Advice : Wedding, Marriage, Engagement, Anniversary

Marriage may be difficult, but divorce is difficult too. Married people often feel trapped, for divorce is frightening, painful, expensive, and subject to social disapproval, and it is one of the few important institutions in our culture for which there is no formal ritual. Birth, marriage, death, all have formal cultural rituals associated with them-divorce does not. Furthermore, there is evidence that even when divorce is feasible, it is not always the ideal solution for marital difficulties. Among white people, those who have been divorced have the highest suicide rate, and there are often emotional problems in children whose parents have experienced divorce or desertion. Most divorced people can’t stand loneliness-they try promiscuity and booze, and become more despairing; then they try remarriage, and here the divorce rate is still high, though some do better in the second marriage than they did in the first. When a person moves on into second, third, fourth, and fifth marriages, the chance that he will succeed becomes increasingly small. We end up saying that marriage is hard to live with and hard to live without.

On February 1, 1966, the state of California began a massive attempt to gather information on the background of divorces, in order to provide data for professionals trying to develop ways to lower the incredible divorce rate. Each of the major counties in California had over a thousand divorces in 1965, and San Mateo County reached seventy divorces for every one hundred marriages.

In California all lawsuits for divorce, annulment, and separate maintenance now are to be accompanied by a comprehensive questionnaire completed by both the husband and the wife. The state hopes to find out what factors are particularly important in divorce. Religious differences, ages of the spouses, race, and finances, and so on, will be examined.

The resulting statistics may also have other uses. In January, 1966, in San Francisco, a young widow and her son sued the city for $500,000 in damages because her husband of one month had been killed in a traffic accident on the city’s streetcar system. However, the city called in an expert from the University of California. He examined the case, considering such factors as the different religions of husband and wife, the fact that the girl was pregnant before/marriage, and the fact that both she and her husband were teenagers and that both had been raised in Marin County, where the divorce rate is exceedingly high, and concluded that the marriage would probably have been doomed even if the man had lived. The jury, deciding that the expert knew at least something about the matter, awarded the widow $145,000 instead of $500,000.

There soon may be a constitutional proposal in California for the creation of a State Department of Family Relations. This amendment, generally known as the Sitton-Winterfeld Initiative, is backed by a number of people throughout the state who feel that the present divorce procedures are terribly unfair and create more dissension among divorced people than is necessary. In particular, opponents of the existing divorce laws object strenuously to the adversary system, in which one of the separating mates, usually the husband, must be found guilty of some degree of cruelty-”extreme,” “mental,” or whatever-before a divorce can be granted. (Desertion and adultery are also grounds for divorce in California, but are rarely used.) The resulting courtroom confrontations produce perjured testimony and lasting bitterness that forever precludes reconciliation and leaves the children caught between two parents, who remain bitter and antagonistic even though divorced and living apart.

The backers (largely male) of this bill are also concerned about the monetary considerations involved. In particular, they feel that citizens are at the mercy of avaricious lawyers who provide quick divorces for couples with limited financial resources, but manage to introduce long, complicated procedures, with correspondingly large fees, when their clients are wealthy. They feel that the child-support payments in general are fair, but that provisions for the settlement of the estate and for alimony are way out of line.

The proposed State Department of Family Relations would have a governing board of six elected directors and regional boards in family-relation centers which could establish educational programs in family-relations matters. The department would have exclusive jurisdiction, subject to an appellate-court review, over divorce, annulment, and separate-maintenance proceedings. Parties could be represented by agents who were not attorneys. Divorces would be granted without regard to “guilt,” and they would be effective immediately; the current one-year interlocutory decree would be abolished. Alimony and support payments would be based on the ability to pay and on need.

The sponsors of the measure say the plan would work as follows:

The plan operates on a local basis in the county with a board of three county directors. These will be psychologists, sociologists, marriage counselors so they will have related educational backgrounds with experience in human relations.

A staff of referees-investigators, accountants, social workers and other specialists will handle individual cases. The emphasis at this level is on premarital and post-marital education and direct aid in altering problems.

Individuals in need of help may come to family arbitration center for informal discussion of their problems. If reconciliation methods fail and it is found advisable to terminate the marriage, divorce, annulment or separate maintenance will be granted by the three members of the Family Arbitration Board in an equitable and just manner. The rulings would have the same force and effect as a court of law.

The sponsors of the bill feel that obtaining divorces will not be “easier” under their proposed setup, and no increase in the divorce rate is anticipated. They claim instead that a complete and thorough investigation will be required, and divorces will be granted only when it is determined that the marriage should not continue. Counseling prior to the initiation of divorce proceedings should, by all accounts, act as a deterrent to the irresponsible or impetuous divorce begun in an escalating breakdown of communication. The sponsors feel that the program will be geared to prevent family breakups, and that there will be savings in welfare costs, juvenile-crime costs, legal fees, and other related costs. Operating revenue will be obtained from fees charged by the department.

It is likely that the proposed bill will stimulate great opposition. It is also apparent that many of the bill’s proponents are males who have been burned by the financial inequities of the present legal system. Nevertheless, it is a healthy and important sign that people are looking critically at the divorce situation. Under a brilliant and facile attorney, Robert Furlong, the judicial committee of the state assembly in California recently held hearings on divorce procedures and accumulated a great deal of evidence about current methods, trends, and inequities.

There is little doubt that the present system in most states strongly favors the woman as far as financial matters are concerned. Consequently, a man may enter marriage already on the defensive, since no one gets married without at least thinking about the possibility of divorce. The legal situation thus encourages the battle of the sexes. The popular idea that making divorce financially punitive for the man will reduce its frequency is an ill-conceived notion, to say the least, and belongs in the same destructive social category as capital punishment. ‘”

Psychiatrists, psychologists, and marriage counselors have recognized for some time that often the process of marital separation is relatively smooth, with due consideration shown by the spouses for the children and for each other, until attorneys enter the picture and the man and woman are forced to squabble over money. One of our acquaintances who were arranging to get a divorce attempted to be extremely fair to his wife and children, and was thoroughly rebuked by his attorney for being too generous. He had only recovered from this lecture when his wife’s attorney called to ask how he could be such a cold-hearted skinflint. In this case, the behavior of both attorneys was so untoward that the spouses finally came together to discuss their problems in person, and worked out their own settlement. Then they looked hard and long for a single attorney to represent them both.

In war, we encourage the bravery which leads men to get themselves killed, for example, by superb performance in the face of enemy fire, and then we go to fantastic lengths to save the lives of those who are wounded. This behavior is not paradoxical; we are saying, ‘We want you to be brave, and you may thereby die; but if you are brave and live, we will see that you receive all the rewards we can offer.”

Marriage too, is encouraged by the culture, but there have been little compensation for the wounded; they are just told that they shouldn’t have been hurt in the first place and it’s their own fault if they were. Even the “cooling-off” period provided by the interlocutory decree is of little use; by the time it is obtained, the preceding legal maneuverings have so stirred up the roaring fires that it is often too late for cooling off.

The Australian system seems far more realistic. In Australia, divorce is not permitted until a marriage has been in existence at least three years (annulments may be granted sooner under certain unusual circumstances). Thus people are not able to rush in and out of marriage. Before a divorce is granted, conciliation is attempted and every resource which might help save the marriage is utilized. But if a divorce is obtained, it becomes effective immediately. Our system reminds one of capital punishment; we cling to it despite years of testimony that punishment does not serve as a deterrent.

When a divorce is necessary, the separation should be amicable.

This is particularly important if there are children, since they become cross monitors; that is, all unawares, they transmit messages from one parent to the other-s-often hateful messages.

The traditional practice among psychiatrists and marriage therapists has been neither to recommend divorce nor to stand in the way of a couple wishing a divorce. This canniness is desirable. There are so many complicated factors in any marital breakup that it is difficult to see the situation as a coherent whole. Often it is only after a person has been divorced that he can look at the marriage and decide realistically whether he is better or worse off than he was before it was dissolved. If a third person enters the picture, he is apt to be blamed for causing the divorce, even if, in fact, the couple had wished it but lacked the guts to go through with it until they were on the brink and called in the third party to act as a go-between.

