Would you stay with a spouse that you were no longer in love with?

[trillionaire]

Date: 5/12/2009 11:03:31 PM
Author: HollyS
I didn''t vote because I didn''t see my point of view represented.


Marriage is not a stop along the way of living your life. A real marriage is ''two becoming one''. Anything else isn''t, and never was, a marriage. It might be a certificate, a calendar date, and a photo album. But it isn''t a marriage.


That being said, you won''t ''fall out of love'' if you marry for the right reasons. Hopefully by the time you get married, you have already realized that passion isn''t love; infatuation isn''t love; peer pressure to do what everyone else is doing isn''t love. And you aren''t marrying because you want children; they are the byproduct of a loving union, not the reason for it.


If you marry your best friend, the one person you can trust implicitly, the one person who will love you unconditionally (as much as humanly possible, anyway), then you won''t get bored, you won''t fall out of love, and the relationship won''t fall flat on its face.


And just to be clear, I used ''you'' in the editorial sense, not in a personal way. Not talking about anybody in particular on my soapbox.

Total co-sign. I can''t wait to marry my best friend and pester him for the rest of his life! hehe!

 

[bee*]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:42:47 PM
Author: canuk-gal
HI:


Sure. I think a lot of folks love their partners, but are not in love with them. They value stability and intimacy and it takes precedence over passion.


cheers--Sharon

This is how I feel too. If I still love him (maybe not IN love with him) and we''re great friends, have a good time together and enjoy each other''s company, then yes I think that I would stay.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 5/13/2009 3:32:05 AM
Author: SanDiegoLady

Date: 5/12/2009 9:50:31 PM
Author: lucyandroger
I chose ''divorce only if there are NO kids.'' I think that once you have kids, it becomes more than just ''does this person make my heart skip a beat''. I believe that once you are parents, you have the responsibility to raise those children as partners, putting their interests first.

My cousins have two children and have ''grown apart.'' They are legally seperated but share the same family home (seperate bedrooms) because they realized how important it is for children to have both parents in the home everyday. Sure it''s difficult but they put their children first and think it''s worth any awkwardness. Afterall, they brought them into this world.

Awkward is an understatement..

I was with my ex husband for almost 18 years.. 18 years of off and on abuse of one form or another. Could my children see it? Nope. Did everyone we know think we had about the most perfect marriage? Yep. I stayed for my children because I wanted them to have a happy, traditional two parents upbringing and I was very good at making sure they didnt want for anything. Staying was the absolute wrong thing to do. I should have done it when my children were still babies.

When my (2nd) hubby and I got married, we promised eachother we didn''t ever want to go through the hideous divorces we''d each had.. do I ever want to be divorced again? No. Not ever. I abhor the mere thought of it. I cannot imagine life without my husband in it.. its unfathomable to me.

However, I have found my life is so short on this earth if my marriage ever came to a point we weren''t speaking and ''grew apart'' it would be pointless for each of us. This is my second- and final- marriage. If for some God forsaken reason it should end, I have zero desire to be married to let alone live with another man. I am just too old at this point to even consider it.. I''d be my nabor''s Future Crazy Cat Lady.....

Sorry you were stuck in an abusive relationship for so long, SDL. For the record, my cousins are NOT in an abusive relationship and I really don''t think awkward is an understatement in their case. Like the original question, they''ve fallen out of love - grown apart, but are willing to act like mature adults and not fight in front the kids. They still have family dinners, go on family vacations, they BOTH help with homework, etc.

Of course, abuse is a whole other thing. I was just addressing the falling out love scenario.

 

[butterfly 17]

I chose divorce only if there are no kids or if the kids are already adults....

 

[Bia]

I would most definitely try my hardest to find out why I fell out of love, and would give my all in working with him to change things that made the love and passion disappear. Especially if I loved him as a person, and he was still the great man that I married. If he changed and was no longer the person I fell in love with--the good-natured, smart, funny, spontaneous, affectionate, humble, silly, caring, etc.--turning into someone I don''t recognize, then I wouldn''t stay. Ultimately I want to be happy in life, and I want the same for him.

