
To Stay Married, Embrace Change - DiabloD3
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/style/modern-love-to-stay-married-embrace-change.html
======
gregfjohnson
Best advice I ever heard on getting ahead in life: Choose your parents wisely.
My advice on marriage is similar: Be stupidly lucky in choosing a life
partner. It worked for me! Last summer we celebrated our 35th anniversary.
Looking forward to the next 35. (You laugh! My uncle and aunt celebrated their
70th.)

Less flippantly: My parents divorced when I was 5 and my brother was 3. This
was the defining trauma for much of my young life. I vowed never to do that,
never to inflict that on children I might eventually have. When I married, it
was simply, absolutely for good. I would die rather than violate that oath.

My family urged me to do the standard thing they all did, of setting up a pre-
nuptial agreement and having the prospective spouse sign it. I never
considered that for a minute. I was not going to place that sort of fault line
in our understanding of our marriage at the beginning. We are active Catholics
(she from birth, me as an adult convert).

We laugh a lot, and enjoy each others' jokes, off-hand witticisms, and
spontaneous turns of phrase. I think it is fair to say that we each find the
other to be extremely interesting intellectually. We tell each other we love
each other frequently. We leave the kids behind and go on a cruise together
once per year.

My wife rather unsentimentally states that love is not a feeling, it is a
decision. I think it is worth it to consciously reflect on what will
communicate love to your partner in ways that they understand and find
meaningful. Then, do it. The doing can be more important than whatever
transitory feelings might or might lie behind it.

Relatively early in our marriage, I made a career choice that was an
unambiguous case of putting my career ahead of my marriage and family. The
consequences of that choice resonated for years in our marriage. That was the
biggest mistake I ever made, and I am grateful that our family managed to
survive it. I will never do something that selfish, thoughtless, and stupid
again. Things can get difficult, ugly, and painful for a time.

Expanding on the point above about dying rather than walking away: That
probably relates metaphorically to the NYTimes article shared by the OP. In my
experience, as you and your partner grow and change over a lifetime, you have
to let go of, and in effect die to the relationship you had. Over and over.
There is a cycle of death, relinquishment, and renewal that is inevitable in a
lifelong relationship.

Would you really want to spend time as a 60-year-old with a person whose best
years were their high school years, and who doggedly clings to that identity
for the rest of their adult life? Of course not.

You become co-authors of an amazing, surprising, unfolding story. Your and
your partner's identity co-evolve. To support and encourage another person's
growth inevitably involves letting go of who they used to be.

(BTW, please do not take anything I said above as condoning abusiveness in a
relationship. There are of course horrible and untenable relationships that
simply must be ended.)

~~~
RubenSandwich
Agreed. To speak to your cycle of death, relinquishment, and renewal pattern.
I have seen this too and often explain it as: "Good things eventually leave
and you have to work to make new good things, but they will always be
different than what was."

I have noticed this pattern in my marriage, friend groups and vocation. That
there are parts of the past that I cannot recreate or experience again but
rather than try to recreate them I should move forward and learn to enjoy and
improve what I currently have.

