marriage and women over 40

decides2dream

interesting article:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/2 ... n-over-40/


Dr. Stevenson said the shifts in marriage are occurring at a time when couples are less likely to marry for financial security or economic benefits and more likely to choose partners based on the “companion benefits” of marriage. She calls it the rise of the “hedonic marriage.”

“That’s marriage where you’re together for the joy of having another person to share your life with,” Dr. Stevenson said. “That’s where marriage is headed — couples who are together because they enjoy life more when they’re together.”

mysticweed

I married my second (and last) husband when I was 40. This ties into the lesson of finding romance in friendship, and marrying your best friend.

decides2dream

lettinggo wrote:

I married my second (and last) husband when I was 40. This ties into the lesson of finding romance in friendship, and marrying your best friend.

nice!
i agree.
tho somehow i managed to find 'that guy' at the very young age of 18. :shock: luckily, didn't rush things (also didn't know at the time anyway)...spent lots of time apart, other people, etc....and then married at 23. i just thought it all read as a positive, for those who are interested and care about such things. no interest in marriage, carry on.

and.....infidelity, tho still...some positives in the mix too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/health/28well.html

The General Social Survey data also show some encouraging trends, said John P. Robinson, professor of sociology and director of the Americans’ Use of Time project at the University of Maryland. One notable shift is that couples appear to be spending slightly more time together. And married men and women also appear to have the most active sex lives, reporting sex with their spouse 58 times a year, a little more than once a week.

“We’ve looked at that as good news,” Dr. Robinson said.

_

decides2dream wrote:

“That’s marriage where you’re together for the joy of having another person to share your life with,” Dr. Stevenson said. “That’s where marriage is headed — couples who are together because they enjoy life more when they’re together.”

What a novel concept!!

Interesting article; thanks for posting.

decides2dream

scb wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

“That’s marriage where you’re together for the joy of having another person to share your life with,” Dr. Stevenson said. “That’s where marriage is headed — couples who are together because they enjoy life more when they’re together.”

What a novel concept!!

Interesting article; thanks for posting.

well, in reality...when you think about it, it IS 'novel.' :?
think about it. until women gained some independence, marriage contracts were more conomic than anything. the entire history of marriage, really...more about that than anything else. so this concept of marrying for love, quite NEW in the scheme of things.

the wolf

good news, maybe there is hope for love and the human race afterall.

81

marriage as an institution is a farce.

the only reason to get married is for the potential tax break and SS benifits for a surving spouse. beyond that, is there really a reason to be married? I think not.

signed
"single" guy living with woman for 6+ years

decides2dream

81 wrote:

marriage as an institution is a farce.

the only reason to get married is for the potential tax break and SS benifits for a surving spouse. beyond that, is there really a reason to be married? I think not.

signed
"single" guy living with woman for 6+ years

whatever works for you and makes you happy....is....what works for you and makes you happy.
i choose couple-hood with marriage, you choose it w/o. one is neither better nor worse, just a different choice. hardly a farce tho. however, i didn't post this to get into *that* debate....just thought there were some interesting trends discussed.


enjoy.

adropinthepark

This is very encouraging to hear. Thanks for sharing, dreams.

With me going through my second divorce people often ask if I think I'll ever get married again. I say I'm almost sure of it. I'm a total sucker for on demand kisses and cuddles. The companionship of a marriage can be a wonderful thing.

Definitely happy to know the sentiment is gaining popularity.

nuffingman

decides2dream wrote:

interesting article:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/2 ... n-over-40/


Dr. Stevenson said the shifts in marriage are occurring at a time when couples are less likely to marry for financial security or economic benefits and more likely to choose partners based on the “companion benefits” of marriage. She calls it the rise of the “hedonic marriage.”

“That’s marriage where you’re together for the joy of having another person to share your life with,” Dr. Stevenson said. “That’s where marriage is headed — couples who are together because they enjoy life more when they’re together.”

I think you've got to be a bit of a dick to marry someone just to be with someone. No wonder the divorce rate is so high.