In our opinion, there is one fact that stands out in most family breakdowns. The best reason for divorce is that the man and wife cannot function together without serious damage to one or both, physically or emotionally.

Most of us in this country are taught diplomacy, decorum, and the art of self-restraint. Many husbands and wives believe that politeness, consideration, and benevolence are important in a marriage, and not wishing to be rejected, they may attempt to practice these arts unremittingly.

If spouses are thoughtful of each other on all occasions, the likelihood is that they have a sick marriage. It is obvious that individuals have competing tendencies-different interests, different ways of using time, different biological rhythms, and so on -and they cannot always have the same desires, needs, wishes, or whatever at the same time. The problem then is: What should they do when conflicts arise?

There are several possible answers, but the most important one is that the individual should do what he feels he has to do at this particular moment, and should believe enough in the durability of the marriage to withstand even a period of hate from the other spouse. When such conflicts do not ever arise, it must be concluded that the spouses are peculiarly lucky in having chosen partners with exactly the same values, tastes, needs, and so on, or that somebody is sacrificing quietly and will unwittingly pay the other spouse back.

This may sound like explosive propaganda. But the alternative is a relationship in which one spouse thinks so little of his partner that he cannot permit an independent act that happens to displease him for the time being. How can spouses trust each other if they never have any disagreements? How does each know what the other really thinks and feels if he is accommodating and thoughtful all the time? For all anyone can tell, one spouse may secretly hate the other’s guts.

Tom Henderson was a successful insurance executive with a mad passion for golf. He had been planning for some time to attend a golf clinic being given in Concord, Massachusetts, by his favorite professional. Not only was he delighted to have the opportunity to work with his favorite pro, but knowing this geographical area he realized that coming here would be very pleasant for his wife and two children; they could rent an attractive older home, swim in a nearby lake, and engage in many of the pleasant activities of the city. Mary, his wife, was a bit reluctant, particularly because she was not well acquainted with the East and wasn’t sure what she was getting into. However, Tom’s enthusiasm overcame her reluctance, and the kids were always eager for a vacation.

But over the next few months a subtle campaign of propaganda was beamed toward Tom Henderson. It came from all directions. For example, Mrs. Smythe, Mary’s mother, had taken an apartment in Honolulu, near the beach. She wrote to her daughter that she wished the whole family would visit her, and described what a wonderful time the children would have. Thereafter, the advantages for the children formed the core of Mary’s propaganda campaign. Magazines with pictures of brown skinned, lithe surfers lay exposed on the coffee table and occasionally at the writing desk. Also, knowing Tom’s interest in golf, Mary one morning read him an article about a recent golfing match at the Waialae Country Club. She mentioned with a shy smile that her friend Nancy, who lived in Honolulu, had told her that golfers consider a round at the course of the Oahu Country Club one of the great golfing experiences of all time.

While Mary spoke, Tom was hastily reading his mail and finishing his last mouthful of coffee. Not until he had nearly reached his office did it occur to him to wonder, “How come Mary’s interested in golf all of a sudden?”

“Oh, well.” He turned to the tasks of the day. His errant thought lay untended and died.

When Jane, their oldest daughter, celebrated her birthday in May, Mary presented her with a ukulele and a book of twelve easy lessons.

Now the propaganda had reached the stage where it became obvious even to Tom. One night he confronted his wife. “Darling,” he said, “I thought we had agreed we were going to Concord this summer for our vacation. Now 1 get the impression that you’re pushing for Honolulu.”

Mary regarded him with her wide, startlingly blue eyes much as she would a man from Mars suddenly appearing in her bedroom.

Tom absently nodded and went into the bathroom to brush his teeth. He felt like a bit of a stinker for having raised the question, but something was still tugging at his mind and he was not satisfied. When he got to bed he went right to sleep, with no thought of being amorous. Mary didn’t rest well that night, for the hand that grasps for power is always a bit shaky.

As the days went by, Tom was reminded by both children of what a wonderful place Hawaii is. He suspected that Mary was putting them up to this, but where was the evidence? Jane seemed to have a new-found interest in hula lessons, and Tom junior spoke with wonder of the intricacies of surfing. Then one day Mary brought Tom a somewhat pleading letter from her mother describing her wish to see them and stating that a lovely apartment would become available close by during August-the very month that they were planning to spend in Concord. Now Tom was no longer in doubt. He recognized the nature of the enemy, but almost as quickly as he turned to fight he found his resistance fading. What father likes to deny his children? What husband wishes to keep his wife separated from her aged mother (whom she may never see alive again), and from school chums whom she hasn’t seen in many years? Who can deny the beauty of Hawaii and the excellence of its golfing spots? And so Tom succumbed and erected in place of the defeat in the Battle of Concord an icon at which he daily worshiped: the image of Tom Henderson, Family Man.

Mary’s mother was waiting for them at the airport in Honolulu.

Although the Henderson family had been surfeited with food and drink, everyone accepted grandma’s gracious hospitality as she took them to lunch at the Outrigger Club. Leaning against the back of his chair and looking out at the sparkling Pacific, Tom sipped his favorite beer, hoping that some appetite would come so that he would not have the embarrassment of being the only one not eating. He half listened to the cheery conversation as grandma told the children about the wonders they would soon behold. Mary interrupted; running in and out of the conversation like a track star with what Tom considered wife-type questions: ‘Where can you get this?” “Where’s the best place to buy that?”

Since first getting on the plane Tom had been aware of a slow ball of dread forming in his stomach, and now it felt distended. He had been helped on the flight by two vodka martinis and half a bottle of Chablis, but the liquor hadn’t dissolved the lump in his gut. It had only anesthetized the surrounding area. Tom sat there, and to his horror he began to feel hate-not for the children, not for his mother-in-law, but for Mary. Suddenly, for the first time in the months of propaganda and the weeks of knowing that he had been hoodwinked, he experienced a surge of resoluteness. He sat straighter, and gulped his beer instead of swishing it around like mouthwash.

Tom had a plan, but he said nothing about it. He allowed his mother-in-law to pay for the lunch, and made arrangements for transporting their huge pile of baggage to the apartment. He worked hard helping the family get settled and even went with Mary to the supermarket to lay in a stock of food. He had time for these things because his plane did not leave until midnight.

Mrs. Smythe had them over to supper. Tom went through the routine of replying to meaningless questions about his work and how his golf game was faring, and played an All about Hawaii word game with the kids. Finally the Hendersons left grandmas. When they reached their own apartment, Tom called his family into the small living room and told them, as dispassionately and kindly as he could, that he was leaving on that midnight plane for San Francisco and had been lucky enough to secure a connecting Hight to New York. When his wife, with her white, stricken face, started to open her mouth, Tom held up his hand and said, in a tone stronger than he usually employed, «Let me finish.” Talking to the children, so that Mary could listen without feeling so attacked, he explained that he was not leaving the family, but was doing something that he felt he had to do. He recognized that his decision was expensive, would upset the rest of the family, and would ruin him forever in his mother-in-law’s eyes. He would like to rejoin them in two weeks, and would be very sad if they were so immutably angry about his decision that he was no longer welcome; however, this was a chance he would have to take. He had counted on this golf vacation for a long time and-he reminded them without an air of martyrdom-it had been many years since they had taken the vacation he wanted. He stated that at times it was necessary to do something drastic to break a pattern that was forming, and this one threatened to encrust not just the marriage, but the interrelationships of the entire family.

Then he told them that he was not willing to discuss the matter, since his decision was irrevocable. Here he was wise, for there is nothing more useless than beating and bloodying a fait accompli with hopeless argumentation. His wife’s response was to run crying from the room. Tom had expected this, and it did not curb his resolution. He kissed the children and, sad but erect, walked down the long stairs.

