We were discussing this on the premarital sex thread, but I think it is enough of a tangent to merit a separate place for discussion.
Here is the source of the statistics. We see here that the older someone is, the less likely they are to have *ever* been divorced. Why might this be? Many have suggested that the main reason we see more divorce today is because divorce is more of an option for people. But if it is just as much an option for the elderly as it is for everyone else, why aren't they divorcing as much?
I think it is because those of past generations were more devoted to committing to marriage, whether working through it or "settling" because it was better to stay together than leave to find greener pastures. I believe that this attitude is better for stable families (though I'm sure many disagree). But it seems many think I shouldn't be jumping to the "more commitment" conclusion to begin with.
So, Hatrack, what do you think?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can only speak for myself.
As a 21 year old male, part of the younger generation I guess, my personal goal in life is to get married and have a bunch of kids. Anything and everything I do after that will be extra. But my commitment to a stable, long lasting family is the thing I look forward to most in my future.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm 22, and I'm very, very committed to my marriage. So is my husband (25.) The most important goal in both our lives was to get married and stay married to someone, and have kids if at all possible.
Both my grandmothers were divorced at least once.
I think it's not something that can be generalized as much as we try to generalize it.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I think the older generation is more committed to staying in their marriages regardless. I also think there is less of a grass is greener on the other side mentality. About 10 years ago, I wondered if my great-gradparents were going to get a divorce. My great-grandfather drank much too much and was all around rude to his wife. Beyond that, she did ALL the work and he sat around and watched tv. I told my mom this thought and she just laughed and said they had been like that for 50 years and she didn't think either would ever see any reason to change that. I couldn't imagine being in a marriage like that but for them it was normal and ok. In a lot of ways, it was similar to the marriage of most of their contemporaries. The women of that generation did the housework. I don't think it ever crossed my Great-grandma's mind that she should expect help.
The point of this long ramble is that marriage in the older generation might be more ccommitted but they don't necessarily work better. Instead, that generation is more prone to accept behavior on the part of their partner that would send someone in a younger generation running. I don't believe that being in a committed marriage that has serious flaws like alcoholism and sexist attitudes is good for women or men and if those are the people who are now getting divorced instead of sticking it out... I say good for them
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think it was social inertia, mostly. Whether it made families more or less stable was irrelevant to the fact that by the time the divorce "revolution" came about, they were already set in their ways, for good or ill. It may lead to more stable families, but that doesn't mean it's better. Is a marriage of 40 years that includes a demeaning partner that slowly poisons the whole family, affecting their relationships in the future, better?
--- I've experienced this cultural stasis recently with parents and wedding stuff. Certain things that seem completely obvious to either side ends up being opposite of the other side. They could try to see the other side, and compromise, or at least acknowledge it, but it's more comforting to follow your existing path.
-Bok
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'll second Lyrhawn. I'm a 20 year old male (so younger generation), and I hope to get married and have kids. I want to have a nice, stable family and everything.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: !! I thought you were like, older than me, at least!
*sigh* I get that a lot.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:The point of this long ramble is that marriage in the older generation might be more ccommitted but they don't necessarily work better.
I can agree with this, because I think the sexist attitudes of generations past were unhealthy. We have come so far since then. We should have happier marriages because of it. And perhaps we do. And yet *more* people are divorcing. Have our standards for personal happiness exceeded what we ought to expect, considering what is best for the children born into marriages? I know this can't be explored very well through statistics, but it is something I wonder about.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
You should take it as a compliment.
(edit: That was to KQ.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know how you feel KQ. Everyone at work thinks I'm older than my 25 year old brother that also works there. It's incredibly annoying.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:But my parents' generation is VERY committed to my generation getting married [Mad]
:giggle:
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The alternative is, as mentioned in the other thread, that humans aren't as "swan-like", biologically, as we think of ourselves. We may be, generally, just serial monogamists... Which can be supported by certain biologial realities such as human females being almost always "in heat".
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:It may lead to more stable families, but that doesn't mean it's better.
Maybe not as good for the parents, but maybe better for the children? BTW, when there is abuse, I agree that it is often better to get out of the situation. But what about when there isn't? Or, would there be less abuse if people were more committed to marriage and family? Isn't abuse a selfish behavior, done to gratify one's own feelings at another's expense?
Some might argue that parents should sacrifice their own interests if it is better for their children.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know how you feel KQ. Everyone at work thinks I'm older than my 25 year old brother that also works there. It's incredibly annoying.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:The alternative is, as mentioned in the other thread, that humans aren't as "swan-like", biologically, as we think of ourselves. We may be, generally, just serial monogamists... Which can be supported by certain biologial realities such as human females being almost always "in heat".
Should we work to overcome our biology if it is so much better for our children? I don't like to use biology to excuse my bad behavior. Well, maybe with pregnancy hormones. But you can bet I try to be as rational as possible, raging hormones or not.
I understand that it is pretty difficult for men to overcome their biological urge to spread their seed far and wide in order to stick with one woman. I appreciate the effort to overcome biology there for the sake of family stability. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Isn't abuse a selfish behavior, done to gratify one's own feelings at another's expense?
Some might argue that parents should sacrifice their own interests if it is better for their children.
Abuse is complicated. I think more often it has to do with self-control rather than selfishness-- some people just never learn to control themselves. And then there are people who can, but grew up in an abusive family and think that's the way it's supposed to be. Or even if they don't, don't know another way.
Of course parents should try to do what's best for the children in most cases. But sometimes that's splitting.