~~~
circlefavshape
Going through a downward phase of this cycle myself for the last year, and
have to point out that it can be very tough. In previous downward cycles
(we've been together 25 years, so this is far from the first time) I've found
that I almost have to forget the past to embrace the present. Having a good
memory is not always a blessing

~~~
RubenSandwich
Yeah, it's really hard to let go and not idealize the past.

I hope you and your SO can find some common ground in the present to built off
of.

------
abalashov
What I learned from two failed marriages is that above all else, you have to
pick spouses with whom you can even have the luxury of doing these things.
That requires finding someone of vaguely comparable social background and
education level.

For a lot of people, this sort of assortative mating happens naturally because
they draw on relatively healthy dating pools within their community—college
classmates, colleagues, church, etc. Others, however, fall through the cracks.
I feel that I did because I dropped out of university at age 20 and left the
world of W-2 employment at age 22. What peer group? Solipsistic professional
existence in a largely solipsistic and male-dominated profession. That's a
very isolating existence and full of wrong turns unless you make strong,
proactive efforts to stay in healthy social circles, which the average mid-20s
person isn't going to be scrupulously careful about doing. It's very easy to
start pulling dating partners from /dev/urandom, particularly amidst the
loneliness and angst that eventually catches up to you.

This way lies madness, especially if you try to parlay that into marriage.

The American national mythology teaches us to look at people in highly
individualised, democratic don't-judge-me ways, and leaves us blind to the
fact that not all people are destined to fruitfully communicate or relate. In
more traditional cultures, where social class boundaries are more explicit,
this messaging is explicitly woven into people's upbringing. For better or
worse, and despite the undeniable drawbacks of "traditional" social
strictures, there's a certain timeless wisdom in that. Americans, however,
commonly believe that any two people can build a bridge of understanding. In
reality, that requires a vaguely comparable level of cultural development and
intellectual sophistication. Otherwise, you're going to have to defend every
one of the values you hold dear, and you're going to feel like you're having
to explain them in crayon for three hours every time you do. And you're still
going to fail because you're just not going to see eye-to-eye.

So, from where I sit, this "embrace change" idea is rather high on the — if
you will — marital Maslow's Hierarchy. As a first step, make sure you've got
basic interpersonal communication and some rudimentary compatibility sorted.
For people who have been fortunate or made relatively conventional choices,
this may seem an odd preoccupation, but if you've been in a union where that's
lacking, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.

~~~
dominotw
>That requires finding someone of vaguely comparable social background and
education level.

Westerners are always shocked that even educated people get arranged marriages
in India. This is precisely why it works, all the groundwork is done for you.
You are raised with similar memes, your arranged partner has been programmed
into similar groves as you. Top that with a conformist culture where people
try to fit than stand out, chances of finding something truly surprising about
your partner are super rare. No amount of dating, living together can match
this.

I used to find arranged marriages disgusting and backwards but now I have come
full circle having looked at many of my close friends with successful
marriages ( there is also aspect of higher social stigma of divorce, but thats
another topic).

~~~
oblio
While it might seem true, arranged marriages seem to me kind of like adopting
children.

There's a million variables to consider when having your own children, when
you're adopting children you're adding many more. Sure, it could all work out
wonderfully, but you're just increasing the random factor. See the recent
movie "Lion" for examples of randomness, both good and bad.

What's wrong with having the same culture you mention, except for the fact
that people can marry freely? You'd have the same benefits but hopefully with
lower risk. If you want to work in the same cultural limits, just ask for
advice (from your family, friends, etc.) before marrying and try to follow
that advice.

~~~
abalashov
A lot of more traditional places work that way, e.g. Southern and Eastern
Europe.

Of course, the general problem is that you're asking 20s-something people in
the throes of hot, passionate romantic love and attraction (in cultures which
also celebrate romantic love!) to voluntarily submit to a plethora of mood-
killing "cultural limits". Boo!

But it's probably still better than the American approach of, "look ma, no
hands!" :-)

------
cylinder
I'm having trouble expressing this sentiment, but I feel the NYT has taken on
a patriarchal tone these days. I browse their mobile site every morning, and I
see very little news, with a lot of "do this" info-pop stuff, i.e., "To be
happy and live long, exercise," "to be a good person, do X." Usually they cite
a study somewhere with little scrutiny, and then write condescendingly. It's
kind of disturbing on some level, and the amount they do it is inappropriate
for the NYT imo. But I guess this is what readers want these days. With people
moving on from religion they are looking for​ someone else to preach a code to
them.

Maybe it's just the headlines that bother me. "to stay married, embrace
change." This is someone's advice, not a law of physics. A headline with more
integrity would be "Embracing change may help a marriage endure."

~~~
ice109
>patriarchal

what does this have to do with patriarchy?

