
To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line - ALee
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/style/modern-love-to-stay-in-love-sign-on-the-dotted-line-36-questions.html
======
simonsarris
> We were together for almost a decade, and in that time I somehow lost track
> of my own habits and preferences. If I wanted to split the grocery bill, he
> suggested I buy only things we both liked. If I wanted to spend weekends
> together, I could go skiing with him and his friends. And so I did. I made
> my life look like his.

> It wasn’t until I moved out that I began to see that there hadn’t been room
> for me in my relationship. And not merely because my ex hadn’t offered it —
> it had never occurred to me to ask.

This happened to an ex of mine.

I think the success of her next relationship was not the contract _per se_ ,
but internalizing this epiphany. The contract is her specific implementation
of how to deal with it, but the important thing for everyone, I think, is the
quoted portion above.

I would not be so quick to scoff at the writing part either. For a lot of
people I know (many of them journal-keepers), physically writing something out
is the most meaningful part of completing and internalizing a thought.

~~~
iagreeentirely
I've long felt that those of us with odd relationship needs had a leg-up here.
The fact that the sort of things I find sexually fulfilling aren't what you
should spring on someone mid-coitus has made necessary my whole adult life a
level of candidness that I don't see in the romantic relationships of my
friends.

The fact that I need to have those conversations early makes a lot of other
conversations very easy to have; any relationship I'm in started with one of
those discussions going well.

------
rayiner
I'm surprised there is so much resistance to this idea on this site of all
places. The fact is that in real life (unlike in TV and movies) few people
have the emotional intelligence to divine their partner's wants and needs from
subtle cues. It may be somewhat unromantic (what does that even mean?) to sit
down and write things out, but explicit communication about expectations,
boundaries, and priorities can make a relationship function much more
smoothly.

~~~
danbolt
We should rewrite the article with the same core ideas, but make it about
communicating in a tech workplace and see how people respond to it.

~~~
psyc
Or let it be about relationships, but implemented with Ethereum.

------
enthalpyx
Better title: "To stay in love, communicate honestly and openly" | these guys
just happened to find a way to do that in writing

~~~
nf05papsjfVbc
"Trust" also happens to be the foundation for a good relationship.

~~~
taneq
It took me nearly 10 years to understand the line "I believe that trust is
more important than monogamy" in that old Savage Garden song. It took an ex
who was (I think) physically faithful (at that point) while completely
dismantling my faith in humanity to figure that one out.

~~~
throwanem
I can second this. Infidelity was pretty much the last thing that happened,
and by then I was already done.

~~~
Mz
Infidelity grows out of a shitty relationship, not the other way around.

~~~
throwanem
Exactly.

------
monksy
I believe that this is a concerning side effect of the increasing inability
for people to communicate and to trust others.

A contract is just to re-enforce an insecurity on both parties in a
relationship. I'm all for discussing things even in that great detail to avoid
conflict before hand. But a contract seems excessive and will probably be
thrown away anyways.

[Soapbox] I'm convinced that most people are completely disconnected to
others, and lack the skills to meet new people, handle rejection, and come
down from overly high expectations. Just seems like narcissism and the lack of
flexibility.

~~~
rayiner
People weren't able to better intuit the private minds of others back in the
day. Instead, what's changed is that expectations used to be externally
(socially, legally) imposed in the past, and now they are not. What was the
expectation regarding marriage? You were going to get married before you had
sex. What was the expectation regarding kids? You were going to have kids soon
after you got married. What was the expectation regarding monogamy (see the
author's point)? Not being monogamous was not an option. What should you do
with your extra time/money? You didn't have any so it was a moot point. All
that is up for negotiation now. The contract just makes that explicit instead
of pretending that all those points of agreement can be achieved without
formal discussion.

~~~
monksy
That's one of the great things about traditional gender roles. It's well
defined about what's expected of you in the relationship and addressing the
other person's needs becomes easier. (Rather than mixing the two and
neglecting based only on what you don't want to do.. which is going on today)

~~~
tptacek
Careful. There aren't a lot of longstanding systemic injustices you can't
defend with the argument "at least everyone knew what was expected of them."

Women choosing to function in their "traditional" marital roles isn't
inherently unjust, but women being in any way pressured to give up self-
actualization (through career, personal freedom, &c) in the service of those
"traditional" roles sure is.