I wasn't very happy with my parents divorced as a kid (it wasn't what they call "amicable"), but I would have been less happy if I had to hear the yelling ALL THE TIME and/or my parents killed each other. They are just completely incompatible personality types with different expectations for a relationship, and both of them have issues left over from when they were growing up. I don't think it would have worked no matter what.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Of course parents should try to do what's best for the children in most cases. But sometimes that's splitting.
I agree. My grandmother divorced her husband, and I am immensely glad she did. She very much did the right thing in her situation. And divorce *was* harder back then.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I wasn't talking overt abuse. In families, meme transfer is porous, both good and bad. Despite the pithy bumper stickers, racism CAN be a family value, as well as sexism, or any other boorish and unhealthy behavior.
The family is the perfect petri dish for this. I have interesting anecdotes about my grandparents (now all passed). My parents, in divorce, are much healthier than either sets of their parents were, while married, from what I've heard and seen.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I wasn't talking overt abuse. In families, meme transfer is porous, both good and bad. Despite the pithy bumper stickers, racism CAN be a family value, as well as sexism, or any other boorish and unhealthy behavior.
I wonder how much of this can be helped by really getting to know your partner before you marry them? It may be that we do a better job of that today. Though I can understand in small, rural communities of the past, there was probably a very small selection to choose from. Tolerance in marriage was probably far more essential then when *really* getting to know your spouse was impractical.
I wonder how well people are able to hide the unpleasant memes their families do impart to them? How willing are people in love to overlook those things, believing their love will get them through? How much does infatuation blind us?
Again, I repeat my belief that compatability is far more important than being "in love".
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, also, in the past, those were the values of whole communities, not just families.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I wonder how much of this can be helped by really getting to know your partner before you marry them? It may be that we do a better job of that today. Though I can understand in small, rural communities of the past, there was probably a very small selection to choose from.
Tangent to the original thread: this is why I say that moving in with your prospective partner before you decide to get engaged/married is a potentially good idea.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Again, I repeat my belief that compatability is far more important than being "in love".
Beverly, you keep saying this like it is an either/or thing. It is possible to be both madly in love and have your head on straight enough to not marry someone incompatible.
e: You can get to know someone without living with them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah. Like my lover. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Of course parents should try to do what's best for the children in most cases. But sometimes that's splitting.
This is very true. From what I understand, my mother's parents stayed together while their kids where at home "for the sake of the children," and apparently it made for a positively MISERABLE home life.
As for why older generations do not divorce, I think it's probably less of an issue of greater commitment than it is an issue of more stigma attached to divorce. Remember that women as individuals with careers wasn't commonplace for the generation of people currently in, say, their 70s or 80s now; they were generally much more tied to marriage and family as a career, with the option of career outside the home being something most women just didn't do. These older women may stay married just because that's all they've ever known, and they wouldn't know what else to do otherwise.
It's all speculation from me, though; older folks, with older grandparents, may have more factual (or at least anecdotal) evidence to back this up or refute it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:e: You can get to know someone without living with them.
True, but I still believe there are many things about a person - or the extent to which certain things matter to you - that you just do not encounter outside of a shared living situation.
I don't want to derail this any more than the other thread was de-railed, so look there if you want my thoughts on this .
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Remember that women as individuals with careers wasn't commonplace for the generation of people currently in, say, their 70s or 80s now; they were generally much more tied to marriage and family as a career, with the option of career outside the home being something most women just didn't do.
Both my grandmothers are in that age range, or a little older. Both worked most of their adult lives. And most of their girlfriends did, too. Maybe it has something to do with where they lived?
In fact, though, my great-grandmothers also both worked (although those were different circumstances.) I'm the first stay-home mom in four generations in my matriarchal line.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Remember that women as individuals with careers wasn't commonplace for the generation of people currently in, say, their 70s or 80s now; they were generally much more tied to marriage and family as a career, with the option of career outside the home being something most women just didn't do. These older women may stay married just because that's all they've ever known, and they wouldn't know what else to do otherwise.
I hadn't even thought of that. How many older women, if they were to get divorced, would still be able to provide for themselves at the same level of comfort?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Tangent to the original thread: this is why I say that moving in with your prospective partner before you decide to get engaged/married is a potentially good idea.
I can understand reaching this conclusion. It isn't the one that I reach, but that's OK.
quote:Beverly, you keep saying this like it is an either/or thing. It is possible to be both madly in love and have your head on straight enough to not marry someone incompatible.
Nope, you are inferring that. My point is just this: Commitment will do more to make a marriage work than being in love will. Especially since the initial sheen of "new love" will inevitably fade. It cannot be depended on. It is not more important than commitment, and in my opinion it is not even equally important. But I wholeheartedly agree that it *is* important.
You seem to think I am pushing for something you've heard other people push for--compatability without being "in love". If this is your interpretation of my words, it is incorrect.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
In the vast majority of divorces, the lifestyle of the man goes up and the lifestyle of the woman and usually the children drops dramatically.
In other words, very few. Divorce is one of the worst economic disasters that can happen to people.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Both my grandmothers are in that age range, or a little older. Both worked most of their adult lives. And most of their girlfriends did, too. Maybe it has something to do with where they lived?
Maybe. Both my grandmothers are also in that age range. One worked on and off prior to the death of her husband, and then consistently until retirement. The other...I'm not sure about her, but I don't think she worked. I know she was against my mom going to college.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: quote:Remember that women as individuals with careers wasn't commonplace for the generation of people currently in, say, their 70s or 80s now; they were generally much more tied to marriage and family as a career, with the option of career outside the home being something most women just didn't do. These older women may stay married just because that's all they've ever known, and they wouldn't know what else to do otherwise.