I think “staying” for the sake of saving a marriage is a mistake, and can do two people a lot of harm. I’ve seen it happen in my family and it is not pretty. Divorce is an option for a reason.

 

[Linda W]

Date: 5/12/2009 11:03:31 PM
Author: HollyS
I didn''t vote because I didn''t see my point of view represented.


Marriage is not a stop along the way of living your life. A real marriage is ''two becoming one''. Anything else isn''t, and never was, a marriage. It might be a certificate, a calendar date, and a photo album. But it isn''t a marriage.


That being said, you won''t ''fall out of love'' if you marry for the right reasons. Hopefully by the time you get married, you have already realized that passion isn''t love; infatuation isn''t love; peer pressure to do what everyone else is doing isn''t love. And you aren''t marrying because you want children; they are the byproduct of a loving union, not the reason for it.


If you marry your best friend, the one person you can trust implicitly, the one person who will love you unconditionally (as much as humanly possible, anyway), then you won''t get bored, you won''t fall out of love, and the relationship won''t fall flat on its face.


And just to be clear, I used ''you'' in the editorial sense, not in a personal way. Not talking about anybody in particular on my soapbox.

Very well said Holly. My feelings exactly.

 

[appletini]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:42:12 PM
Author: steph72276
Well, I def. wouldn''t just up and divorce. I would work on things. Take a trip together, go on dates, do things that remind me why we fell in love in the first place. I would go to therapy. I would put an all out 100% effort into it and then think about leaving if I still remained unhappy. It wouldn''t be fair to either person to live an unhappy life. I would do everything under the sun first though since we have a child together...I think that makes a huge difference.

Steph you have a very good point here. I am a firm believer that two people have to maintain their relationship, you can''t put it on auto pilot. DH and I have only been married for three years, but ever since we started dating we make the effort to have a date night (Just the two of us) once a week. Even if its just the casual byob pizza place we love. It gives us time to just talk to eachother with out the distractions of friends, television, computer, etc.

 

[chiquitapet]

Date: 5/12/2009 11:03:31 PM
Author: HollyS
I didn''t vote because I didn''t see my point of view represented.

Marriage is not a stop along the way of living your life. A real marriage is ''two becoming one''. Anything else isn''t, and never was, a marriage. It might be a certificate, a calendar date, and a photo album. But it isn''t a marriage.

That being said, you won''t ''fall out of love'' if you marry for the right reasons. Hopefully by the time you get married, you have already realized that passion isn''t love; infatuation isn''t love; peer pressure to do what everyone else is doing isn''t love. And you aren''t marrying because you want children; they are the byproduct of a loving union, not the reason for it.

If you marry your best friend, the one person you can trust implicitly, the one person who will love you unconditionally (as much as humanly possible, anyway), then you won''t get bored, you won''t fall out of love, and the relationship won''t fall flat on its face.

And just to be clear, I used ''you'' in the editorial sense, not in a personal way. Not talking about anybody in particular on my soapbox.

Beautifully said. I wish I was this eloquent.
I voted for option 1.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 5/12/2009 11:03:31 PM
Author: HollyS
I didn''t vote because I didn''t see my point of view represented.

Marriage is not a stop along the way of living your life. A real marriage is ''two becoming one''. Anything else isn''t, and never was, a marriage. It might be a certificate, a calendar date, and a photo album. But it isn''t a marriage.

That being said, you won''t ''fall out of love'' if you marry for the right reasons. Hopefully by the time you get married, you have already realized that passion isn''t love; infatuation isn''t love; peer pressure to do what everyone else is doing isn''t love. And you aren''t marrying because you want children; they are the byproduct of a loving union, not the reason for it.

If you marry your best friend, the one person you can trust implicitly, the one person who will love you unconditionally (as much as humanly possible, anyway), then you won''t get bored, you won''t fall out of love, and the relationship won''t fall flat on its face.

