tru lov 4eva". Took about two years (until our marriage) to get sufficiently certain. 2

I'm sure that every new thing I learn about the person I choose for a long-term commitment will please me. - NO. Part of long-term relating is to accept that there will be some things about your partner that you don't like. 1

The relationship I will have with my "true love" will be nearly perfect. - NO. Well, it depends on how you define "perfect". It won't be conflict-free or free of negative emotions towards each other (well, maybe yours will, but try having kids!). But if you both have the intention of dealing with them in a way that can work for you both, then your relationship can last through things, which is a beautiful -- dare I say perfect -- state. 3

If I love someone, I will find a way for us to be together regardless of any opposition to the relationship, physical distance between us, or any other barrier. - NOT REALLY. I mean, it doesn't work like that. We arrange our lives so there is little opposition to the relationship. I just had lunch with a friend I hadn't seen in ten years. He and his wife live in DIFFERENT STATES (CA & WA) most of the time. That, I don't understand. I tried long-distance, I tried polyamory, and when the chips are down plain old monogamy -- cohabitation, child-rearing, the whole bit -- won out. We go to great lengths to remove obstacles to having time together, both with and without the kids. Without that, a relationship is going to suffer. 3

There will be only one real love for me. - NOT SURE. I think I'd have to answer this on my deathbed. But see above about eventually loving again. 2

If a relationship I have was meant to be, any obstacle (such as lack of money, physical distance between us, or career conflicts) can be overcome. - No. See above. 1

I am likely to fall in love almost immediately if I meet the right person. - No. See above. 1

I expect that in my relationship, romantic love will really last; it won't fade with time. - No. It fades somewhat from the very first months. But it doesn't fade completely, by any means -- and to the extent it does fade, it grows in other ways, such as a deep sense of respect and trust, and appreciation for qualities (like parenting, say) that you've grown into together, only since you've known each other. My wife and I vowed "to grow, and grow old, together". That's probably my favorite vow of ours. 3

The person I love will make a perfect romantic partner; for example, he/she will be completely accepting, loving, and understanding. - BAAA HA HA HAAAA! Like ANYONE could be that! Everyone has their freakouts. Long-term partnership isn't about constant perfection, it's about constant WORK, constant practice in the Zen sense of the word "practice". Constant opportunity for dealing with situations in the moment, and continual change without notice. What matters isn't that you are always perfectly receptive, but that you are aware of your feelings and that you do your best to make amends when you blow up or get snippy or give the cold shoulder. "Don't go to sleep mad" is a very good rule in my opinion. 1

I believe if another person and I love each other we can overcome any differences and problems that may arise. - NO. See above. 1

Holy shit, that puts me at 27/15 or 1.8. I must be the least romantic motherfucker on the planet. Yet my wife and I are about to watch a movie and eat popcorn together downstairs, and now that we're all moved we're starting to have evenings together again (after a year of baby-having and relocating and general major stress), and wow is it ever nice. We've accomplished a lot and ordinary life feels like vacation by comparison to the past year, and having more time together is GREAT. And, pleasingly often, very romantic indeed!

[Tyjenks]

Ty, you've tied (ha ha!) the theories together very nicely. It sounds as if you have a case study in mind....

Never heard that one. ;)

Also, I am sure have no idea to what you could be alluding. Didn't you see the part where prefaced all this by stating that I have a lot of friends who have been through relationship issues and I simply have a great interest in the topic as a result? My marriage is a flawless example of the right way to do all things in relationships and in life in general. I am just trying to help the rest of these poor saps out. Because I am a giver.

On a side note, I got the Men are from Mars Women are from Venus game one year because my mother-in-law knew I liked games. Kinda like Trivial Pursuit. We opened it once with the in-laws, my wife thought it was just hilarious. "Yeah women like to shop." "Men get grumpy and watch sports." Hardy-har-har!!! THe thing went straight to the closet and sits there 5 years later collecting dust. Ugh, the wife read the guy's first book and tried to get me to. About ten pages in I wanted to vomit from the stereotypical pigeon holes. Then I wanted to wipe my ass with pages I had begin to tear from their binding. To this day, I loathe any sentence in which someone places a mention of those two planets now. It is all your fault Dr. Gray.

Sorry, that was the usual Qt3 silliness rant that just sorta crept into the thread. Apologies.

I am going to work through the test dealie tomorrow when I have consumed less vodka. Which was imbibed totally as a celebration of life and not a coping mechanism, BTW.

[Jason McCullough]

It's the Men are from Mars idea, but in laypeople way. I bet a lot of couple drift apart because of that idea. You can see how they would think it's normal not have any shared interests or desire to do things together. Once you start thinking like that, it's all over.

Ah, ok. I was thinking along the lines of women and men having different emotional reaction sets, whatever the cause of that is.

That men have more Romanticism characteristics doesn't surprise me too much. I'd say men do meta-discussions of dating and relationships far less than women, so they tend to hold on to their beliefs regardless of evidence.

Amateur sociology hour!