I hadn't even thought of that. How many older women, if they were to get divorced, would still be able to provide for themselves at the same level of comfort?
I remember reading a thread awhile back (though it may have been on GreNME's forum) that women worked more often back then than most of us realize. Though they were often limited in the *sorts* of jobs they worked. The sorts of jobs are lesser paying ones, true, but someone could support themselves on such--especially if their children are grown.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I believe figuring out compatibility includes sexual compatibility, as well as living-togetherness compatibility. We aren't so far apart, I think.
My wife and I (3 weeks married, yay!), lived together almost 2 years (well, one year before engagement, and then a year engagement), dated a little over a year before that, and knew each other 3-4 years before that. At each step we learned more about each other, and because we were (IMO) reasonably decent people, our first inclination wasn't to bail on each other when a problem arose; it was to try and work through it, and covered a host of issues; religious, sexual, and just plain behavioral.
It worked out well for us. But I also don't expect that simply following in our path will lead to a marriage. It will likely (hopefully) lead to more people breaking up before marriage, because I do respect marriage, particularly as an environment for creating a family. The problem is that marriage is only the environment; the fungi produced in the petri dish are brought in by the particular people involved. If we don't try some experiments first, it may be that a couple of seemingly benign strains, when combined will destroy anything the two people try to create. Or worse, it slowly rots the foundations, showing children (and others) a skewed version of marriage.
How was that for mixed metaphors, eh?
You can never be 100% sure that at some point, something will just snap in one or both people, causing a collapse. It's still a (IMO worthwhile) risk, even though many feel the bar has been lowered on that front of late.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Beverly, I am not getting this from what other people have you said. I am getting this from you. You have said several times that you don't trust the in love feelings and that people should think more about compatibility than the in love feelings before getting married.
There really is a much simpler solution, you know. Don't start dating anyone you know you wouldn't want to marry, and stop dating them once you find out they are incompatible to you. You can't necessarily choose who you fall for, but you can certainly choose who you spend time with and on, and few people fall in love without spending time on each other.
Be a little more selective about who you date, and you can marry the one you fall for.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:At each step we learned more about each other, and because we were (IMO) reasonably decent people, our first inclination wasn't to bail on each other when a problem arose; it was to try and work through it, and covered a host of issues; religious, sexual, and just plain behavioral.
My husband and I have done this while married. What's wrong with marrying first, then working out the issues?
In fact, how is a marriage going to really work if you don't?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I remember reading a thread awhile back (though it may have been on GreNME's forum) that women worked more often back then than most of us realize. Though they were often limited in the *sorts* of jobs they worked. The sorts of jobs are lesser paying ones, true, but someone could support themselves on such--especially if their children are grown.
I was trying not to imply that a divorced woman with no children couldn't get a job - because especially in modern America, it's very easy to get a subsistable job even if you have no education beyond highschool.
I'm under the impression that women in that period were far less eligible for college and high-paying jobs because of sociological reasons, and that because of that, the man in the family traditionally provided the majority of the income, whether the wife worked or not. As a result, the wife in a modern day relationship that originated in that era might be living a lifestyle that her lone working capabilities might not be able to provide, and that might be something many of them contemplate when considering a divorce.
quote:It worked out well for us. But I also don't expect that simply following in our path will lead to a marriage. It will likely (hopefully) lead to more people breaking up before marriage, because I do respect marriage, particularly as an environment for creating a family.
Bok, you're a man after my own heart. Curse your wife and my sexuality for barring you from me forever!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:My husband and I have done this while married. What's wrong with marrying first, then working out the issues?
In fact, how is a marriage going to really work if you don't?
Ketchupqueen, while I'm stoked that this worked out for you, again: do you honestly feel that this is how most relationships work?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:There really is a much simpler solution, you know. Don't start dating anyone you know you wouldn't want to marry, and stop dating them once you find out they are incompatible to you. You can't necessarily choose who you fall for, but you can certainly choose who you spend time with and on, and few people fall in love without spending time on each other.
This is pretty much what I am saying. But remember, you can't always tell right away if you are compatable with someone. I think too many people out there place more importance on the feelings of love instead of finding out if they are compatable, and that many marriages fail because of this behavior.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But if it is just as much an option for the elderly as it is for everyone else, why aren't they divorcing as much?
When you've been married for the majority of your life, it's hard to imagine life any other way. There might be a little resistence to the drastic lifestyle change that would be involved with an elderly couple getting a divorce.
As to the increasing number of divorces...
I agree with a lot of what's already been stated, so I won't restate it, but I do want to add that I think media portrays (or at least it used to) relationships filled with passion, romance, and happiness. They kind of gloss over the ugly realities of a marriage. So some people enter a marriage with these romance-novel expectations only to be disappointed when the honeymoon ends and the initial flames die out. They jump from marriage to marriage looking for this fictional concept only to be continually disappointed. It's these people that are skewing the divorce statistics to imply that everybody is getting divorced.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:because especially in modern America, it's very easy to get a subsistable job even if you have no education beyond highschool.
NO, it is NOT. Not in most parts of the country, especially if you're trying to support children.
quote:Ketchupqueen, while I'm stoked that this worked out for you, again: do you honestly feel that this is how most relationships work?
It works because we make it work. Just like it works for Bok because they make it work. I think most marriages CAN work if 1) considered carefully beforehand (like Katie said, choose who you date carefully so you'll fall in love with the right person) and 2) undertaken with the right attitude and principles.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
There were certain issues that had the chance of being intractable. The world is not black and white, it's not even shades of gray. We were potentially faced with the fact that we were literally physically incompatible, despite appearing to both be fairly normal folks. We were fortunate to work through them, but there was time that it didn't appear like we were definitely going to. Even now, we continue work it out, there was no "Eureka!" moment.