And just to be clear, I used ''you'' in the editorial sense, not in a personal way. Not talking about anybody in particular on my soapbox.

This is kind of how I feel too. But people change. Ever seen American Beauty?

If my husband changed so much over time that I was no longer with the man I fell in love with, then I would leave. And I imagine he would want to, too.

But I really hope that never happens, because just the thought breaks my heart!

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I think it would depend on the situation.

I love my husband very much...and he''s also my very best friend. So if someday, the "love-love" were to fade...depending our situation...depending on how old we were at the time...I think I would stay.

Love, of course, has a huge part in marriage (and any relationship really)...but there are other facets as well that are equally as important.

 

[Vani]

As long as there was still kindness and respect - yes, I would stay.

 

[LadyBlue]

Date: 5/13/2009 10:24:32 AM
Author: appletini

Date: 5/12/2009 9:42:12 PM

Author: steph72276

Well, I def. wouldn''t just up and divorce. I would work on things. Take a trip together, go on dates, do things that remind me why we fell in love in the first place. I would go to therapy. I would put an all out 100% effort into it and then think about leaving if I still remained unhappy. It wouldn''t be fair to either person to live an unhappy life. I would do everything under the sun first though since we have a child together...I think that makes a huge difference.

Steph you have a very good point here. I am a firm believer that two people have to maintain their relationship, you can''t put it on auto pilot. DH and I have only been married for three years, but ever since we started dating we make the effort to have a date night (Just the two of us) once a week. Even if its just the casual byob pizza place we love. It gives us time to just talk to eachother with out the distractions of friends, television, computer, etc.

I agree with this girls, I think love is a conscious decision. You have to keep working hard to mantain on fire the love between eachother. And in at some point, I start feeling like i''m loseing that feeling, I will try to find what am i missing now that I did not miss in the past, and make it works.

 

[Steel]

I chose the 1st option but it wasn''t a perfect fit. I do believe in divorce.

I would stay because IMHO love is a 24/7 emotion. Even existing when he snores, refuses to put his dishes *in* the dishwasher or refuel the car when he uses it. But the *in love* feeling is a head rush which will not maintain while he cuts his toenails in front of you or takes a polar opposite position to you in a heated discussion. I am finding it difficult to articulate what I mean but the crux of the sentiment is that divorce for me would have to be the deterioration of all love. While I understand a body might care deeply for their ex-SO when they divorce, but I wonder if there is *any* love left?

Do you know what I mean?

 

[Erin]

All beginnings are lovely, but no matter how lovely, a beginning is only a beginning. Time will tell if a relationship is built to go the distance. Love is not static. Love is not something you fall into and fall out of. Love is fluid. It rises and falls like the tide. When you love someone, you do not love them all the time, in exactly the same way, from moment to moment. It’s impossible. Love will change and change again.

It used to be that a man or a woman would leave a spouse because of violence, alcoholism, no support, serious character deficiencies, infidelities – serious issues. Now people just feel like it’s time to leave because they’re not happy. What does that mean? And why should relationships end over a temporary and largely self-induced mind-set? Is somebody under the impression that a quality, long-term marriage is supposed to make you perpetually giddy, or that happiness is a quality that must only be experienced emphatically, not subtly? You know, like Big Bangs versus a cool breeze?

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 5/13/2009 12:18:18 AM
Author: asscherisme

Date: 5/12/2009 9:59:33 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 5/12/2009 9:50:31 PM
Author: lucyandroger
I chose ''divorce only if there are NO kids.'' I think that once you have kids, it becomes more than just ''does this person make my heart skip a beat''. I believe that once you are parents, you have the responsibility to raise those children as partners, putting their interests first.

My cousins have two children and have ''grown apart.'' They are legally seperated but share the same family home (seperate bedrooms) because they realized how important it is for children to have both parents in the home everyday. Sure it''s difficult but they put their children first and think it''s worth any awkwardness. Afterall, they brought them into this world.

yet another reason for me not to have kids... that sounds awful!