~~~
monksy
I'm in no way defending anything who requires people to accept particular
roles. Have respect for all roles. (Right now the traditional roles, and the
people who choose them, are being aggressively being bashed)

My point is that traditional gender roles solved a lot of problems and
attempting to just cherry pick what you want (just because you want that) or
to expect different behavior has lead to many bad/toxic relationships (which
affects others and creates even more of a barrier to a relationship) and
sociality issues. (If you'll allow for me to stretch it that far)

I'm of the opinion that if you want to change something, you should be very
sure that it is a good change. Previously these kinds of changes took forever
as that adoption is slow, but it prevents massive breaking changes.

~~~
tptacek
The change that occurred was a reduction in pressure and coercion for women to
accept "traditional" roles. I think we can be confident that reducing that
pressure is a positive step.

------
goseeastarwar
The author is happier in this new relationship and it has absolutely nothing
to do with the contract. Her last boyfriend didn't respect her, and the new
one does. The end.

------
pmarreck
Intimidated by divorce statistics (a $50 billion industry in the US alone,
30-50% chance, etc.) and by a spate of divorces among my friends whose
weddings I attended, Stephanie and I decided to do a domestic partnership. So
far so good.

~~~
zzalpha
_Intimidated by divorce statistics (a $50 billion industry in the US alone,
30-50% chance, etc.)_

FYI: Those statistics are incredibly misleading and/or inaccurate.

Do you know what the divorce rate is for 35-44 (and 45-54) year old college
graduates? Somewhere around 10%:

[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marriage-isnt-dead-
yet/](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marriage-isnt-dead-yet/)

~~~
pmarreck
Double that probability if you are ever diagnosed with ADHD. (I was.)

You're right, though; there are a LOT of positive and negative correlations
you can find on this stuff if you do your homework (which I did). Caucasians
seem to have more stable marriages than non-caucasians, for example. And
marrying later boosts the probability of success by quite a bit.

Also, by the time you reach 45 years of age, you're no longer a spring chicken
and aren't really incentivized to leave the marriage, anyway.

But you're wrong about the stats being inaccurate (perhaps not about them
being "misleading"): I did my homework here, and overall it seems to be
somewhere between 30-50% chance of dissolution in the first 25 years of
marriage, depending on how you tweak the input variables. And that stat gets
worse and worse on every Nth marriage after the first... which is exactly why
many people whose first marriages don't work out ever get married again.

For what it's worth (and this is all anecdotal evidence), 100% of the numerous
divorces I've seen in my circle were by college-educated people.

~~~
antisthenes
> Double that probability if you are ever diagnosed with ADHD. (I was.)

What's the story behind this?

~~~
pmarreck
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/may-i-have-your-
attenti...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/may-i-have-your-
attention/201309/adhd-doesnt-cause-divorce-denial-does)

"The impact of adult ADHD on marriages can be terrible for couples with one or
more partners with ADHD. Research suggests that the marital “maladjustment”
rate may be close to 60%. Statistics on the divorce rate for those with ADHD
vary, seemingly depending upon the age of the respondents in the study.
Studies with younger respondents don’t show statistical differences in divorce
rates, while studies with older respondents show an almost doubled rate of
divorce." (I almost definitely fall under the "older" category.)

I told you guys, I did my homework here.

------
Jimmy
>We spent weeks anxiously enumerating the pros and cons of cohabitation.

The older I get, the more I come around to the conclusion that thought is bad.

~~~
devuo
Which part of it is bad, thinking about cohabitation, or cohabitation itself?

~~~
Jimmy
Oh, now I see how my sentence was ambiguous.

The "anxiously enumerating pros and cons part" is bad. Cohabitation is fine.

~~~
creepydata
Why is that?

------
kibwen
One may not necessarily need to go as far as signing a physical contract
(which I'm sure many will find aromantic), but the sentiment is absolutely
true. Everyone has different expectations of what they want out of a
relationship, all guaranteed to deviate more-or-less from the stereotypical
date-cohabitate-marriage-kids script, and being open and honest about your
expectations before embarking on a long-term relationship is the best way to
avoid heartache. And this is scary! It takes a certain level of emotional
maturity and courage to sit down with someone you may have only recently met
and have this sort of conversation, but even if you mutually decide that your
long-term interests aren't compatible that doesn't mean that you can't
continue having a casual relationship (or even "just" a friendship).

------
zzalpha
You know, I went into this article skeptical, but I'm now a believer if it
works for this couple.

Solid relationships are built on communication that enables conscious
compromises and deliberate decisions to accommodate one another while ensuring
one's own needs are met.

For this couple, putting those needs, compromises, and decisions in writing is
what facilitates that communication. Pretty brilliant idea if you ask me!

That said: Speaking for myself, going into marriage I thought "How will this
change anything?" But, for me, it changed a _lot_. It's not about the legal
commitment... that's just a technicality. Rather, it's the conscious decision
to truly commit before friends and family that changed the way I thought and
felt about my wife... it's hard to put into words, but at least for me, it was
absolutely different.