I cringe when I think that we could have gotten married, only to find out that every time we were intimate, I'd always cause my wife physical agony. That would have been terrible for both of us.
From my experience, there may be certain things that need to be worked out in an environment of less commitment, though no less responsibility.
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:My husband and I have done this while married. What's wrong with marrying first, then working out the issues?
In fact, how is a marriage going to really work if you don't?
I think there is a balance here. It is wise to really get to know the person you are marrying. I think one important thing is paying attention to the family they came from. Even if they want to be completely different from their family, the atmosphere a person grows up in still profoundly affects them.
But there is a point where you make the decision. You know what you need to know, and you are willing to commit to them. When this point is, each person has to decide for themselves.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It still looks like you are saying it is either/or. If people only date people they would be willing to marry, and they stop dating when they find out major things they don't agree on, then it serves like a filter. There will be people who are compatible but you still aren't wild about, and that's fine. At that point, you can marry because you're crazy in love, because you don't become crazy in love with people you never spend time with/on in the first place.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I probably belong to a younger generation, and if I do divorce someday I'll likely feel it is a great personal failure on my part.
Now, I just have to work on that getting married part, then I'll worry about divorce some more.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:but I do want to add that I think media portrays (or at least it used to) relationships filled with passion, romance, and happiness. They kind of gloss over the ugly realities of a marriage. So some people enter a marriage with these romance-novel expectations only to be disappointed when the honeymoon ends and the initial flames die out. They jump from marriage to marriage looking for this fictional concept only to be continually disappointed.
I *strongly* agree with this. It is one of the reasons I don't like romance as portrayed in movies/TV/even books sometimes.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:From my experience, there may be certain things that need to be worked out in an environment of less commitment, though no less responsibility.
I disagree. You're not the only one who has had similar issues, and there are people who work it out within the bounds of a marriage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
To sum up, choose who you date based on possible compatibility. Choose who you commit to for love.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:From my experience, there may be certain things that need to be worked out in an environment of less commitment, though no less responsibility.
In my opinion, you can't have the same responsibility without the same commitment.
edit: This is a comment about responsibility and commitment in general, not about marriage in particular.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: If people only date people they would be willing to marry, and they stop dating when they find out major things they don't agree on, then it serves like a filter.
But here you are *automatically* putting compatablity before "in love". You see? We perfectly agree with each other. Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I think it depends a great deal on individuals. SOME individuals can go straight into marriage, no worries, and work issues out as they go. SOME individuals feel the need to have all their compatibility ducks in a row before they get married. Outside of a moral issue (whatever its basis) with premarital sex, I don't think one position is necessarily superior to the other.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
kq, I guess I just wasn't willing to take that much of a risk for either of us (and I'm sure she feels likewise). If that's selfishness, then so be it. I know that people can work though it in marriage, but that doesn't mean it's the best environment for these things, for all people.
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But here you are *automatically* putting compatablity before "in love". You see? We perfectly agree with each other.
We don't agree, though. You are saying that people can be in love with people they are not compatible with.
I'm saying if you filter out the people you know you will not be compatible with from the beginning, then you can't fall in love with them.
We are saying the exact opposite.
My way means that one dates much less often. On the upside, you can marry the guy you fall head over heels for, and do it based on that.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
m_p_h. In my gut, I disagree with that. Personally, I feel I have neither increased or decreased my responsibility toward my girlfriend/fiancee/wife throughout. I have, however, increased my level of commitment. I'll see if I can figure out a way to articulate it. It might also be a case of different strokes for different folks.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: To sum up, choose who you date based on possible compatibility. Choose who you commit to for love.
I prefer exactly the opposite approach. Date based on infatuation -- which is how we're defining love, here, apparently -- and then choose who you commit to based on compatibility.
Dating incompatible people can be incredibly fun and educational.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree, when you're just playing around. For people who haven't dated much, dating just for fun is fabulous.
Hm...maybe I'd say your way for less dating experience, and my way for more.
Maybe it depends on your purpose for dating. You can definitely use dating as a way to experience life and exposed to things you wouldn't otherwise (my music collection is basically a personal dating history), but that does get messy. Because you can fall for people (and they for you) that you would never commit to, and that doesn't seem really fair.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
I think that the view of marriage as a sacred union is too tied up with a great deal of other cultural and theological views for anyone outside of the culture to "get it" completely. Using my amazing empathic skills I have deduced that those on the other side of the question see marriage as something which folks on this side of the question see as "important". In this case marriage is important kind of like going to college is important- sure, it can help you out in a number of different ways, but you can live a good life without it.
From the other side of the line (or my skewed view of it) marriage is not important- it is fundamental. Building the sort of community we want to build absolutely requires committed marriage with no premarital sex as the societal ideals. There are a number of other very important ideals which are also related, and all of them are required. In fact, the only real purpose that I can see for most religious "commandments" is the establishment of a certain kind of community.
However, establishing such a community is very very difficult due to human weakness, and even attempting the feat is pretty much impossible without a semi-isolated group, all of whom are committed to the same ideal. For that reason individuals are, to some extent or another, pretty much on their own as far as adhering to a certain set of principles- at least until conditions significantly change.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You can definitely use dating as a way to experience life and exposed to things you wouldn't otherwise (my music collection is basically a personal dating history)
Does it work in reverse? Because I recall you asked us to help you expand your music collection a few months ago. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sadly, I'm not nearly that subtle.