I do have kids and I think that sounds awful as well. And I''m not sure thats any better than being divorced. Its certainly not modeling a healthy adult relationship and gives the kids a warped sense of marriage.

Children are not partners, making decisions in the best interest of the children is NOT the same thing as putting their interests first. Miserable parents do not make happy kids. Miserable parents messes up kids.

Ditto. Study after study has shown this.

 

[LAJennifer]

Date: 5/13/2009 3:16:51 PM
Author: Starset Princess

All beginnings are lovely, but no matter how lovely, a beginning is only a beginning. Time will tell if a relationship is built to go the distance. Love is not static. Love is not something you fall into and fall out of. Love is fluid. It rises and falls like the tide. When you love someone, you do not love them all the time, in exactly the same way, from moment to moment. It’s impossible. Love will change and change again.

It used to be that a man or a woman would leave a spouse because of violence, alcoholism, no support, serious character deficiencies, infidelities – serious issues. Now people just feel like it’s time to leave because they’re not happy. What does that mean? And why should relationships end over a temporary and largely self-induced mind-set? Is somebody under the impression that a quality, long-term marriage is supposed to make you perpetually giddy, or that happiness is a quality that must only be experienced emphatically, not subtly? You know, like Big Bangs versus a cool breeze?

I completely agree. My brother's wife just divorced him because she wasn't happy. He has done nothing wrong - she had complete freedom. He has also played the role of both mom and dad to their 2 boys (ages 6 and 3). He is still very attractive and easygoing. But hey, she was unhappy. I guess it doesn't matter that the other 3 in the family were happy.

They are now divorced, and guess what . . . she is STILL UNHAPPY. Now the kids are unhappy. Is that better for everybody?

 

[oobiecoo]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:42:12 PM
Author: steph72276
Well, I def. wouldn''t just up and divorce. I would work on things. Take a trip together, go on dates, do things that remind me why we fell in love in the first place. I would go to therapy. I would put an all out 100% effort into it and then think about leaving if I still remained unhappy. It wouldn''t be fair to either person to live an unhappy life. I would do everything under the sun first though since we have a child together...I think that makes a huge difference.

I''d go this route... really try to work things out and reconnect before doing anything drastic whether we had kids or not.

 

[HollyS]

Date: 5/13/2009 3:16:51 PM
Author: Starset Princess

All beginnings are lovely, but no matter how lovely, a beginning is only a beginning. Time will tell if a relationship is built to go the distance. Love is not static. Love is not something you fall into and fall out of. Love is fluid. It rises and falls like the tide. When you love someone, you do not love them all the time, in exactly the same way, from moment to moment. It’s impossible. Love will change and change again.

It used to be that a man or a woman would leave a spouse because of violence, alcoholism, no support, serious character deficiencies, infidelities – serious issues. Now people just feel like it’s time to leave because they’re not happy. What does that mean? And why should relationships end over a temporary and largely self-induced mind-set? Is somebody under the impression that a quality, long-term marriage is supposed to make you perpetually giddy, or that happiness is a quality that must only be experienced emphatically, not subtly? You know, like Big Bangs versus a cool breeze?

Well said.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 5/13/2009 3:28:50 PM
Author: FrekeChild

Date: 5/13/2009 12:18:18 AM
Author: asscherisme

Date: 5/12/2009 9:59:33 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 5/12/2009 9:50:31 PM
Author: lucyandroger
I chose ''divorce only if there are NO kids.'' I think that once you have kids, it becomes more than just ''does this person make my heart skip a beat''. I believe that once you are parents, you have the responsibility to raise those children as partners, putting their interests first.

My cousins have two children and have ''grown apart.'' They are legally seperated but share the same family home (seperate bedrooms) because they realized how important it is for children to have both parents in the home everyday. Sure it''s difficult but they put their children first and think it''s worth any awkwardness. Afterall, they brought them into this world.

yet another reason for me not to have kids... that sounds awful!