All this occurred ten years ago. The Hendersons are still married, and enjoy a mutual respect that was formerly missing. During her husband’s absence Mary recognized that she was something of a spoiled child. She recalled that her own father had rarely gotten his way, and did not fight for it. As a result, Mrs. Smythe had grown more and more into a skillful manipulator and dictator, often using the excuse that something was «best for Mary” to get her own way. The parallel was very obvious to Mary, and she respected Tom for breaking the mold. They eventually agreed that for them the only workable system would be to take turns in making decisions, since this would eliminate the need for covert maneuvering and propagandizing through the children.

The Honolulu episode also proved useful in another way. During the two weeks Tom was in Concord, Mary performed superbly. To her own surprise she found that her anger at him gave her the strength to enjoy the children in a manner she had not experienced before.

The Henderson story came close to having a very different ending. But great changes are built upon risk taking.

While “family” isn’t the topic of this series and “marriage” is; yet it would be an injustice to any description of the marital system to assume that the child plays no role in the making or breaking of the marriage.’ To have children is one of the explicit reasons for marrying; indeed, in some religious groups, sexual intercourse between spouses is supposed to occur only for the purpose of procreation. It is easily observed that some spouses are totally child-oriented: they live for their children. In return, the children keep the marriage alive by providing the parents a raison d’ etre for the marriage, and help fill the emotional and physical distance between the spouses, so that the expression of tension and friction between them is kept at a minimum. When the children leave home, these marriages typically are in serious difficulties-unless the parents are fortunate enough to have developed outside interests sufficient to maintain the protective distance between them.

Certain basic questions, propositions, and observations concerning the effects of children on marriage merit special discussion. Let us consider, first, whether childless marriages are less successful than marriages which beget offspring. This is a real yes-and-no proposition despite the public’s general belief that marriages which result in children are more successful. For example, spouses who marry relatively late in life tend not to have children and yet appear to have a higher average of functional marriages than couples marrying earlier. But it is the fact that they do not marry until later than their peers that has most to do with how the marriages turn out; the fact that they do not have children is accessory. Several studies also indicate that professional women who marry later than their peers and choose not to have children have a better marital record than their undergraduate college classmates. Successful professional women who marry later than their collegiate peers tend to hold satisfying, well-paying jobs, so they do not rush into marriage for financial reasons and feel they must have children, in part, to hold their husbands. In the lower classes, a father may desert his family when he staggers under the realization of how many mouths there are to feed. Here the presence of children is clearly a liability.

Thus, one cannot generalize with certitude about the proposition that children help or hinder a marriage. Instead, the question becomes meaningful only when specific types of marital interaction within varying ethnic and socio-economic groups are studied. It is obvious, for example, that conventional, middle-class Midwesterners in agricultural areas are quite likely to marry, to stay married once they have said “I do,” and to have children-because their values teach them to do so. Again, one cannot say that they have more successful marriages than other groups because they usually have children; having children is just part of their larger cultural context and value system.

Another observation often made is that it is desirable for married couples to wait a year or two before starting a family. This statement, for a number of reasons, deserves a nearly unequivocal yes. Now that we have “the pill,” family planning should be as frankly discussed as the budget, and it should be as forthrightly carried out as the inevitable purchase of a television set.

Young people who marry because the girl is pregnant are very often doomed to find themselves parties to a divorce or an annulment. Marriages in which the wife becomes pregnant on the honeymoon seem to be much less risky than those beginning with a shotgun wedding. However, though there is no convincing set of statistics to indicate that these couples divorce more frequently than couples who postpone pregnancy, marriage experts agree that early pregnancy destroys (or at least maims) the important “getting-to-know-you” period of the first year or so of marriage.

Often serious problems result from the purely fiscal or physical aspects of early pregnancy. For example, the husband may have to quit school and get a job because there is an unexpected mouth to feed. Correspondingly, if pregnancy forces the wife to leave a job from which she derives a great deal of satisfaction, she may have a good many negative feelings about her new role as a mother. Pregnancy may throw the couple’s beginning sexual adjustment out of whack because the girl is resentful of what he “did” to her, and the young husband may feel trapped because of what she “allowed to happen.”

But what about couples that have been married for a number of years? Can a correlation be found between their chances for marital success and the number of offspring?

In Puerto Rico, India, and other countries where devices preventing pregnancy have been in use for five or more years, statistics are becoming available. These indicate that most couples do not wish large families, and that there are a higher percentage of happy, productive marriages among couples who have no children. Recent research suggests that the same situation exists in the United States, and that the parents of five or more children who so proudly point to their huge brood may be putting on an act.

In countries where the new contraceptives (pills and intrauterine contraceptive devices) are utilized, evidence is accumulating that not even those who traditionally have large families such as Catholics, Negroes, and the poor-necessarily want a great many children. In the United States the difference in family size between poor .people and the well-to-do used to be sizable. Now it is diminishing rapidly.

Our picture of the large, happy family (the poor and shoeless) was based on myth. Instead, it appears that desertion rate among fathers diminishes when family size is controlled-when the very size of the family doesn’t panic the father into leaving.

These facts do not mean that the presence of children reduces the chance for success of any particular marriage. However, it is clear that the begetting of children is not a magic which will improve an already shaky marriage; instead, it will help to destroy it even further.

One aspect of the myth that children will automatically improve a marriage stems from the parent’s unconscious (sometimes even conscious) belief that he can experience through his child the things he was denied or failed at as a child. Or, perhaps, from the belief that he can develop in the youngster those desirable qualities lacking in the other spouse. For example, a man who is secretly ashamed of his wife’s dowdiness may work extra hard to earn money to buy attractive outfits for his infant daughter. His wife may share his enthusiasm for their “cute little girl” and take pride in the neighbor’s comments about the daughter’s outfits, but she also understands (often unconsciously) her husband’s opinion that she is dowdy-even though he may not tell her so directly.

Childless couples can sometimes reconcile their marital differences and disappointments by ignoring the discords, pretending they do not exist. They can seek compensating gratifications elsewhere, perhaps in their work-it is simple for both of them to have jobs. However, when there is a child, this shift of emphasis is impossible, and the child becomes living evidence of the dissatisfaction in the marital relationship.

Children by their presence may aggravate an already unhappy marriage by virtue of the role which they play in the relationship between spouses that may be labeled the battle of the sexes. The power struggle between the sexes often focuses upon the question of who-husband or wife-does the more important work. Should the husband have certain prerogatives because he earns the money? Should the wife, who stays at home doing routine work and does not meet new people daily as her husband does, have some compensating rewards? Should she be taken out often, or have several nights off to attend motion pictures, or to play bridge with the girls? By finding some chore which the father may logically be expected to do for the child, the wife may be indicating to the husband that he is neglecting an important part of his function and that even if he earns the money and is important in his office, he is no better than she is. Conversely, the man who wishes to put his wife one down can always find some instance of child neglect, particularly if the child becomes noisy or ill.

It is obvious that sacrificing or compromising one’s personal desires in order to meet the needs and wishes of another can create a sense of deprivation and become abrasive in any relationship. Children require a great deal of care and attention which often conflicts with their parents’ own needs and desires. Yet in our culture fathers and mothers cannot often admit their sense of personal deprivation. Therefore, since they cannot feel guilty about having children, they end up blaming each other.

If when a child is conceived the parents hope the infant will mend a fractured marriage, the disappointment may be excruciatingly painful. The child’s presence in a discordant union, therefore, may instigate new troubles and the marital relationship may deteriorate even more.

For example, a young woman feels that her amorously adventurous husband will be “steadied” by becoming a father. Within a year she gives birth to a baby girl. The husband is pleased and proud of the little girl. He pours the majority of his affection on her, thus rejecting the wife in a blatant manner. The mother begins disliking the child almost to the point of hate.

At first the wife thinks it cute when the little girl (at eighteen months of age) refuses to obey her and waits for Daddy to come home and arbitrate matters between her and her mother. It is not so funny when the little girl becomes an accomplished enough actress to stage tearful scenes. If her mother appears adamant, the daughter, now four years old, dramatically tells other adults how bad Mommy is and declares that she and Daddy are going to live somewhere else. The father is usually flattered by this behavior and rarely interferes. Occasionally he becomes embarrassed and even frightened by the situation, and in a rage, punishes the child. The mother then attempts to protect her daughter and again the parents are caught up in mutually destructive behavior.