Added: But to address the question, when I decided to stop using dating as adventure and world exploration, it meant the adventure and world exploration had to come some other way. Hence, I ask Hatrack.
Added: Okay, I'm done. This thread is horribly close to violating Kat's Rule of Life #6: Do not discussion love life or lack thereof on Hatrack..
[ September 02, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:We don't agree, though. You are saying that people can be in love with people they are not compatible with.
So you are saying that it is a matter of choice. I haven't addressed that. I *agree* that it is a matter of choice who you fall in love with. My point is: don't fall in love with people with whom you are not compatable. I say this because it *is* possible to do so, and I think people should avoid it.
This is how you put compatability ahead of being in love. Early in my dating career, I did not follow this advice. I decided to follow it later after suffering because of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think you choose who you fall in love with. I do think you choose who you spend time with, and you have to spend time with someone in order to fall for them.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't think you choose who you fall in love with. I do think you choose who you spend time with, and you have to spend time with someone in order to fall for them.
I agree, although I think it's possible to fall for people you had absolutely no intention of falling for in the first place, like friends you would never consider marrying.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:you have to spend time with someone in order to fall for them.
Or at least talk to them. (Witness quid and me.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm going to side with Jacare's explanation as the reason I have such trouble with these threads.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm going to side with Jacare's explanation as the reason I have such trouble with these threads.
It's one of the reasons I think OSC writes the future in the Ender series as a collection of isolated planets populated entirely by like-minded people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: Date based on infatuation -- which is how we're defining love, here, apparently
I'm not willing to concede that. It think the confusion between chemical attraction, romantic love, and love* is leading to a lot of people not understanding each other.
*The closest I can come to articulating what I mean by this is something like what Paul describes in Corinthians.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Cohabitation before marriage can acutally increase the possibility of divorce according to a CDC study found here.
Here are some statitstics (mostly about women) from the article:
quote: Divorce is more likely when women marry at a younger age (48% of brides married before age 18 divorce in 10 years, compared to 24% married at age 25 or later), have a lower level of education, come from a single-parent home (12% more likely), were raped (same for all three ethnic groups), suffer from GAD, had a child before marriage or within 7 months of the marriage, and cohabitated before marriage (18% for non-cohabitators versus 24% for cohabitators)
I think that the reason that divorce is so frequent now is that it has become socially acceptable to divorce. Even 50 years ago divorce was socially unacceptable. That's why so many older couples seem more likely to stay married, there's still a mind set that divorce is unacceptable.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
If by some fluke someone did want to marry me, I would be totally committed, but for some reason I am terrified of the thought of my own wedding.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
andi330: no, cohabitation before marriage correlates with divorce. The causation could well be that people who are more likely to be willing to divorce are also more likely to be willing to cohabit; this should actually be pretty obvious, as those conservatives who are extremely resistant to divorce are also among those extremely resistant to cohabitation, almost always.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I didn't phrase that very well. I mean to say that I agree with what Jacare said. And my views on marriage sometimes make it hard for me to find common ground here. Not always, but sometimes.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I would love to be committed to the idea of marriage, but seeing as I pretty much can't in 98% of the US, I don't think I'll be getting married. But you never know what'll happen before I actually start thinking about getting married.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Fugu, that is one explanation, but it is not the only one.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:andi330: no, cohabitation before marriage correlates with divorce.
That's the only conclusion that can be directly drawn from that data. Anything further is just speculation, by either side.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote: no, cohabitation before marriage correlates with divorce
That's what I said. Read it again.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I don't think you choose who you fall in love with. I do think you choose who you spend time with, and you have to spend time with someone in order to fall for them.
Which is *how* you choose. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Again: If proximity (or conversation, in ketchupqueen's case) is a key element in choosing who you fall in love with, what happens if you fall for one of your friends, with whom you are less than ideally compatible?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think you choose who you fall in love with.
I believe that you* have complete control over who you fall in love with and who you don't.
Most people just don't bother to control it.
*generic "you"
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I believe that you* have complete control over who you fall in love with and who you don't.
Most people just don't bother to control it.
The Force is strong with this one.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
No You really, really can't... I would so rather not fall in love with another person again for as long as I live.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Again: If proximity (or conversation, in ketchupqueen's case) is a key element in choosing who you fall in love with, what happens if you fall for one of your friends, with whom you are less than ideally compatible?
Good question. Since I am notorious for being attracted to my guy-friends, perhaps I don't have a very good answer.
But I think falling in love requires some amount of requitement. Otherwise I think of it as a "crush".
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This thread makes my head hurt.
Here are some other groups that don't value marriage as much as some other groups:
Blacks don't value marriage as much as, well, anyone else:
quote: At the same time, the decline in marriages has been even higher, prompting some experts to express fear for the survival of African American families. In 1960, 78% of African American households included a married couple; this rate deceased to 64% in 1970; and by the late 1980s, only 48% of African American households included both a husband and a wife. This downward trend continued, reaching a low of 39% by 1993 (Billingsley & Morrison-Rodriguez, 1998). According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, in 2000, 16% of African American males were married, as compared to 60% of whites; 37% of African American females were married (nearly twice as many unmarried) as compared to 57% of white females.
Baptists value marriage less than other Christians.
Massachussetts valued marriage more than any other state in 1994. (Utah is a sucky 27?!? Wow. Shame!)
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Marriage? I'm 25 and can definately wait. I don't like the whole divorce option. I think that half the time it is just that people get tired too easily or too lazy to try to do something about their marriage. Of course there are a lot of times that I can't blame one or the other for divorcing these days. Seeing as how some people just muck up the whole thing.