I do have kids and I think that sounds awful as well. And I''m not sure thats any better than being divorced. Its certainly not modeling a healthy adult relationship and gives the kids a warped sense of marriage.

Children are not partners, making decisions in the best interest of the children is NOT the same thing as putting their interests first. Miserable parents do not make happy kids. Miserable parents messes up kids.

Ditto. Study after study has shown this.

I''m not sure why you''d assume they are miserable. This is a decision they came to together because they decided that even if they aren''t "in love" anymore, they are still partners in raising their children. What would have made them miserable would be if either one of them had to live apart from their children.

I also don''t see how you can say their relationship is unhealthy without knowing anything about them. Because they chose to continue to live together?

It was also a smart financial decision because this way they do not have to support two households. In divorces, the net financial result is always bad for the family because keeping up two rents/mortgages, electricity, heat, is a lot more than one. This way that money is going towards the kids'' college funds.

They really are quite happy and it works for them.

 

[mausketeer]

I voted for "show me what everyone else has said" because at this point.... I just don''t know. I''m already divorced from my first marriage and just called off my engagement two weeks ago. Am now considering calling off the entire relationship (we''re still together). I''m having a hard time with it all. Trying to piece together like...... what is...... what is "good enough", you know? What is enough to make you come back day after day? And what is a deal breaker? And why is it that some things for some people are enough and for some people are too much?

I do know one thing though, a lot of people on here have talked about people "changing" over the years. I honestly haven''t found that to be true. I don''t think people really change all that much. Oh yeah - if you''re very very young - like, if you get married at 20 say and over the years between 20 and about 30, of course, you''re going to change a lot. But beyond that, I think you''re pretty much set. If you know someone as an adult and you THINK they''ve changed in the five years or ten years since you''ve been together, you know what''s REALLY changed? Your perception of them! You THOUGHT they were a certain way when you met, and they WEREN''T. Now you''re seeing what they''re REALLY like. That has been MY experience. Don''t assume the way someone is in the first year you know them is how they really are - you''ll be sorely disappointed.......

 

[Judah Gutwein]

HollyS,

Your post on this thread (initial comments on page 1) is absolutely awesome.
Would be an idea IMO for people to cut, copy and paste those observations to their fridge.

Just my opinion.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 5/13/2009 5:47:16 PM
Author: SanDiegoLady

Date: 5/13/2009 3:28:50 PM
Author: FrekeChild

Date: 5/13/2009 12:18:18 AM
Author: asscherisme

Date: 5/12/2009 9:59:33 PM
Author: trillionaire

Date: 5/12/2009 9:50:31 PM
Author: lucyandroger
I chose ''divorce only if there are NO kids.'' I think that once you have kids, it becomes more than just ''does this person make my heart skip a beat''. I believe that once you are parents, you have the responsibility to raise those children as partners, putting their interests first.

My cousins have two children and have ''grown apart.'' They are legally seperated but share the same family home (seperate bedrooms) because they realized how important it is for children to have both parents in the home everyday. Sure it''s difficult but they put their children first and think it''s worth any awkwardness. Afterall, they brought them into this world.

yet another reason for me not to have kids... that sounds awful!

I do have kids and I think that sounds awful as well. And I''m not sure thats any better than being divorced. Its certainly not modeling a healthy adult relationship and gives the kids a warped sense of marriage.

Children are not partners, making decisions in the best interest of the children is NOT the same thing as putting their interests first. Miserable parents do not make happy kids. Miserable parents messes up kids.

Ditto. Study after study has shown this.

I agree.. I agree.. Miserable parents who pretend for the sake of their children are not fooling anyone.. it hurts everyone involved in the long run.

Believe me, I have four children who are testament of this. They are much happier knowing Mommy is happy with husband #2 and can visually see that happiness on a regular basis over tense Mommy who put on a really good show because she thought she had to... not the lesson I wanted to pass on to my kids, but a good lesson in what NOT to do.