[soondifferent]

Ah, ok. I was thinking along the lines of women and men having different emotional reaction sets, whatever the cause of that is.

That men have more Romanticism characteristics doesn't surprise me too much. I'd say men do meta-discussions of dating and relationships far less than women, so they tend to hold on to their beliefs regardless of evidence.

Amateur sociology hour!

I would be interested in how the Romantic Beliefs rating changes with age. Making an uneducated guess, I'd think that the average for women would start slightly higher but drop faster than the men's.

[Equis]

I would be interested in how the Romantic Beliefs rating changes with age. Making an uneducated guess, I'd think that the average for women would start slightly higher but drop faster than the men's.

Or how it changes with the number of romantic/sexual partners you've been with. Also, any correlation with the individual's exposure to various forms of romantic media. (Romance novels, movies, love songs, etc). I would also be really interested in the precursors to such romantic beliefs.

[DoomMunky]

I think it would be fascinating to talk honestly and deeply about relationships and their views on them with women who regularly read romance novels. I wonder how much of that fantasy wish-fulfillment actually translates into beliefs about reality.

I'm a big fan of this thread partly because I just started a new relationship, and I'm really trying to avoid the pitfalls of the last one. One of the big ones is trying not to slip into what I view as "relationship relating", which for me is the automatic, rote expressions of snuggly goodness and undying affection. I mean, I give my girlfriend plenty of positive energy and compliments and let her know in no uncertain terms how happy I am with her, but I'm trying to avoid doing it in the ways I feel like I should. Does that make sense? I'm trying to be honest about my affection, not fall back on tried-and-true expressions of satisfaction. It's difficult, but I find myself being more honest with myself about how I'm feeling, which only leads to better time spent together and better conflict resolution when necessary.

[Robert Sharp]

It's funny how those rote things manifest. My wife and I have been married 10 years, together 13. At this point, when we walk past each other we just say "Love!" and that's it. Displays of affection can become briefer over time ;)

[zengonzo]

I'm a big fan of this thread partly because I just started a new relationship, and I'm really trying to avoid the pitfalls of the last one. One of the big ones is trying not to slip into what I view as "relationship relating", which for me is the automatic, rote expressions of snuggly goodness and undying affection. I mean, I give my girlfriend plenty of positive energy and compliments and let her know in no uncertain terms how happy I am with her, but I'm trying to avoid doing it in the ways I feel like I should. Does that make sense? I'm trying to be honest about my affection, not fall back on tried-and-true expressions of satisfaction. It's difficult, but I find myself being more honest with myself about how I'm feeling, which only leads to better time spent together and better conflict resolution when necessary.

Good on you for correcting mistakes .. But you might want to avoid overqualifying it.

[BobJustBob]

It's funny how those rote things manifest. My wife and I have been married 10 years, together 13. At this point, when we walk past each other we just say "Love!" and that's it. Displays of affection can become briefer over time ;)

In a little while you'll only have to wave.

[rottengeek]

Geesh.

I am on my second failed marriage. My theory, after years of graduate work in Too Much Introspection is:

I pick 'em badly

I thought the second would be a winner. I applied myself. Tried to do all the "right" stuff.

No go.

I was very solidly in love. Giddy for much of the time.

There is always a turning point for me. 3 stages:

1. hmmm, well, this bothers me, i'll try to talk about it...i'll try a low-key approach for what seems to be about a year
2. ok, wow, i've been trying this approach, maybe i should try another...that goes on for about a year
3. breaking point - it's over.

All the while, i'll be enjoying the good moments, the really great moments of loving someone.

First marriage was a mistake from the get-go - alcoholic. Second marriage was really wonderful - much of the time.

go figure.

when do i hit the 50% divorce rate? Does this mean i have 2 successful marriages ahead of me?

[Lunch of Kong]

Does this mean i have 2 successful marriages ahead of me?

No, it means that you bit the failed marriage bullet twice so that two other people could be happy..

[Lunch of Kong]

I think it would be fascinating to talk honestly and deeply about relationships and their views on them with women who regularly read romance novels.

Really? How about talking to someone who regularly writes romance novels? I know a Harlequin author or two.

[Equis]

Really? How about talking to someone who regularly writes romance novels? I know a Harlequin author or two.

Actually that would be interesting. Is it too personal to ask how their personal romantic lives are like?

[Aleck]

No, it means that you bit the failed marriage bullet twice so that two other people could be happy..

And those of us who are happily married (at least for now!) thank you, rottengeek.

I pick 'em badly, too. I'd had several incredibly wonderful --> desperately awful relationships over the years, and ended up getting badly burned just about every time. Which is why I'd completely given up on finding anyone and ended up asking my wife out on a complete lark with no expectations that it would go anywhere. We've been together a decade, married 4 years, and very, very happy (which is not to say that there haven't been nearly insurmountable challenges, but we've somehow managed to muddle through).

Keep trying, Ty. Trying to help your friends, that, is. :)

[Tyjenks]

Keep trying, Ty. Trying to help your friends, that, is. :)

I will pass your thoughts on to the appropriate parties post haste.