~~~
droopyEyelids
Pretty sure the commentor is just switching words.

There is some word that kind of means to give unwanted advice, or to always be
assuming you know and can teach people stuff. It's not pedagogical, not
patriarchial, but something close. Im not even sure it starts with a "P". Not
kibbitzer.

~~~
droopyEyelids
I think "paternalistic" was the word that fit here.

------
pfarnsworth
Marriage at year 1 is nothing like marriage at year 5 is nothing like marriage
at year 15 is nothing like year 20, ad infinitum.

If you don't embrace the person your spouse is at this very moment, nothing
will help you stay together. After having kids, our lives are very different,
and we have become different people. I need to love my wife for who she is
now, not yearn for who she was 8 years ago, and vice versa.

------
carsongross
The author is recommending, in a round about way, a way of dealing with a sex-
asymmetric phenomena that was perfectly expressed in this image, from another
NY Times article on marriage[1]:

[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/29...](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/29botton/29botton-
master768.jpg)

It is amusing that, in both articles, the illustration tells more truth about
the situation than all the words following it.

[1] - [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/why-you-
wi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/why-you-will-marry-
the-wrong-person.html?_r=0)

~~~
zzalpha
Why are we to believe this is sex-assymetric? I'd be amazed if there weren't
as many married men who were resentful because their wives have changed,
whether that means becoming less thin, focused on career, children, less
interested in sex, etc.

~~~
carsongross
Women file for divorce twice as often as men:

[http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/documents/pr...](http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/documents/press/pdfs/AM_2015_Rosenfeld_News_Release_FINAL.pdf)

It is not popular to discuss sex differences in marriage behaviors (as my
burnt karma indicates) but they exist.

~~~
zzalpha
Literally right from the paper:

 _Women are more likely than men to initiate divorces, but women and men are
just as likely to end non-marital relationships, according to a new study that
will be presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological
Association (ASA)._

And later:

 _Social scientists have previously argued that women initiate most divorces
because they are more sensitive to relationship difficulties. Rosenfeld argues
that were this true, women would initiate the breakup of both marriages and
non-marital relationships at equal rate_

The paper goes on to theorize that the assymetry may be because the
institution of marriage (and the social expectations surrounding it) has not
caught up with expectations of gender equality, leading women to feel
oppressed.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with what this article is about, and
certainly does not support the claimed sex-assymetry of marital
dissatisfaction due to spousal changes that you claim (without evidence)
exists.

~~~
ardit33
You can have different interpretation of the data.

COST of a normal break up vs cost of a divorce.

There is a huge difference of financial outcomes of a break up between a 7
month relationship and a 7 year marriage.

For the 7 months relationship the couple moves on, and no financial re-
arrangements happens. For the marriage, there is a much higher chance that the
woman: 1) takes custody of the children (if the couple has them) 2) is
recipient of child support 3) is recipient of alimony payments

You can say that a "divorce" is much more costly to men and hence they are
more likeley to stick it out a relationship or try to make it work, but there
is less cost to women (financially at least), hence they are more likely to
initiate it.

Given the current marriage laws are a remnant of the 50s and 60s lifestyle (of
women staying home, and needing financial protection in case of divorce), you
can argue that the current law framework in the US encourages the initiation
of the divorce from women, and discourages that from men.

Since no divorce costs are involved in a normal 7 months long relationship,
you see men initiating breakups just as much as women.

TLDR: Current divorce laws favors women by a long shot, hence they are more
likely to initiate it.

~~~
zzalpha
_You can have different interpretation of the data.

COST of a normal break up vs cost of a divorce._

As I said in my other post, I could considered that. But the study diminishes
the likelihood of that interpretation.

Married men initiate divorce less _and_ report higher relationship
satisfaction than women, while unmarried men and women report the same levels
of relationship satisfaction.