BTW: Crashed and burned on my last girlfriend. A female friend of mine played wingman the other day and hooked me up with her friend (who we found out really, really, really likes me).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Before I finish reading all of this I would like to point out that this site is rather biased since it attracts 9 of 10 times the more "responsible" members of society.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: 48% of brides married before age 18 divorce in 10 years, compared to 24% married at age 25 or later
See this to me doesn't suggest that the younger generation is less committed to marriage but that the vast majority of women 17 or younger are not responsible enough and aware of life's realities to understand what marriage truly is.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:you have to spend time with someone in order to fall for them.
Or at least talk to them. (Witness quid and me.)
It took Fahim and I only about 15 minutes of online chatting for us to be extremely curious and unwilling to let go of each other.
Falling in love took somewhat longer - four or five days of chatting online for a couple of hours each day to fall in love and figure out that we were extremely compatible, religious issues aside.
We hadn't used telephone, microphones, or webcam up to that point, although I did see a very small picture of him that gave me very little to work off of.
Does that count? Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No. Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Before I finish reading all of this I would like to point out that this site is rather biased since it attracts 9 of 10 times the more "responsible" members of society.
Thanks!
Although I suppose we should recruit more irresponsible people. Their insights might be valuable.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:We hadn't used telephone, microphones, or webcam up to that point, although I did see a very small picture of him that gave me very little to work off of.
Does that count?
Yeah. I consider chatting "talking".
With me, it was a couple of e-mails before I started to fall. By the time I talked to him "for real" (on the phone), I already had decided I wanted to marry him. By the time we physically met, we'd discussed marriage. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, you're sure slower than we are. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, we weren't as desperate, being only 1500 miles apart. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
*laughs* Okay, tell me this. How long from encountering each other & chatting/email to falling in love to meeting in person to getting married? I want a timeline! Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh. MUCH longer than you two. It took a long time to get married, not because we wanted it that way, but because our parents fought it tooth and nail. (My husband asked my father for my hand in marriage and he said no! ) Plus there was the Temple prep class I had to do, and reserving a sealing room, and me finishing the semester at my job, and...
It took a while. If it had been up to us, we would have just eloped to the Temple. But since we had to live with our families afterward, we had to do things to please them. (At least, as much as they could be pleased. And they were not pleased anyway. Whatever.)
A year and a half, total.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Wow, that is a long time. Yep, see, I was old enough - and estranged from enough family members - that what they wanted made no difference. Assuming they would have known. I've never wanted a big wedding, mostly because anything the family is involved in gets messy very fast.
Yeah, life is much simpler living in a foreign country. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I didn't want a big wedding. It ended up being much more formal than I ever wanted. (But not THAT formal, and we did it for under $500, including Jeff's trip out and my dress.)
I did, however, manage to offend my future mother-in-law with the invitations (ask me about THAT sometime. )
But in the long run, we had to do as little harm as possible, because we want free babysitters for our kids. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Pragmatic as always. Hey, I hear you. And if you include transportation in the wedding cost, then we sure exceeded your budget, despite having no rings, no reception (unless you count the Flower Drum Chinese Restaurant with his two best friends & our witnesses after we registered our marriage), and spending $20 CDN on the dress.
Yep. Our big expensive was flying me and my cats out. Yowza!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, yes. I'll bet the cats were almost as expensive as you, am I right?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yep.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Again, I repeat my belief that compatibility is far more important than being "in love".
Beverly, you keep saying this like it is an either/or thing. It is possible to be both madly in love and have your head on straight enough to not marry someone incompatible.
Nope, that's me. Not that I generally consider the two to be mutually exclusive; just that the first makes me distrust the second (for me).
quote:Originally posted by katharina: In the vast majority of divorces, the lifestyle of the man goes up and the lifestyle of the woman and usually the children drops dramatically.
Not quite. Generally the lifestyle of the man drops slightly and the lifestyle of the woman and children drops drastically. Very rarely does anyone's lifestyle improve, at least not for 3-5 years afterward. Maintaining two households is simply more expensive than maintaining one.
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote: 48% of brides married before age 18 divorce in 10 years, compared to 24% married at age 25 or later
See this to me doesn't suggest that the younger generation is less committed to marriage but that the vast majority of women 17 or younger are not responsible enough and aware of life's realities to understand what marriage truly is.
To me it says something rather different. It says the vast majority of girls 17 and under who marry are not doing so for the right reasons. Honestly, what are the odds that the average 16-year-old is getting married because she is pregnant, and little else? That they may also not be responsible enough to commit for life at that age is a secondary consideration, IMO.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
So I read through this entire thread only to find that rivka has already posted what I wanted to say (re: Standard of life post-divorce). *sigh* ::points:: What she said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Sorry, Ic. You can correct that one next thread, 'k?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
1500 miles? Does that mean 8000 miles could work????
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
BB, quid and Fahim were in Canada and Sri Lanka, respectively...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
So Canada and China could also work?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
China's closer to Canada than Sri Lanka is. Actually, Sri Lanka is about as far away from where I was as you could get and still be on the surface of Planet Earth.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I agree almost 100% with bev on this one -- i think you absolutely have control over who you love, even if you don't have control over who you're compatible with and/or infatuated with.
But, for anyone who's ever dated, haven't you ever found out a guy/girl was taken and immediately stopped being interested? Happens all the time. It's an immediate shut-down for me. But what if you were incredibly compatible with the person who already has someone else? What if you would've been perfect together? It doesn't matter, because they're taken. Or because they smoke cigarettes. Or because they're allergic to animals.