Claireack

81 wrote:

marriage as an institution is a farce.

the only reason to get married is for the potential tax break and SS benifits for a surving spouse. beyond that, is there really a reason to be married? I think not.

signed
"single" guy living with woman for 6+ years

For me there is, I appreciate that it may have been a personality flaw, but I felt much more secure once we were married, not financially but emotionally. We had no fancy wedding, just a registry office, no guests, 2 strangers as witnesses. But it was really important to me that he wanted to marry me, he'd always said he wasn't the marrying kind, he would never have bothered had I not asked if we could.

signed
married woman, lived together for 9 years, married for 14

pandora

Claireack wrote:

81 wrote:

marriage as an institution is a farce.

the only reason to get married is for the potential tax break and SS benifits for a surving spouse. beyond that, is there really a reason to be married? I think not.

signed
"single" guy living with woman for 6+ years

For me there is, I appreciate that it may have been a personality flaw, but I felt much more secure once we were married, not financially but emotionally. We had no fancy wedding, just a registry office, no guests, 2 strangers as witnesses. But it was really important to me that he wanted to marry me, he'd always said he wasn't the marrying kind, he would never have bothered had I not asked if we could.

signed
married woman, lived together for 9 years, married for 14

thats really nice- well said

yahamita

So, there is still hope for me after 40. I've been with my bf 3 years now and the problem is I am too independent! and tend to be motherly and control usually every situation. This has caused many issues, but living on my own for so long made me this way!

_

nuffingman wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

interesting article:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/2 ... n-over-40/


Dr. Stevenson said the shifts in marriage are occurring at a time when couples are less likely to marry for financial security or economic benefits and more likely to choose partners based on the “companion benefits” of marriage. She calls it the rise of the “hedonic marriage.”

“That’s marriage where you’re together for the joy of having another person to share your life with,” Dr. Stevenson said. “That’s where marriage is headed — couples who are together because they enjoy life more when they’re together.”

I think you've got to be a bit of a dick to marry someone just to be with someone. No wonder the divorce rate is so high.

I don't know... as d2d already pointed out, the purpose of marriage has historically been a practical one. Men and women needed each other to have children. Men needed women to raise the children and take care of the domestic responsibilities. Women needed men to financially support them and the children. Thankfully, in this day and age, marriage isn't necessary to fullfil any of those purposes, but society is still coming to grips with that. I wouldn't call people dicks for viewing marriage more traditionally. Archaic, maybe, but not necessarily dicks.

Edit to clarify: I don't support the resistance of the part I bolded above; I just understand how people can get caught up in an outdated social structure.

81

Claireack wrote:

81 wrote:

marriage as an institution is a farce.

the only reason to get married is for the potential tax break and SS benifits for a surving spouse. beyond that, is there really a reason to be married? I think not.

signed
"single" guy living with woman for 6+ years

For me there is, I appreciate that it may have been a personality flaw, but I felt much more secure once we were married, not financially but emotionally. We had no fancy wedding, just a registry office, no guests, 2 strangers as witnesses. But it was really important to me that he wanted to marry me, he'd always said he wasn't the marrying kind, he would never have bothered had I not asked if we could.

signed
married woman, lived together for 9 years, married for 14

i sort of view it the opposite. because we are not married, she can walk out the door anytime she wants, with relative ease. once married, you have to jump thru hoops to leave. so the fact that she stays tells me she wants to be there, not that she has to be there. weird maybe.

one of these days we have to get married for the social security benifits that she would pick up should i die.

decides2dream

81 wrote:

Claireack wrote:

81 wrote:

marriage as an institution is a farce.

the only reason to get married is for the potential tax break and SS benifits for a surving spouse. beyond that, is there really a reason to be married? I think not.

signed
"single" guy living with woman for 6+ years

For me there is, I appreciate that it may have been a personality flaw, but I felt much more secure once we were married, not financially but emotionally. We had no fancy wedding, just a registry office, no guests, 2 strangers as witnesses. But it was really important to me that he wanted to marry me, he'd always said he wasn't the marrying kind, he would never have bothered had I not asked if we could.

signed
married woman, lived together for 9 years, married for 14

i sort of view it the opposite. because we are not married, she can walk out the door anytime she wants, with relative ease. once married, you have to jump thru hoops to leave. so the fact that she stays tells me she wants to be there, not that she has to be there. weird maybe.

one of these days we have to get married for the social security benifits that she would pick up should i die.

people can leave whenever they want, and have many times, married or not. they'd just still be married too. getting divorced is another thing entirely.
and i know plenty of live-in couples who split, and who's splits were just as difficult as divorces. once you start putting each other on bank accounts, naming beneficiaries, owning joint property...it can get ugly. and it can be even worse if you're not married, b/c no clear laws delineating things. my broinlaw is currently going thru this with his now ex-GF, after a 20+ year partnership. just sayin'...it indeed can go both ways. however, i absolutely see what you are saying, and i agree...it all depends on how you look at the equation. and there is no 'wrong way' to go about it.


anyhoo, i think this article is merely pointing out some positives about marriage in general, and for women over 40....who may actually WANT marriage. if they don't, well, doesn't much matter then.