If men initiated divorce less simply because of the cost of divorce, that data
does not make sense. You'd expect the same or lower satisfaction than women,
but that's not borne out in the data.

~~~
sheepmullet
> You'd expect the same or lower satisfaction than women, but that's not borne
> out in the data.

Why would you expect that? Having options often decreases satisfaction.

If you have a good job that has a few frustrating downsides which situation
would make you more satisfied?

A) You know all the alternative jobs are a lot worse. Better to try and
improve the few frustrating bits.

B) You are constantly informed about other great job alternatives. And you
know you get to keep a lot of the benefits of the first job if you do change.

Most often people in situation A will be more satisfied.

~~~
zzalpha
Err, yours is an argument for men and women both having lower relationship
satisfaction in marriage as compared to unmarried couples.

But you argument doesn't explain why married men and women have _different_
levels, and definitely doesn't explain why men report _higher_ levels than
women.

~~~
sheepmullet
Sorry I have re-worded my comment a bit. Does it make sense now?

~~~
zzalpha
So your argument is that because women can get out of a marriage easier due to
lower cost, they will report lower satisfaction due to a grass-is-greener
effect.

Interesting! Sounds like a theory worth exploring, definitely.

~~~
sheepmullet
Exactly! It happens all the time in the workplace.

I can't see any good reason why it wouldn't apply to relationships as well.

------
RichardHeart
One should not set a tactic as a goal. Marriage is buy a way to amplify
enjoyment in life. Some marriages are wonderful, some are deadly. To be clear
in ones objectives is to hit the mark much easier. Many the married person
would be better off finding a new person to enjoy marriage with, than fight
desperately to not be in something new.

Thus it's not the staying in a situation that's important, that's but a means
to an end.

That being said, flexibility is nice, and if you have more paths to happiness
and less paths to sorrow, you are likely to be happier. Don't sweat the small
stuff, and it's all small stuff the saying goes.

------
lawrencewu
Easy to say, hard to do. We don't like change. Change means possible danger,
it means relinquishing opportunities, it means no safety net.

Part of the happiness that comes from a new relationship comes from not just
discovering new things about each other (or NRE, or the Coolidge effect) but
from the (misplaced) belief that things will go on this way forever. Embracing
change means sacrificing that pleasure, which you might be able to do if you
possess foresight/discipline, but it is hard and not obvious, especially when
you have an of love that's foolish, us-against-the-world that reinforces that
mentality.

~~~
GotAnyMegadeth
NRE - New Relationship Energy (?)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_relationship_energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_relationship_energy)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolidge_effect)

~~~
lawrencewu
Yup!

------
Gustomaximus
I read about a British maths expert that wrote some formula that would
accurately predict if couples would stay together. His key variable was
working out if people have a willingness to compromise.

~~~
abalashov
I've been through two failed marriages and my conclusion has been that this
fixation with "compromise" is woefully misguided and constitutes an
antipattern, although, for all I know, that's why I've been through two failed
marriages. :-)

Still, on a theoretical level, the religion that's been made of compromise in
therapeutic settings is a pet peeve of mine.

The first problem is that compromise is viewed by most laypeople as "splitting
the difference" or "meeting in the middle". That may work for a lot of
property and financial disputes, and maybe even business disputes in general,
but it doesn't always work in life and relationships, though I don't deny that
many things can indeed be compromised. But sometimes an equitable settlement
is one where I get 90% and you get 10%, commensurate with the hand the parties
are playing and the amount of leverage they have. Although most businesspeople
experienced in negotiation know this instinctively, they don't seem to teach
it in how-to-be-a-better-spouse school.

Besides that:

1) Compromise encourages parties to take extreme and unreasonable positions
with the expectation of being "bargained down" to more or less what they
really want. This contributes to "position inflation".

2) It may be that, as a practical matter, compromise is the worst possible
option, far worse than either of the starting positions. This happens a lot in
relationships.