In another situation, common in white upper-middle-class marriages, the wife uses the children to undermine the husband’s authority and power. She manages this by unwittingly encouraging or assisting the children to break the rules established by the father when he is trying hard to be “in charge.”

For example, as the father backs out of the garage on his way to work, he notices the children’s toys in the driveway. He gets out, throws bicycles, skates, toys, and baseball bats out of the way, then dashes to the kitchen and shouts, “Coddamn it, Martha, you tell the kids to put their stuff in the playshed and the next time anyone leaves anything out he’ll spend the day in his room.”

That night he is late for dinner. When he drives into the garage, he hears the crunch of wheels rolling over a skate board and a bicycle. He storms into the house. His family has begun eating. Martha is looking fresh, clean, and relaxed.

He screams, “Martha, who in the goddamn hell left the toys in the garage? This morning …”

Martha replies, “Oh dear, that’s probably my fault. I chased the twins in to get their baths and didn’t think about the bicycle and toys. Dear, is that such a terrible crime?” The husband turns on his heel and leaves, loudly slamming the back door. Another devastating battle has begun with the usual first act, “The Defeat of Dad.”

All these examples illustrate Haws in the basic myth that when two people are about to be married and there are potential problems (caused, for example, by little money, different racial backgrounds, or different cultural levels), these major problems will be solved by the couple’s sheer joy in having a child. True, they may find pleasure in the youngster, but the presence of the child probably will not eliminate existing difficulties. The adults must find solutions on their own. And unfortunately, the child may well aggravate the problems.

The truth of this observation becomes apparent when one considers that the family is a system and that every person in a system is equally important in maintaining it. Just when Martha has forgiven John for one of his occasional temperamental outbursts, John junior puts on an act which Martha associates with his father, and she is angry at her husband all over again. When John senior comes home that night seeking solace, his wife attacks him for being temperamental; he feels, “But I haven’t done anything,” and has a temper tantrum. John junior, watching this outburst, has his own temperamental behavior reinforced. The three individuals are caught up in a system which will repeat itself, and Martha’s blaming John’s heredity for his being temperamental-or John’s blaming Martha’s physiology for producing “bad times” each month-will only obscure the nature of the system in which they are caught.

Even though people are reluctant to admit it, most husbands and wives are disappointed in their marriages. There is overwhelming evidence to confirm this.

At least one person out of every two who gets married will be divorced within about ten years. Many of these will indulge in legal polygamy-that is, they will marry and divorce several times. All told, the divorce rate in the United States is 51 per cent.

Marriage is so turbulent an institution that articles on how to patch up disintegrating marriages can be found in almost every issue of our family magazines and daily newspapers, with titles such as “How to Keep Your Husband Happy,” “How to Make Your Wife Feel Loved.” Surveys show that this sort of article frequently attracts more readers than anything else in the publication. It appears because of public demand, a demand which must originate from millions of unhappy, confused, and dissatisfied couples. Evidently the dreamed-of marriage often does not materialize. There are unexpected shortcomings, bickering, and misunderstandings. Most spouses to varying degrees are frustrated, confused, belligerent, and disappointed.

Almost every expression of our culture, including advertisements, has something to say about how to improve female-male relationships. Motion pictures, plays, television, radio, feature the friction between wife and husband more than any other subject.

The offices of marriage counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists are crowded with clients who are concerned over problems which mainly involve marriage, and who pay from twenty-five dollars to fifty dollars an hour for assistance. But these troubled people usually cannot identify their problems; even worse, they usually do not sincerely seek solutions. What each one wants is confirmation that he is correct and good, and that his spouse is the one at fault!

One reason for this marital disenchantment is the prevalence of the mistaken belief that “love” is necessary for a satisfying and workable marriage. Usually when the word “love” is used, reference is actually being made to romance-that hypnotic, ecstatic condition enjoyed during courtship. Romance and love are different. Romance is based usually on minimum knowledge of the other person (restricted frequently to the fact that being around him is a wonderful, beatific, stimulating experience). Romance is built on a foundation of quicksilver non-logic. It consists of attributing to the other person-blindly, hopefully, but without much basis in fact-the qualities one wishes him to have, though they may not even be desirable, in actuality. Most people who select mates on the basis of imputed qualities later find themselves disappointed, if the qualities are not present in fact, or discover that they are unable to tolerate the implication of the longed-for qualities in actual life. For example, the man who is attracted by his fiancée’s cuteness and sexiness may spend tormented hours after they are married worrying about the effect of these very characteristics on other men. It is a dream relationship, an unrealistic relationship with a dream person imagined in terms of one’s own needs.

Romance is essentially selfish, though it is expressed in terms of glittering sentiment and generous promises, which usually cannot be fulfilled. (”I’ll be the happiest man in the world for the rest of my life.” “I’ll make you the best wife any man ever had.”)

Romance-which most spouse’s mistake for love-is not necessary for a good marriage. The sparkle some couples manage to preserve in a satisfying marriage-based on genuine pleasure in one another’s company, affection and sexual attraction for the spouse as he really is-can be called love.

If romance is different than love, then what is love? We do best to return to the definition of Harry Stack Sullivan: “When the satisfaction or the security of another person becomes as significant to one as is one’s own satisfaction or security, and then the state of love exists.” In this sense, love consists of a devotion and respect for the spouse that is equal to one’s own self-love.

We have already shown that people usually marry on a wave of romance having nothing to do with love. When the average American (not long from the altar) lives with the spouse in the intimacy of morning bad breath from too much smoking, of annoying habits previously not known, when he is hampered by the limitations of a small income (compared with the lavishness of the honeymoon), or encounters the unexpected irritability of premenstrual tension or of business frustration and fatigue, a change in attitude begins to occur. The previously romantic person begins to have doubts about the wonderful attributes with which his spouse has been so blindly credited.

These doubts are particularly disturbing at the start. Not very long ago, after all, the spouse believed that “love” (romance) was heavenly, all-consuming, immutable, and that beautiful relationships and behavior were voluntary and spontaneous. Now, if doubts and criticism are permitted to intrude upon this perfect dream, the foundations begin to shake in a giddy manner. To the husband or wife the doubts seem to be evidence that one of them is inadequate or not to be trusted. The doubts imply that the relationship is suffering from an unsuspected malignancy.

To live with another person in a state of love (as defined by Sullivan) is a different experience from whirling around in a tornado of romance. A loving union is perhaps best seen in elderly couples who have been married for a long time. Their children have grown, the pressure of business has been relieved, and the specter of death is not far away. By now, they have achieved a set of realistic values. These elderly spouses respect each other’s idiosyncrasies. They need and treasure companionship. Differences between them have been either accepted or worked out; they are no longer destructive elements. In such instances each has as much interest in the well-being and security of the other as he has in himself. Here is true symbiosis: a union where each admittedly feeds off the other. Those who give together really live together!

But it is possible to have a productive and workable marriage without love (although love is desirable) as well as without romance. One can have a functioning marriage which includes doubts and criticisms of the spouse and occasional inclinations toward divorce. The husband or wife may even think about how much fun it might be to flirt with an attractive neighbor. Such thoughts can occur without being disastrous to the marriage. In many workable marriages both spouses get a good deal of mileage out of fantasy.

How, then, can we describe this functional union which can bring reasonable satisfaction and well-being to both partners? It has four major elements: tolerance, respect, honesty, and the desire to stay together for mutual advantage. One can prefer the spouse’s company to all others’, and even be lonely in his absence, without experiencing either the wild passion inherent in romance, or the totally unselfish, unswerving devotion that is basic in true love.