You think those superficial reasons are REALLY why you don't fall in love with them? NO. you make a decision not to get more involved than "ooh, cute!" and you move on.
I think what people call "love" is really a mix of timing, compatibility, and maturity.
You have to meet the person at an appropriate time in your life, you then have to have enough in common with them, (and i guess enough differences) to hold and pique your interest, and then you have to have the maturity to work through your differences. It's a conscious decision one makes to "make a relationship/marriage work"
Now, I don't mean to indicate that i think you can make it work with anyone if you have all three -- just because *you* have it, doesn't mean the other person does. And if they don't, it probably isn't going to last, because their unwillingness to compromise will kill the relationship.
Love is a wonderful thing, but that's because we make a conscious, commited decision to be with the other person, not because we "can't help it."
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: To me it says something rather different. It says the vast majority of girls 17 and under who marry are not doing so for the right reasons. Honestly, what are the odds that the average 16-year-old is getting married because she is pregnant, and little else? That they may also not be responsible enough to commit for life at that age is a secondary consideration, IMO.
Yeah, I can see that Rivka.
What I was trying to point out is that it's fairly ridiculous to paint the whole "younger generation" as less committed to marriage based on a statistic dealing with 17 year old girls and younger.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There we agree.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Although I guess you could argue that marrying just because you are pregnant and alone at 16 = not understanding fully the concept of marriage and responsible committment.
But, neh, it's semantics. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Just want you to know that I have been reading the thread. I don't necessarily have anything to say, I'm just enjoying hearing differing POVs. Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
I think we all should bear in mind that we are all speaking from experience or our own opinions. Sorry kq, don't mean to pick on you, but you keep saying that it worked for you and your husband so why shouldn't it work for everybody else? Not everybody goes about love the same way just like we all have different learning styles....visual, audio, kinaesthetic...or a combination! lol.
I think that (lol, remember it is only my experience and opinion, I have no facts...) love is a decision. Yes, there is infatuation and while this is awesome I think there is some point at which you ask yourself whether you want to keep loving this person or move on.(For me the answer was yes and I love him now more than I ever have, even during the infatuation period. Lol, you never know, maybe I still am in the infatuation period 3 years on....)
And I also agree that it has become much much more socially acceptable to divorce now. And I don't think that it is a bad thing. After all it is a decision, and it is your decision to make, whether or not it was a bad choice or not.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
There are problems with any stats on "the younger generation" the most important of which being that they haven't had as much time to live out there resulting relationships and setting into whatever we would count as "it" for purposes of discussion.
Just because they are cohabitating now, does that mean they'll never marry?
If they are unmarried in larger percentages, does that mean they'll stay single?
If they are divorcing early in life, does that mean they won't end up in stable longer term relationships in the future?
We can't have the longitudinal data yet. Me...I'm betting on late life romance that lasts a long time.
We may end up with fewer couples hitting their golden wedding anniversaries, but so what? If we end up with people who are finally finding Mr. & Ms. Right and building something great from it, I'm willing to say that the trend is not destructive or somehow bad for society.
If what we're really concerned about is the environment that children are raised in, we should probably concentrate on the divorce rate among families with children and look at the age groups of the parents and the ages of the children too.
But I suspect we're going to find that the data are sparse and unreliable.
It'd also be important to see how the kids turn out before we just blanket say that every divorce is bad. Growing up in an abusive household is no picnic either. If home is a hell you escape from each day when the bus comes, the "damage" caused by a divorce might be a welcome change.
What I'm really worked up about is whether kids are being raised well. If that's tougher in a single-parent household, then I hope for kids to have more than one parent, and/or for parents to not be going it alone (i.e., have SOME sort of support network of family and friends if not a spouse in the picture). But I don't think we can just say "this is best and every kid should be raised this way." Once you know that dad's an alcoholic who beats his kids, or mom is doing crack (or whatever) then the situation changes drastically.
And if we aren't looking at every situation individually, there's not much to say. Sure...two parents are best, unless one or both parents are unfit.
And the real question isn't so much who is committed to marriage, but who is committed to raising kids to be responsible adults. Do that, and we don't have a lot of problems.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Sorry kq, don't mean to pick on you, but you keep saying that it worked for you and your husband so why shouldn't it work for everybody else?
When did I say that? I said that not everyone has to spend time together to fall in love.
quid and I then digressed into a friendly discussion about our marriages.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:
quote: quote:At each step we learned more about each other, and because we were (IMO) reasonably decent people, our first inclination wasn't to bail on each other when a problem arose; it was to try and work through it, and covered a host of issues; religious, sexual, and just plain behavioral.
My husband and I have done this while married. What's wrong with marrying first, then working out the issues?
quote:
quote: quote:From my experience, there may be certain things that need to be worked out in an environment of less commitment, though no less responsibility.
I disagree. You're not the only one who has had similar issues, and there are people who work it out within the bounds of a marriage.
quote:
quote: quote:Ketchupqueen, while I'm stoked that this worked out for you, again: do you honestly feel that this is how most relationships work?
It works because we make it work. Just like it works for Bok because they make it work. I think most marriages CAN work if 1) considered carefully beforehand (like Katie said, choose who you date carefully so you'll fall in love with the right person) and 2) undertaken with the right attitude and principles. In fact, how is a marriage going to really work if you don't?