Most damningly, in my view:

3) The pressure to move toward the middle creates an artificially level
playing field where it may not exist. It does not weigh whether one side's
position is a lot more reasonable, fair and thoughtful than the other. Aside
from the unfair aspect of this ipso facto, it also encourages position
inflation.

Some disputes lend themselves to splitting down the middle. Others have
nonlinear/discontinuous qualities where "some" is not better than "none".
TL;DR sometimes one party's position sucks a lot more than the other's, and
the aim to compromise only furthers the negative consequences of this
iniquity.

~~~
unit91
I almost never compromise with my wife, and we're very happy. That seems
shocking, I know, but here's why:

Compromise is born from an adversarial starting position. But my wife isn't my
adversary. I love her, and I would die for (and nearly have), and so I (try
to) give of myself freely and completely. If both people _really_ care about
each other more than themselves, happiness follows easily and​ naturally. The
real questions are (1) what do I need to do to learn to love my spouse more
than I love myself? and (2) where do I find a person who will reciprocate that
kind of love? Experientially, I've found the answer to both questions is to
have a deep commitment to God, who teaches and models this behavior to us.

~~~
yetihehe
I am an atheist and want to commit myself to my spouse (which believes in God,
goes to church, etc.), but it currently looks like she doesn't really want to
reciprocate. So I don't believe you that commitment to God is an answer.

~~~
croon
I'm raised Christian from both parents, and my wife who wasn't has gone more
of a Dawkins atheist route.

I would best describe us as soft agnostic and hard agnostic.

I think the key is accepting that none of us know what the fuck is going on in
an unobservable space.

We'll raise our child(ren) by letting them develop their own world model,
rigid where provable, soft where not. Always retesting.

I want to believe David Lynch made Blue Velvet on purpose as opposed to the
ramblings of a mad man, even though no one can prove that to me. That is a
soft belief, just like faith in "something" (should be).

We are happily accepting of each other. If we instead would've had
fundamentally different views on what facts and beliefs are, that would have
been a problem.

------
obstinate
Personally, I don't think it's a terrible thing that marriages end. If we all
lived to be a thousand years, but our psychology and perception of time
remained otherwise unchanged, I doubt many would make it the whole way from 30
to 999 with the same partner. I daresay that it would be rather unusual for
anyone to do.

That said, for those who wish to see their marriages last, compromise and
change tolerance seem quite necessary.

~~~
xupybd
You haven't felt the pain of a relationship ending? You don't see the value
committed and deep long term relationship? The kind only possible if both
parties commit to sticking with each other through thick and thin?

~~~
Arizhel
No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all. People change, and
relationships come and go. Embracing change (as this article recommends) means
not holding onto relationships after they've gone stale.

~~~
imron
> No, because it's just a silly romantic fantasy, that's all.

It's actually more than that.

Failed marriages are more likely to lead to negative outcomes in life, with
single-parent households more likely to be in poverty, children more likely to
abused by non-biological step-parents or partners, and children of failed
marriages also more likely to get involved in criminal behaviour (both as a
juvenile and an adult).

Which is not to say that _all_ failed marriages lead to those problems, or
that stable marriages don't, just that there is a greater likelihood of it
happening, and when applied to society as a whole the effect is noticeable,
and therefore there is a benefit to society in promoting stable, healthy,
long-term relationships.

~~~
kelnos
I suspect the negative outcomes aren't because "failed marriages are bad",
it's because we have stigmatized them to the point that support networks for
divorced people in these situations are very poor and lead to negative
outcomes.

There's plenty of evidence to show that children raised by married parents who
stay together "just for the kids" have a bunch of their own problems because
of that. Maybe those problems are less bad, but I'd still suggest that's the
case merely because that's the more "socially accepted" thing to do.

I think promoting stable, healthy, long-term relationships is fine, but
stigmatizing those who "fail" at that for whatever reason is the root cause of
the negative consequences you describe.