In a workable marriage both parties may be better off together than they would have been on their own. They may not be ecstatically happy because of their union, and they may not be “in love,” but they are not lonely and they have areas of shared contentment. They feel reasonably satisfied with their levels of personal and interpersonal functioning. They can count their blessings and, like a sage, philosophically realize that nothing is perfect.

We must return once again to the meaning of the word “love,” for no other word in English carries more misleading connotations. The following is an actual example of how distorted the thinking of an individual may become when he believes he is in love.

A young woman and her fiancé visiting a marriage counselor had completed an interpersonal test which told much about their behavior and how they viewed each other. The counselor, after studying the data, asked why the woman wished to marry this man, who was an admitted alcoholic. She said she had sought the counselor’s help because she did have some doubts. Her previous husband, from whom she had recently been divorced, was weak and passive. Now she was looking for a man strong enough to take care of her.

The marriage counselor explained that he could not understand why she had picked an alcoholic-obviously a weak man who could not possibly look after her. She would have to look after him.

Her fiancé sat passively by and did not enter the conversation. The counselor asked again, ‘Why do you want to marry this man who appears to be just the opposite of the spouse you say you need?”

The young woman shrugged her shoulders, smiled happily, and said, with dogmatic conviction, “Because I love him.”

Her fiancé smiled and nodded in support of her unsupportable statement.

It is obvious that this woman did not know what she meant by “I love him.” She did not even know how she felt about him. Because of her complex neurotic needs she had a desire for this man-and it could probably be shown that this was a unilateral and totally selfish desire. Her choice of someone to “love” had nothing to do with her prospects for having a workable or satisfying marriage. The word “love” was a cover-up for an emotional mix-up which she did not understand.

Often “I love you” is an unconscious excuse for some form of emotional destructiveness. Sometimes it is a camouflage for a status struggle, which may continue even after a couple has separated. A spouse who has been deserted (especially for another) may covertly or unconsciously wish to be identified and applauded as the good and loyal partner. The jilted spouse assumes a saintly, pious behavior-especially in public-and makes certain everyone knows he still “loves” the other and will lovingly and patiently wait forever until the other comes to his senses. This can be accomplished with operatic flamboyance while the individual simultaneously has a well-hidden affair with someone else’s husband or wife; and the apparent inconsistency later can be rationalized away: “After John’s [or Mary’s] departure there was such a hole in my life I had to do something to stay on an even keel. If I had had a breakdown it would have hurt the children. But my behavior didn’t alter the fact that I loved him.”

This type of “love” is especially likely to manifest itself when one spouse believes he received ill-treatment from the other for some years prior to the final desertion. The “injured” spouse (for so he regards himself no matter what he did to hurt and destroy the other) will loudly maintain with grief: “But I still love him.” It takes little clinical experience or psychological brilliance to recognize that usually this person really is exhibiting hurt pride and rage at being the one who was left, rather than the one who did the leaving.

“Love” may also be used as an excuse for domination and control. The expression “I love you” has such an immutable place in our traditions that it can serve as an excuse for anything, even for selfishness and evil. Who can protest against something done ”because I love you,” especially if the assertion is made with histrionic skill and in a tone of sincerity? The victim-the one on the receiving end-may intuitively realize that he is being misused. Yet he often finds it impossible to remonstrate.

Sullivan’s definition of love is important. It describes not a unilateral process, but a two-way street, a bilateral process in which two individuals function in relation to each other as equals. Their shared behavior interlocks to form a bond that represents mutual respect and devotion. One spouse alone cannot achieve this relationship. Both must participate to the same degree. The necessity for both spouses to “give” equally is one of the reasons that a marriage built upon mutual love is so rare.

People naturally wish to have a happy marriage to a loving spouse. But such a union is hard to come by without knowledge of the anatomy of marriage, plus much patience, work-and luck. Many people fail to face the fact that if their parents’ marriage was unhappy or their childhood was neurotic, they do not possess the prerequisite experience for choosing the correct mate. Where have they observed a good model for marriage? How can they possibly know what a loving marriage is like-and what elements must be put into it?

Most Americans enter marriage expecting to have love without having asked themselves the question, Am I lovable? Following close behind is another question: If I am not lovable, is it not likely that I have married an unloving person?

There is another misuse of the word “love,” Some people believe that they can love generously even if doing so requires behaving like a martyr. They believe their rewards will come not on earth but in heaven, or at least in some mystical, unusual way. Therefore they seem able to love unilaterally and want nothing for themselves. They suffer happily and enjoy making sacrifices while pouring their love out on another. The more undeserving the other is the more of this love there is to be poured.

This situation is deceptive. Martyrdom is actually one of the most blatant types of self-centeredness. No one can be more difficult to deal with than the one-way benevolent person who frantically, zealously, and flamboyantly tries to help someone else, and apparently seeks nothing for himself.

Nathan Epstein, William Westley, Murray Bowen, John Workentin, Don Jackson, and others who have conducted research on couples who are content with their marriages and have reared apparently healthy, successful children, agree that companionability and respect are the key words in the lexicon these couples use to describe their marriages. A husband interviewed in one study stated: “In love? Well, I guess so-haven’t really thought about it. I suppose I would, though, if Martha and I were having troubles. The Chinese have a saying, ‘One hand washes the other.’ That sort of describes us, but I don’t know if that’s what you mean by love.”

The happy, workable, productive marriage does not require love as defined in this book, or even the practice of the Golden Rule. To maintain continuously a union based on love is not feasible for most people. Nor is it possible to live in a permanent state of romance. Normal people should not be frustrated or disappointed if they are not in a constant state of love. If they experience the joy of love (or imagine they do) for ten per cent of the time they are married, attempt to treat each other with as much courtesy as they do distinguished strangers, and attempt to make the marriage a workable affair–one where there are some practical advantages and satisfactions for each-the chances are that the marriage will endure longer and with more strength than the so-called love matches.

Once upon a time there was a well-received television drama (it later became a motion picture) called Marty. At the conclusion of the performance, the viewer experienced a feeling of satisfaction and general good feeling, the same sense of well-being and joy that a person has when he has read a fairy tale, such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs or Little Red Riding Hood.

The story of Marty concerns a lonely, shy boy, Marty, who finds, or is found by, a lonely, shy girl. They supply each other’s needs, decide to marry, presumably live happily ever after. It could be wonderful if such events could take place frequently in the lives of lonely people. But the action in Marty represents-for most people-fantasies, not reality. Lonely people who marry each other to correct their situation usually discover that the most intense and excruciating loneliness is the loneliness that is shared with another.

There are several types of loneliness.

First is the loneliness of individuals who have a limited behavioral repertoire. The “behavioral repertoire” is the accumulation of behavioral acts that have been learned since birth and are at the individual’s command. People afflicted with this type of loneliness find themselves to be strangers in a more than normal number of situations involving relationships. They yearn to be on a cheerful, or perhaps competitive, or perhaps collaborative, action-interaction basis with other people. But they have difficulty because their behavioral repertoire is limited and therefore in many cases they do not understand other people and other people do not understand them. So they are strangers-and lonely.

When such lonely people marry each other, each has expectations of his spouse, and neither realizes that the other is paralyzed by a limited behavioral repertoire. Neither of these individuals has much to give to the other, unless the behavioral repertoire is enlarged and developed. If lonely spouses recognize this problem, they may have a chance for a workable marriage; if they are cognizant of their limitations, perhaps they can form a team and slowly and painfully increase the range of their behavior. Usually, however, each expects satisfying behavior from the other-the kind of action which is beyond the capability of his spouse. As a result, both of them end up lonelier than ever before. And to this loneliness, bitterness frequently is added. For each of them is vulnerable, and when he does not receive the behavior he expects from the spouse, he believes he has been given a rebuff. Usually it is not a rebuff at all, but merely a reflection of social inadequacy. What happens next? The “rebuffed” spouse draws back and then the other feels that now he is being rebuffed and rejected; and thus the distance between the two quickly increases.

