jennie 21 said:
Well...aside from the comment about being used, which strikes me as overly suspicious...
Why is it overly suspicious? Many marriages turn out like that. There should be a track record that it is truly a partnership. That takes more than a couple years, in my view.
jennie 21 said:
I kind of agree, at least if you're young at the time you meet the person. My husband and I had been together for almost five years when we tied the knot, and I think that was good for us, as we were 18 and 19 when we met. When you're that young, there's no reason to rush things. If you're older (say, in your twenties) when you meet, then I think there's nothing wrong with a shorter timeframe. Still, I wonder about people who get married after being together for less than 2-3 years...I think it takes at least two years for the infatuation to wear off and for you to get to really know the other person. I can see how it may be different if you're already in your thirties, have a lot of experience with different relationships, and are sure of what you want...and some marriages following brief courtships do work out...but in general, I think it's best to date for at least two years before marriage....
I think that you're free to do what you do, but 2-4 years in my teens/early twenties is insufficient for me to know that I would want to spend 30-50+ years with someone else. Unless you're looking for open marriage. Women in their late 20s (26+) and men in their mid 30s are a better judge of when to marry because they've at least had some time to live as adults.
jennie 21 said:
On the other hand, unless you are both very young when you get together or there are other extenuating circumstances such as long-distance, dating for more than 5-6 years strikes me as excessive and indicating a fear of commitment.
Aha. This is exactly the reason I _wouldn't_ marry for a while. You effectively say "IF more than five to six years THEN you have a pathology (a fear of commitment)" This is equivalent to saying "If you are "normal" (not abnormal, not having a pathology), you must get married within 5 to 6 years of dating someone"
THIS IS EXACTLY MY POINT. Rather than basing the decision to marry or not on the person, or the typical situation, you've created a framework, a formula of how a man should interact with any general woman. If I had stuck it out with a woman over seven years (and remember the infatuation lasts 4 years usually), to the point where we were deep friends, and almost business partners in a sense, then marriage would be more of a legal formality, meaning little other than a more "legitimate" way of raising children. On the other hand marrying someone who was "just right for me" after 3 years of a relationship in college is insanity. I'd have no problem having a committed (heterosexual) domestic partner for a long while, but I would not get married for quite a while also. If you want to call this situation "common law marriage" that's fine, but there's a much higher grade of difficulty unless it is truly a partnership.
jennie 21 said:
If you meet someone in your mid-twenties, why would you need to date them for more than five or six years before marrying them? Unless you're afraid of marriage in general or not sure this is the person you want to marry. At a certain point, you either want to be with this person or you don't, and I don't think it usually takes ten years to figure that out.
Right-- again, marry or breakup! I want to make sure the woman I end up with does NOT espouse this view. I see nothing wrong with having a childless domestic partnership for a while. I may want to be with this person -- I just don;t want to be married to her in such a short period of time!! In your formula, the woman should break up with me for believing in such an idea. I also think a dom. partnership should be seen as an interim step towards marriage, and thus also I believe in giving homosexual couples the same track as heterosexual couples in the secular system.
Here's an important exception, and one for me might be valid. In the case of very religious people, marriage means something different from the generic american definition. Very religious people tend to live their life on a more duty-filled model than an individual one. Because our society emphasizes individual happiness as being the most important, the idea of fidelity, sacrifice, delayed gratification, and a more communal sense of growth is overshadowed by more immediate desires.
In other words, if I were marrying someone very religious (or at least more duty oriented than selfish oriented) of my own faith, I'd be more inclined to marry earlier. Sacrifice btw goes both ways, man and woman, so be clear I don't mean to say the wife should sacrifice for the man.