~~~
imron
For sure the same problems exist in more traditional marriages too (and I made
sure to explicitly mention this in my post), it's just that the likelihood of
those things increases for marriages that end in divorce.

Individually, there are plenty of separated families that are successful and
happy, and plenty of long-term marriages that are miserable and awful for the
people involved. When applied to society as a whole though, on average, long-
term, stable marriages have better life outcomes for the people involved than
ones that ended in divorce.

I don't think it's necessarily a result of stigmatization either, rather it's
that life is just objectively more difficult for a larger percentage of
divorced families, and in order to be able to make a living, compromises have
to be made.

For example, take a married housewife, who suddenly finds herself divorced,
and is now a single mum needing to work to survive because maybe alimony and
child-support aren't enough (or the dad is a deadbeat and doesn't pay as much
as he should).

Years out of the workforce (and maybe also sacrificing education and/or career
development for her children) limit the jobs available and alimony/child
support might not be enough to make up the difference.

So maybe she has to work multiple jobs, or is working at odd hours and so the
children become latchkey kids, with little/no adult supervision and guidance
when they come home.

It not stigmatization that causes the problem, it's just an objectively more
difficult situation than if the marriage had been stable and healthy, and
although latchkey kids is not a phenomenon limited to single-parent families,
it is more likely to occur in single-parent families because circumstances are
more likely to require it.

Likewise for things like sexual abuse. The chance of it happening increases
significantly with non-biological parents or partners. Again that's not
anything to do with stigmatization, rather that if a divorce occurs, then when
the parents get involved with new partners it increases that risk. It happens
too with biological parents, but just at a lesser rate.

~~~
kelnos
Looking at your example, I see that more a problem of our general social
organization than as a problem with divorce. In some cultures, extended
families are close-knit. Cousins, aunts, uncles, and parents all help with
taking care of and raising children. The Western concept of the nuclear family
vs. extended family just doesn't really exist, or is at least minimized.
Divorce there doesn't really affect the divorcee's livelihood, or that of any
children.

I'm not saying that's an ideal structure, just that it's a possible structure.
The idea that Western nuclear family structure is the be-all end-all is a
little silly, though. It's very fragile in exactly the ways you describe.

The point I'm trying to make is that divorce is hard on people in large part
because we as a society have decided that divorce should be hard on people. It
doesn't have to be; we've just set up our family and community structures and
support systems in such a way that divorced people (especially divorced people
with children) will often have a harder life.

------
unit91
"Embrace change" may be a great idea, but I don't think it gets to the heart
of the issue. I think the key to staying married is having two people who are
committed to staying married. From that, other things follow: embracing
change, learning to be a better spouse, etc.

I've only been married for 12 years, but I can absolutely say that my wife and
I have always been very happy and willing to be accommodating, precisely
because we're committed to lifelong marriage for religious reasons. I've met a
lot of people who think that sounds like a prison sentence, but for me it's
been bliss.

~~~
zzalpha
Well, the other key is so obvious: be _nice_ to each other.

The couples I see that fall apart complain about each other behind each
other's backs to their friends. They're snarky, disrespectful, when they fight
they fight dirty. When they get resentful they retaliate instead of talking.

Just. Be decent. _Like_ each other.

It's not _that_ hard if you can work on not being selfish, self-centered, or
self-righteous.

~~~
intrasight
Actually, it can be VERY hard.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
If it's hard to like someone, you probably shouldn't get married to them.
Spending years of your life with someone who grates on you is worse than being
single.

~~~
dugditches
Sometimes you don't truly know someone until you marry them.

Or rather hardtimes(financial, illness, children, etc) can change the person
you once 'liked' into someone you may not.

~~~
zzalpha
I dunno... there's still a line one crosses when you stop treating you spouse
as a person and start treating them as an adversary.

The things I've heard people say about, or worse, to their spouses sometimes
stretches my definition of basic human decency.

Regardless of how someone changes, every person deserves basic respect. Even
little things like complaining about bad habits behind a person's back fosters
resentment borne of disrespect, resentment that can grow and fester. Resisting
that urge and instead treating ones partner with dignity is a critical skill
many couples lack.