An extreme example of the result of limited behavioral range in marriage occurred with a couple known to the authors. The situation described here actually existed. A shy young woman married a shy young man. His mother and sister had reared him much as one would raise a hothouse plant. Several years after the marriage, the girl formed a close friendship with the young lady who lived next door. From her she learned that sexual intercourse was supposed to take place in a normal marriage. She and her husband had been so ill informed that they had merely embraced. Neither of them had been brave enough to bring up the question of how babies were made.

When the young wife learned the facts about sex, she felt humiliated and cheated. Vituperatively, she scolded her surprised husband, and as a result they experienced so much turmoil that it became necessary for them to seek the help of a psychiatrist.

One of the mysteries of this situation is why the young woman did not recognize that she was just as uninformed as was her husband, and why he did not point this out to her.

A second type of loneliness (more prevalent among males than females) frequently characterizes the individual who lost his mother at a very early age. This type of person has been denied love as a child and unconsciously seeks “triumphs” over others as a love substitute. He cannot get along with anyone over whom he cannot triumph in some way, or except in some rare instances in which he collaborates with someone else to triumph against society.

Within this category we find many “successes” in the arts, in industry, and in business. These are the perfectionists, the people who are obsessed with becoming champions or innovators, or the top person in a field. Such people have limited emotional repertoires. Usually they can be loving and kind and considerate only to those who are useful to them; and they define usefulness only in terms of their drive for perfection or success. In the marriage of such a person nothing which the spouse does is ever good enough. He is constantly critical of the spouse’s performance level. People of this sort trust no one to do anything well. They suspect that almost everyone will impede their gallop toward success. They require almost everything to revolve around themselves; and as this seldom happens in married life, these individuals drift from one marriage to another, always looking for the impossible and becoming more and more suspicious and more and more lonely.

The third type of loneliness is perhaps the most painful of all.

It is usually experienced by individuals who have had an intelligent, dominant mother and a passive father who behaved as if he were her inferior. These people are obsessed with the desire to be popular and well thought of. They have bright personalities and well-developed social skills. Frequently they are glib talkers and good dancers, and dress attractively. Often they are excellent salesmen, advertising personnel, and social leaders, and they tend to be gossips. By gossiping (transmitting malicious information about somebody else) they bribe others to approve of them. A high percentage of these people give the appearance of being flirtatious and “sexy,” but really are sexually unskilled, and often frigid, even though they act passionate and may have had more than the normal number of affairs. This type of individual finds it difficult to be intimate and collaborative with anyone unless their mutual behavior results in his being the center of attraction. This can happen only if he marries a passive person, probably his inferior. But the fact is that in marriage-and in relations with people in general-unless one can participate in behavioral interactions which are characterized by equality, one is lonely despite the appearance one may give of being very gregarious and a great mixer.

Loneliness cannot be cured by marriage. Loneliness is better tolerated by those who live alone; they have no expectations, and thus no disappointments. Lonely people who live together have about the same chance of realizing their expectations as the host who insists that everybody have a good time at his party.

The first myth is the belief that people get married because they are “in love.” It is extremely difficult to define love satisfactorily. Dictionaries disagree. Psychiatrists and psychologists who specialize in marital problems usually are unable to define love. When they are asked the question by a client, they usually evade the issue by asking, ‘What do you think love is?”

The definition of perfect love which is most cherished in the Western world is the one given by St. Paul in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. True, it is a Christian definition; but it is so universal that its almost exact equivalent is used by Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews.

Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

Love never faileth…

We however, have never met a person who consistently loves according to St. Paul’s definition. We have known many decent people, people who have integrity and who are kind most of the time; but they do not consistently love in this biblical sense. It is our opinion that it would be too difficult for spouses to practice this kind of relationship described by St. Paul-unless both were saints.

A more practical definition of love has been given by the great American psychiatrist Harry Stack Sullivan: ‘When the satisfaction or the security of another person becomes as significant to one as is one’s own satisfaction or security, then the state of love exists.”!

The state of love described by Sullivan is possible in marriage -but few spouses are prepared for it, or capable of experiencing it, right after the wedding. Its coming, if it comes at all, is the result of luck or of years of hard work and patience-as we hope to demonstrate later. Observation of hundreds of married couples shows that very few experience love.

It is a false assumption that people marry for love. They like to think of themselves as being in love; but by and large the emotion they interpret as love is in reality some other emotion often a strong sex drive, fear, or a hunger for approval.

If they are not in love, then why are they impelled to marry? There are several reasons.

During courtship, individuals lose most of their judgment.

People who believe themselves to be in love describe their emotion as ecstasy. “Ecstasy” - from the Greek ekstasis, which means “derange”-is defined as the “state of being beside oneself; state of being beyond all reason and self-control.” When an emotional courtship starts, the man and woman appear to relinquish whatever sense of balance and reality they ordinarily possess.

Courtship-the time of ecstatic paralysis-has been cleverly designed by Nature to lure members of the species into reproducing themselves. Courtship is a powerful manifestation of sexual excitement. In Western culture, it has well-defined rituals; these are simple steps leading up to the ultimate goal-legal breeding. The man and the woman are in a trance. By the magic of Nature, they have become wonderfully attractive to each other.

It is marvelous to observe how ruthless and cunning Nature is in her effort to perpetuate the species. Individuals are in such a dizzy state that they become reckless. The problems of marriage are not noticed or considered. The frightful divorce statistics mean nothing; it seems obvious that bad marriages, like death, are for others only. Frequently, the partners-to-be know that they are marrying the wrong persons, but they are in such a passion (some call it romance), and are being driven so hard by the applause of society, that they cannot help themselves. For example, they may realize that the man is unable, as yet, to earn a living; or that the woman is incompetent to manage a home; or that each has radically different tastes and values from the other. These and many other obstacles to a workable marriage usually have no significance to a couple in the courtship stage. The courting individuals are obsessed by one desire only-to mate. And society ordains that a ceremony must sanctify the mating. Although in a majority of marriages the magic and marvelous attractiveness of courtship diminishes (and often vanishes entirely) within a brief time after the honeymoon, it is obvious that the instinct to reproduce-the sex drive (which mistakenly is called love)-lures a great many individuals into marriage.

People often marry because society expects it of them. In our society a spinster is frequently regarded as an unattractive failure; and a middle-aged bachelor is suspected of being a homosexual, or of having a mother complex. Society encourages marriage in many ways and for many reasons. For example, marriage is-to put it crudely-good for business. It gives employment ‘to ministers, justices of the peace, caterers, florists, dressmakers, printers, jewelers, furniture manufacturers, architects, landlords, obstetricians, and so on almost endlessly. Whenever there is a wedding a hundred cash registers tinkle. Therefore members of the profit-making multitude smile and applaud, frequently in honest approval. This approval adds to the myth that the very act of marriage is a good thing; it brings prestige in society’s eyes to the young couple.

For the clergy and for officials, marriage is a source of power and control, a means of perpetuating loyalty to the Church through the children. Certain historical necessities-which in point of fact may no longer exist-are also reflected in the attitudes of society. For example, in earlier days, when mortality rates were high, a “big family” meant more people in the community and thus a greater chance for survival; and marriage was prerequisite for the existence of the big family. Though circumstances have changed now, the approbation of marriage has not. In short, almost all segments of society disapprove of the single state but approve of marriage. This universal attitude tends to cause people who think they are in love to be impetuous, hurried, and careless in getting married. Marriage, they have been taught, is a “good thing.”

The pressures and the maneuverings of parents often push their children into premature and careless marriages. Parents maneuver, manipulate, and meddle. Fathers and mothers claim that they meddle for their children’s benefit. The truth is that parents often feel failure or disgrace if their children aren’t married at the conventional age. And parents are seldom fully honest to their children about their own relationships. Therefore, most youngsters believe that their parents are or were in love, and that they must be emulated in this respect.

Romantic literature, tradition, and social hysteria have given marriage false values which the excited male and female often accept as true. They enter wedlock expecting a high level of constant joy from that moment on. Although they take an oath to love and cherish each other throughout all adversity, in fact they do not expect any serious adversity. They have been persuaded that love (which they cannot even define) automatically will make it possible to solve all problems.