KQ, although you never said “it worked for me and my husband so why shouldn't it work for everybody else?” , in my opinion it seemed as though you felt that what you and your husband have done should work for everybody, I particularly gained this train of thought from this quote “My husband and I have done this while married. What's wrong with marrying first, then working out the issues?” The answer to that question is of course there is nothing wrong with getting married first and then working out the issues. But this isn’t how everybody works. It also depends on the type of issues. I’m sorry if I offended you but that’s just how I interpreted your posts.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
There was an asymmetry about marriage and divorces. I think that while it became more socially accepted to divorce, expectations concerning getting married haven't change as quickly.
It's hard to speak in such a broad scope about the issue because the default group when we talk like this is middle-class WASPs, and I think that different cultural groups take to marriage and divorce with different expectations and priorities.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
When it comes to divorce, certainly I recognize that there are times when divorce is the best solution. But I simply can't believe that all or even most of the divorces out there are for "the best". I guess I believe too much in lasting monogamy to believe that 1 out of every 2 marriages is *doomed*! So I wonder, why? What is happening? And I think of the children born into those situations. There are so many children who's families are ripped apart, and it hurts them so much.
I just wonder, what can we be doing as a society to help make things better? And how can we answer that question unless we understand better why divorce is happening in the first place? And it isn't *just* about divorce, obviously--it's about how strong marriages are to begin with. Divorce is just a symptom of the disease.
I just think that it is horrible to ruin the unity of a family over such silly things as "falling out of love" with a spouse or "falling in love" with someone else. These things can be avoided and overcome when people are truly committed to marriage. It is this sort of behavior, the "grass is greener" mentality that threatens families most.
I do feel, deeply so, that our society is too focused on "ME" and "what I want" and not enough on sacrificing for things that matter most. Media glorifies new love and blazing passion. Stable relationships are boring, so they are not portrayed. Those who are raised on the media grow up with a skewed image of how love is supposed to be. It is as though if their relationship doesn't have that "New Love" feel, there is something wrong with it, and almost unconsciously they start looking for something fresh and exciting.
Of course the unmarried people posting here are going to say that they intend to be married forever and never divorce. Does anyone start out a marriage secretly planning to end it? But the stats are against us. What does it mean? How can we avoid it? For surely we can, right? Unless we find that the person we married was secretly a "monster" unbeknownst to us. It happens.
I understand a lot of the divorces that have happened to people here on Hatrack happened because the other spouse wasn't willing to work for it, they weren't committed to the marriage. And, of coures, that is part of my point. What would have happened if the other party had been passionately committed to making the marriage work?
Yes, there are always going to be divorces for good reason--especially in cases of abuse, one or more of the partners being too "ill" for a stable family to be possible. But I just *can't* believe that the majority of divorces are for those reasons. So I tend to be concerned about a general lack of committment to marriage in society--especially when children are involved.
So, yeah. I'm totally biased. It colors everything in how I view this issue. But mentally, I know it is more complex than that. I know that even if the things I mentioned before are the root of the problem, they can lead to making people more and more "ill" over time, to the point where they just don't know how to function together and they end up hurting everyone around them because they are so miserable.
I dunno. I have far too little actual experience to understand all the different sorts of reasons divorces happen. For most of us, the only info we have is anecdotal--and it varies widely. I just wish with all my heart that there were less children who had to deal with torn families--whatever the reason. I don't think any of us can deny the hurt and damage caused by widespread divorce *and* unhappy marriages.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
stacey: I never said that's how it works for everyone. And I think it's unreasonable for you to jump on me for relating what happens in my marriage when I was responding to another account of one marriage. If you're going to refute one set of anecdotes based on personal experience, you should refute them all-- and this thread is full of them.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
*Post deleted for personal reasons*
Sorry folks, please continue with your discussions, I think I'll stay out of them and these forums for while.
[ September 06, 2005, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Rico ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I would never settle for anything because I always thought "Yes, I have this much but maybe I could have more",
This reminds me of Dave Barry's "theory" about men and commitment. He said something to the effect that men are afraid to commit to a relationship because out there somewhere there *might* be a hot tub full of super models, and he's not going to be able to participate. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
bev, you might be interested in this. It’s a company founded by a professor at the University of Minnesota who was doing work on identifying factors that strengthen marriages vs. factors that lead to divorce. He developed several questionnaires for use in his research projects that he later made available to counselors and clergy for use in premarital counseling. If you click on “research” on the top menu bar there are links to several studies and articles about studies on marital satisfaction, divorce, and related issues.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks for the link! Dana, that PREPARE questionaire sounds like such a wonderful idea. I wish more people knew about it. I think it is cool that some religious organizations require couples to take it before allowing them to marry. Kinda like a blood test.
I thought this statement by Dr. Bartusis was interesting:
quote:One of the big problems among couples is they’re afraid to ask each other questions. They want the relationship so badly, they don’t want to find anything negative that suggests it may not work out. They find this person who has some of the qualities they’re looking for and fantasize the rest. After they get married…surprise!
This is the sort of "blindness" that love causes, and one of the reasons why I tend to side towards rivka's POV. I'm sure there are people out there who are so level-headed they can think straight even when they are head-over-heels, but I certainly ain't one of them. I've learned *not* to trust my judgement when I'm twitterpated.
But since most of us really do intend to marry someone we are passionately in love with, we need to be extra-careful about compatability issues.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
I deleted my previous post, I hope it doesn't detract from the flow of the thread guys.
Sorry Beverly, I'm afraid the line you quoted now only exists in your post
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
!! I thought you were like, older than me, at least! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But you can bet I try to be as rational as possible, raging hormones or not.![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Sadly, I'm not nearly that subtle.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
) Plus there was the Temple prep class I had to do, and reserving a sealing room, and me finishing the semester at my job, and...![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
(At least, as much as they could be pleased. And they were not pleased anyway. Whatever.)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)