------
creepydata
I don't get it.

The title of the article is "To Stay in Love, Sign on the Dotted Line," but
there's absolutely nothing in it that supports the title. All it is is about
an unmarried woman whose been in a relationship for only 3 years saying a
scheduled conversations and paper an pen (or keyboard in this case) helps her
have relationship communication.

The title should really be "communication is helpful for my new relationship."

It's misguided at best to conclude every couple should create this sort of
formal contract. Every couple communicates differently.

~~~
gnicholas
Precisely. I kept waiting for a paragraph beginning: "and now, ten years into
our marriage..."

But it never came, since this couple isn't married and hasn't even been dating
that long. Clickbait titles like this are common on the internet, but I expect
better from the New York Times. This article is bereft of anything remotely
newsworthy. Perhaps their new slogan should be "All the news that's fit to
print, plus some vapid millennial musings".

~~~
creepydata
I actually wouldn't mind it if it was an op-ed with a title such as "how I
learned effective relationship communication." But with that title I am
expecting something of substance.

Also saying they were drinking beers while doing it has the implication that
they needed alcohol to be able to have such important conversations. Not
saying that's the case, I'm saying it gives the impression.

------
acjohnson55
If it works for them, more power to them! And as they say, there's someone out
there for everyone.

I personally react poorly to the idea that I--along with my relationships--am
this computer that must be programmed by my intellectual self. I connect this
with the overall trend of lifehacking.

That said, I still learn from people who take such an explicit approach, and
just try to find more organic ways to apply some of these things to my own
life. It lets me feel like I'm striking the right balance of spontaneity and
intention.

~~~
louithethrid
>There's someone out there for everyone.

Sorry, wrong.

------
danieljohnson
I wish that I had done this in my previous relationship. We were young, and we
talked a lot, but I didn't realize what was really important to her
(travelling, saving money). So when we'd talk about goals, I'd never realize
how much things meant to her. A contract may have helped us define our goals,
and what we wanted, and make things a little easier for dense ol' me.

------
samirillian
I guess I wouldn't have a problem with drafting such a contract in concept,
but I think it would be nice to have some slightly sappier stuff mixed in with
it. Even with the touch about the dog, it comes off as super formal to me.
Like, their sole goal is to make each other more ethical? I mean that's the
definition of a platonic, not an erotic relationship. I have plenty of friends
who I already relate to in that way.

What about, even, a word like "nurturing"? Much less "spending time lost in
one another's eyes"?

Boundaries make a loving relationship _functional_ but they don't make a
relationship loving.

------
baybal2
Doesn't looks like a universal solution to me. It looks that this particular
solution works for them.

I know god knows how much families in my home country (Russia) who had no
problems living together to old age without having to do anything special. I
also know god knows how much dysfunctional families as well. I knew quite a
few oddbals too, a couple that were still lovey dovey and dating casually for
close to 12 years since their mid-teens. I knew a married couple that
everybody suspected to be "mutually-infidel," yet they had a really strong
bond.

It is all luck and compatibility/synergies of individual differences

------
non_sequitur
Can't wait until they have to litigate this one!

~~~
atemerev
It is probably unerforceable. It is a peer agreement, not a legally binding
contract, with opt-out provisions. Still, immensely useful.

------
_RPM
Sounds strange, and horrible. A relationship isn't a business.`

~~~
matthewmacleod
Sure, it's not. But what they've found is a way to communicate openly and
honestly; ultimately, if this approach helps to further that, then why's it
horrible?

------
toddan
This feels like something only a woman could put forward or demand in a
relationship based on their value in the dating market. A man would be in a
much higher risk of being left with the same arrangement.

~~~
kibwen
Man here. Before getting serious in my current relationship, I sat down with
my girlfriend and gently initiated a frank conversation about about what each
of us expect out of a relationship and what our short-term and long-term
priorities are, not just in terms of relationship goals, but also in terms of
general life goals to see whether or not a relationship would hinder or help
those goals. As someone who's experienced, not one, but two traumatic parental
divorces in my life, the last thing I want is to get ten years into a
relationship before discovering that our goals are incompatible. This isn't
anything exclusive to women.

------
dreamdu5t
Why is this allowed on HN? It's not tech, startups or anything in between.

Is there a website like HN that's actually focused/moderated and doesn't mix
Cosmo type clickbait with actual news?

~~~
rfrey
>Is there a website like HN that's actually focused/moderated and doesn't mix
Cosmo type clickbait with actual news?

There probably isn't one that will never, ever, ever include a link that
you're not interested in.