Loneliness often drives people into marriage. Many individuals simply cannot bear to be alone. They get bored and restless, and they think that having somebody of the opposite sex in the house will stop them from being miserable. Thus they marry because of desperation, not love.

Many people are fearful concerning their economic future. Men may believe that the responsibility involved in supporting a wife and children will automatically motivate them to produce more than they would if they remained single. Women often feel they will find financial security through marriage, regardless of the current ability of their fiancés to provide for their needs.

Some individuals marry because of an unconscious desire to improve themselves. Almost all human beings have a mental image-called the ego ideal-of what they would like to be. In reality an individual seldom develops into this ideal person. But when he meets someone of the opposite sex who has the qualities which he desires, then up pops another false assumption. The individual unconsciously concludes that if he marries, he will, without effort, acquire the missing desirable characteristics or talents. For this reason a drunk sometimes is attracted to an abstainer; an inherent liar may be drawn to a simple, naive person; a man with poor physical coordination often marries a slender, athletic woman; a person who cannot carry a tune often marries one who can sing well; and so forth. After the marriage the spouses learn that intimacy does not bring about the desired self-improvement. Each blames the other and the discord begins,

Many marriages are motivated by neuroses. Certain individuals pick as mates those who make it possible for them to exercise their neuroses. These people do not wish to be happy in the normal sense. If they enjoy suffering, they unconsciously choose partners with whom they can fight, or who will abuse or degrade them. Some of these marriages endure for a considerable time because the partners get pleasure from discord, but this type of perversion can hardly be called an expression of love.

Some people miss their father or mother and cannot live without a parental symbol. Therefore they find-and marry-a person of the opposite sex who will play the parental role.

In summary, then, it may be said that people generally enter matrimony thinking they are in love and believing that marriage will bring them “instant happiness,” which will solve all problems. Actually, in most instances they are swept into marriage on a tidal wave of romance, not love. Romance is usually ephemeral; it is selfish. Romantic “lovers” are distraught and miserable when separated, and this misery is caused by selfishness of the most egocentric type. The “lover” is sorry for himself and is grieving over his loss of pleasure and intimacy. This state of mind is closely related to another selfish emotion-jealousy. Romance is exciting -but it is no relation to love, no kin to that generous concern for someone else which Harry Stack Sullivan defines as love.

Most people believe they are marrying for love. This is a false assumption and a dangerous myth.

Both individual experience and statistical surveys make it clear that almost everyone suffers severe disappointment within a few months after marriage. A study conducted by the Mental Research Institute with couples married for an average of one year indicated that they felt marriage was different from what they had expected.

One young woman said, “Marriage is not what I had assumed it would be. One premarital assumption after another has crashed down on my head. I am going to make my marriage work, but it’s going to take a lot of hard work and readjusting. Marriage is like taking an airplane to Florida for a relaxing vacation in January, and when you get off the plane you find you’re in the Swiss Alps. There is cold and snow instead of swimming and sunshine. Well, after you buy winter clothes and learn how to ski and learn how to talk a new foreign language, I guess you can have just as good a vacation in the Swiss Alps as you can in Florida. But I can tell you, doctor, it’s one hell of a surprise when you get off that marital airplane and find that everything is far different from what one had assumed.”

This realistic and candid young woman is now happy in her marriage. But for her to reach this point required two years of patient working and changing and of expensive visits by herself and her husband to a competent marriage counselor for a once-a-month “checkup.” She learned that the institution of modem marriage is based on many false assumptions and untrue beliefs.

Whenever a decision or a system is based on false assumptions it is almost certain to be a failure. And marriage is no exception. We believe that if men and women were acquainted with the realities of marriage before they entered it, and if they accepted these realities, the divorce rate in the United States would diminish markedly.

To understand the realities of the marital relationship it is essential first to recognize the unrealities. What follows is a discussion of seven of the major myths of marriage.

• People Marry Because They Love Each Other: Myth
• Most Married People Love Each Other: Myth
• Loneliness Will Be Cured by Marriage: Myth
• Love is Necessary for a Satisfactory Marriage: Myth
• Children Improves a Difficult or an Unfulfilled Marriage: Myth
• Telling Your Spouse to Go to Hell a Sign of a Poor Marriage: Myth
• Behavioral Differences in Partners Cause Marital Troubles: Myth

The failure of spouses to evaluate their differences as being only differences-not marks of inferiority.

A Frenchman considers himself superior to an Italian, and an Englishman feels superior to both of them. The Italian, in turn, looks down on both the French and the British. Most people evaluate cultural differences as better or worse, inferior or superior, good or bad, instead of simply accepting them as differences.

In many marriages, one spouse considers certain aspects of his rearing or traditions or tastes as superior to those of the other spouse. Naturally, the other spouse resents this attitude. The resulting tension is like a pebble in the shoe. At first it is only uncomfortable, but after some miles it breaks the skin and may cause a painful lesion.

This tendency to make the mistake of evaluating differences as inferiorities is most easily illustrated by the misunderstanding between nations and races. For example, before World War II, the Chinese thought American motion pictures which showed men and women kissing were in bad taste, and indeed, obscene. Partially for this reason, the Chinese considered Americans to be inferior barbarians. Yet in Chungking a respectable Chinese woman might, only a few yards from a highway, lift her skirts, squat over a “honey pot,” and defecate. This custom originated because in this part of the world human feces were prized as fertilizer and were collected. Also, Western-style plumbing was considered expensive and unnecessary. To the Chinese, their custom appeared practical and wise. Yet almost all Americans who saw Chinese publicly crouching over the smelly “honey pots” turned away in disgust. They ridiculed the Chinese as an inferior and backward people not sufficiently civilized to use modem plumbing.

This kind of misunderstanding is not self-limiting. Once started, it grows and grows. In marriage (with its day-after-day intimacy) the negative value judgments made by one spouse about the habits and traditions of the other constitute a slur on his background, a disparagement of his family, a slander on his breeding, and even an insult to his intelligence. The expression of such judgments is a cruel and effective way of repeating in endless ways, “You are inferior! You are inferior!”

Often the barbs are disguised as wit. For example, listen:

“Damn it, no one but poor white trash eats parsnips. If you had any taste . . .”

“Hell no. It’s simply that no one in your family ever knew how to prepare parsnips properly.”

Whether deliberately or not, one spouse is telling the other that he is inferior. If this message is taken seriously (and it usually is), it raises the crucial question, “If I’m no damned good, why did you marry me in the first place?”

And then the battle and the deterioration begin.

3 Parts to Destructive Omission

Destructive Omission I
Destructive Omission II
Destructive Omission III

Molding the marriage into a rule-governed system may seem unromantic and boorish. But people are misled by the myth that if there is “love,” all problems will work themselves out automatically. It just doesn’t happen that way.

A workable relationship (which is the first step toward a loving, enduring union) requires order, not chaos. If the rules and the resulting order do not come naturally-and they seldom do-they must be established through conscious effort. One cannot just go on hoping that they will grow spontaneously and satisfactorily. This principle applies to all relationships, whether between spouses, between business partners, or between nations. Part of the satisfaction and security of a workable marriage originates in the development of agreed-upon predictable behavior in basic family activities-the everyday chores, responsibilities, emotional exchanges, and exercises of taste. Accomplishing this is one of the great triumphs of a successful marriage. It is the cornerstone of survival in this age of rapid change, loosening cultural role assignments, and increased education tending toward the equalization of all people.

It is this predictable behavior that breeds trust, which is the greatest cohesive strength of a lasting, mutually nourishing marriage, as the discussion of trust in Chapter 12 makes clear. The reader must recall, however, that negative trust will develop if one repeatedly does not live up to his bargains and promises. An individual can be predictable by never being trustworthy. The kind of predictability that breeds positive trust is based on the fulfillment of one’s responsibilities, promises, and agreements.