~~~
kelnos
I don't think anyone's arguing against what you're saying. It's just that you
may like someone, and then at some point down the road, you or they change in
a way that causes you to stop liking them. It's unfortunate, certainly, but it
happens. Sometimes it's reversible, sometimes not.

The stigma against divorce (made worse when driven by religious edict) is
often why things turn into the bad state of affairs you describe: spouses
treating each other as adversaries, speaking about them negatively behind each
other's backs, etc. If you get to the point where you don't like your spouse
anymore, just get a divorce. No, that's not a decision that should be made
lightly, but unless you have a really good reason to stay in a relationship
that makes both parties unhappy, it's crazy to stay together.

~~~
sheepmullet
> The stigma against divorce (made worse when driven by religious edict) is
> often why things turn into the bad state of affairs you describe: spouses
> treating each other as adversaries, speaking about them negatively behind
> each other's backs, etc.

I doubt the stigma of divorce has any such impact. Plenty of second marriages
contain hatred, anger, resentment, etc

~~~
kelnos
I doubt it's the only impact, but dismissing it as not having any impact seems
incorrect.

~~~
sheepmullet
What's the rationale that is has an impact?

Was there significantly more abuse etc when divorce was more heavily
stigmatised?

------
zdean
I wonder if by the time we find "The Ultimate Secret to Staying Married" we'll
have already learned that marriage doesn't have to be the final goal of a
relationship after all.

------
theprop
"Each goes from rock climber to couch potato, from rebel to middle manager,
and from sex crazed to sleep obsessed."

Please married folk please tell me this ain't the case...

~~~
Arizhel
Yes, it's really the case. Not for everyone; see the guy who replied bragging
about all the physical stuff he's learned to do. However, the odds of _both_
partners in a marriage not turning into fat couch potatoes is very small.
(This happened to me: I was married, I'm like that other 40yo guy and do lots
of physical stuff, my ex got fat, we got divorced.)

Be very, very, very careful who you marry, and if you're not planning on
having kids, think very hard about whether you need to even bother getting
married at all. It's usually not a good deal, and instead will cost you more
with the IRS if you're both working and have similar incomes. IMO, the entire
institution is obsolete and should be abolished.

~~~
kelnos
I'm disappointed you're getting downvoted, because you make some very good
points (though I'd understand that some people might think you were doing so
in an inflammatory way; I choose to read it more charitably).

People change, certainly. Some change is palatable, some is not. If you're an
active person and plan to be that way until the day you die, and enjoyed being
active with your partner... if your partner stops being active, that can be a
genuine problem if that aspect is important to you and the relationship. It
may not even really be the physical acts around "being active", it could be
the fundamental traits and attributes of the person that make them want to or
not want to be that way, and I could see those differences ending up being
irreconcilable.

~~~
Arizhel
It wasn't just the activeness that drove us apart; she turned into a raging
right-winger.

The way I see it, people are going to change no matter what, so this idea that
people need to "stick together" until they die is not only obsolete, but just
plain wrong. Regular friends usually aren't life-long either, as interests
change, people move, etc., so why do we expect romantic relationships to be
permanent? It's crazy.

------
dnprock
If this is true, then software engineers would stay married longer. And there
are supporting stats.

[http://www.electronicproducts.com/Education/Career/Do_engine...](http://www.electronicproducts.com/Education/Career/Do_engineers_make_excellent_spouses_Divorce_rates_by_engineering_specialty.aspx?id=3162)

It's interesting to note that the previous study didn't look at ability to
cope with change.

~~~
ajuc
> If this is true, then software engineers would stay married longer

Why? Are software engineers more adaptable?

~~~
geodel
Perhaps dealing with changing requirements.

------
intrasight
To stay ANYTHING, embrace change.