In the establishment of order, not only who does what, but also how it is to be done must be determined. The spouses can only perform tasks within the limits of their behavioral repertoires and acquired skills. These limits must be discussed. In any particular area, either the performance level must be accepted by both, or steps, mutually agreed upon, must be taken to improve the skill. For example, if a wife cannot cook well enough to please her husband, perhaps the husband will do some of the wife’s chores while she attends cooking school. If both decide that the husband needs more education to increase his earning power, perhaps the wife will take a part-time job while he goes to school, mining areas of competence and responsibility. This myth has such a hold on people that they usually cannot shake it off. The situation breeds trouble.

When the spouses’ temperaments, abilities, and training make an established cultural prescription unnatural, husband and wife may find that they can neither change the rule (as established by society) nor follow it. They may then resort to subterfuge. Perhaps a husband goes to the PTA meeting only if his wife has a headache-and she usually develops a headache on PTA night. In this case there has been no agreement on who should stay home with the children and who should go to the meeting. Therefore, the husband may one day feel that he is being “done in,” even though he enjoys the meetings. Or, as happens more often than is realized, the wife may resent having to feel sick to get her husband to do something which she senses that he wants to do anyway. A rule-making session would eliminate discord here.

It is imperative that the spouses deliberately and mutually develop rules to guide their behavior. Omission of this procedure can destroy a marriage. Husband and wife should operate in ways which mutually assist each other-regardless of custom or tradition. Decisions must be made, for example, about who washes the dishes and when, who takes the children out on weekends, mows the lawn, goes to PTA meetings, takes care of minor repairs, and so forth. If spouses fail to make such arrangements, then every time a question of who does what comes up, it must be renegotiated, even if it has arisen many times before. The result is squandered energy-and destructive power struggles. What might have been a mutually helpful interaction turns into an argument in which each says, in effect, “I must have my way, you stupid, stubborn idiot!” Examples are common. Suppose a husband and wife have not decided on early-morning rush-period rules concerning who gets up first, who uses the bathroom first, and at what time, who fixes breakfast, who feeds the children, who sees that they get to school. If there are no rules, there will be bedlam every morning-and in most homes there is. A mother with several small children may believe it is her husband’s duty to help in the morning. However, he may feel that he should have a quiet, leisurely breakfast, reading the paper in peace, to prepare him for a day of decision making at the office.

Arrangements for situations like this should therefore be worked out and agreed upon.

Molding the marriage into a rule-governed system may seem unromantic and boorish. But people are misled by the myth that if there is “love,” all problems will work themselves out automatically. It just doesn’t happen that way.

A workable relationship (which is the first step toward a loving, enduring union) requires order, not chaos. If the rules and the resulting order do not come naturally-and they seldom do-they must be established through conscious effort. One cannot just go on hoping that they will grow spontaneously and satisfactorily. This principle applies to all relationships, whether between spouses, between business partners, or between nations. Part of the satisfaction and security of a workable marriage originates in the development of agreed-upon predictable behavior in basic family activities-the everyday chores, responsibilities, emotional exchanges, and exercises of taste. Accomplishing this is one of the great triumphs of a successful marriage. It is the cornerstone of survival in this age of rapid change, loosening cultural role assignments, and increased education tending toward the equalization of all people.

It is this predictable behavior that breeds trust, which is the greatest cohesive strength of a lasting, mutually nourishing marriage, as the discussion of trust in Chapter 12 makes clear. The reader must recall, however, that negative trust will develop if one repeatedly does not live up to his bargains and promises. An individual can be predictable by never being trustworthy. The kind of predictability that breeds positive trust is based on the fulfillment of one’s responsibilities, promises, and agreements.

In the establishment of order, not only who does what, but also how it is to be done must be determined. The spouses can only perform tasks within the limits of their behavioral repertoires and acquired skills. These limits must be discussed. In any particular area, either the performance level must be accepted by both, or steps, mutually agreed upon, must be taken to improve the skill. For example, if a wife cannot cook well enough to please her husband, perhaps the husband will do some of the wife’s chores while she attends cooking school. If both decide that the husband needs more education to increase his earning power, perhaps the wife will take a part-time job while he goes to school.

The clear assignment of authority and responsibility by the spouses does not result in a rigid relationship. Quite the contrary, it creates a flexibility which is impossible in a chaotic marriage. When behavior and performances are predictable, exceptions to the rules are possible-without suspicion or haggling.

Deciding who does what also conserves energy and time, thus leaving room for humor, good cheer, experimentation, and emotional virility. In contrast, if there is a failure to make and abide by rules, then the “business” of marriage saps the energy from the spouses and little is left for enjoyment and loving.

3 Parts to Destructive Omission

Destructive Omission I
Destructive Omission II
Destructive Omission III

The failures of spouses to identify, determine, and mutually assign areas of competence and responsibility, of who is in charge of what.

Married people are involved in an almost endless number of activities. In some, the determination of which partner is more competent and responsible can usually be made without question. For example, infant rearing is generally regarded as a female function, while chopping wood is assumed to be the responsibility of the male. In other activities such as, say, finances, both spouses may participate. One may do the bookkeeping, while the other pays the bills.

But there are many areas in which the competence and responsibility of each are difficult to determine. They range from relatively unimportant matters such as sweeping the leaves off the walk, or chaperoning a children’s party, to activities of major importance, such as making out the family budget. In certain pursuits each partner believes himself to have superior competence. Certain others-often bothersome and disagreeable-are regarded by each as the responsibility of the other.

These issues must be decided and agreed upon by the spouses.

Frequently the decision involves negotiations, discussions, and compromises. Suggestions on how to accomplish the negotiations are given in additional articles. Of course, cultural cues, social pressures and mores, influence the spouses in their mutual decision making; and husband and wife often are dominated by social pressures even when they sense that the socially directed methods won’t work. They often forget that social patterns and mores change; indeed, in this era entire cultures may change within a decade. It is far more common today than it was a few years ago for the husband to cook (his special gourmet dish) when the pair entertains. In some homes the father may not be the sole wage earner; both mother and father go to work, and both share the housework.

Often the myth (deriving from tradition and social habit) that the male must be in charge of certain things and the woman in charge of others frightens the couple from independently determining areas of competence and responsibility. This myth has such a hold on people that they usually cannot shake it off. The situation breeds trouble.

When the spouses’ temperaments, abilities, and training make an established cultural prescription unnatural, husband and wife may find that they can neither change the rule (as established by society) nor follow it. They may then resort to subterfuge. Perhaps a husband goes to the PTA meeting only if his wife has a headache-and she usually develops a headache on PTA night. In this case there has been no agreement on who should stay home with the children and who should go to the meeting. Therefore, the husband may one day feel that he is being “done in,” even though he enjoys the meetings. Or, as happens more often than is realized, the wife may resent having to feel sick to get her husband to do something which she senses that he wants to do anyway. A rule-making session would eliminate discord here.

It is imperative that the spouses deliberately and mutually develop rules to guide their behavior. Omission of this procedure can destroy a marriage. Husband and wife should operate in ways which mutually assist each other-regardless of custom or tradition. Decisions must be made, for example, about who washes the dishes and when, takes the children out on weekends, mows the lawn, goes to PTA meetings, takes care of minor repairs, and so forth. If spouses fail to make such arrangements, then every time a question of who does what comes up, it must be renegotiated, even if it has arisen many times before. The result is squandered energy-and destructive power struggles. What might have been a mutually helpful interaction turns into an argument in which each says, in effect, “I must have my way, you stupid, stubborn idiot!” Examples are common. Suppose a husband and wife have not decided on early-morning rush-period rules concerning who gets up first, who uses the bathroom first, and at what time, who fixes breakfast, who feeds the children, who sees that they get to school. If there are no rules, there will be bedlam every morning-and in most homes there is. A mother with several small children may believe it is her husband’s duty to help in the morning. However, he may feel that he should have a quiet, leisurely breakfast, reading the paper in peace, to prepare him for a day of decision making at the office.

Arrangements for situations like this should therefore be worked out and agreed upon.

3 Parts to Destructive Omission

Destructive Omission I
Destructive Omission II
Destructive Omission III