If you''re not still addressing the scenario in my original post then just ignore what follows

I addressed the assumption that they were miserable in my post above - they''re not. They are also NOT "pretending" or putting on a show. Everyone knows that they are seperated. They are two seperated people that live together with their children as a family. They find that this scenario works for them and they are quite happy...certainly not for everyone and certainly quite different from your case in which you were in an abusive relationship.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 5/13/2009 12:34:44 AM
Author: jet2ks

Date: 5/12/2009 11:03:31 PM
Author: HollyS
I didn''t vote because I didn''t see my point of view represented.

Marriage is not a stop along the way of living your life. A real marriage is ''two becoming one''. Anything else isn''t, and never was, a marriage. It might be a certificate, a calendar date, and a photo album. But it isn''t a marriage.

That being said, you won''t ''fall out of love'' if you marry for the right reasons. Hopefully by the time you get married, you have already realized that passion isn''t love; infatuation isn''t love; peer pressure to do what everyone else is doing isn''t love. And you aren''t marrying because you want children; they are the byproduct of a loving union, not the reason for it.

If you marry your best friend, the one person you can trust implicitly, the one person who will love you unconditionally (as much as humanly possible, anyway), then you won''t get bored, you won''t fall out of love, and the relationship won''t fall flat on its face.

And just to be clear, I used ''you'' in the editorial sense, not in a personal way. Not talking about anybody in particular on my soapbox.

My feelings exactly, just much better worded than I could have done. Well said, Holly!

My favorite signature line on PS, and I can''t remember who has it, is ''Love is a verb''. True selfless love is action much more than feeling, you can love someone even when you aren''t in love with them. Showing love will bring back the feeling of love.

I think one of the major problems is how that word translates. Greek has five different words that translate to love in English. I think they understand it better.

Bingo!!! People tend to confuse love and lust. Love is commitment. Love is giving and not selfish. Love is not lustful passion. That fades to some degree for almost everyone over the years. People who think passion equals being "in love" are never going to be truly happy, IMO (as unpopular as it may be).

I just wonder what people say for their wedding vows these days when they believe you just divorce when you''re no longer happy...

"I promise to love you as long as I feel like it, and then, I''m outta there!"

At least that would be honest.

 

[princesss]

Other than in extraordinary cases, I don't believe in divorce. I feel like with all of the resources available to couples today, there are ways to improve a fading relationship. I think marriage is as more a partnership of friendship and respect than it is about the passionate kind of love. I don't know that I think the "in love" feeling trumps the deep, every day kind of love that you get with a long term relationship. I wouldn't marry somebody I didn't feel would be fun to have around in hard times, nor would I marry somebody that I didn't respect. Being married doesn't stop you from finding fulfilling things to do with your time, and if you're married to somebody you respect, you can often share that with them and build a new kind of relationship with them.

But this is all theoretical, as I'm 22 (23 next week, lol) and unmarried. Maybe I will feel differently as I get older and see people get divorced for various reasons. But that's where I stand right now.

(I must add that I think that when two people stay married "for the kids" and find ways to lash out at each other or flaunt indiscretions it can become a kind of abuse, and is definitely not healthy for the children.)

ETA: Ditto Starset. Love changes throughout an hour, a day, a year, a decade... One thing that helped me when I had trouble coming to terms with the seriousness of my relationship and the choice I was making was something TGal said. She said something along the lines of, "It's not 'I love you because...' it's 'I love you.' Period."

 

[Bliss]

I love what HollyS wrote. I agree that you should marry your best friend. Love isn't a feeling. It's not a fleeting emotion that one day can be gone. Love is a verb. You see those arranged marriages in Hindu customs where the bride and groom scarcely knew each other. And I always used to wonder how they stayed together through so many years with so much love and sincere devotion. It was so beautiful to me! I finally got it when I married DH. Love isn't a feeling, it's a verb!

It's a choice to love the other person, through good times and bad. Even when I'm tired, just seeing DH will put a smile on my face and I will caress his face. Every morning, I'm sure DH is rushing but he always smothers me with kisses while I'm still in bed sleeping. He does so many things for me and I try to think of him in every way because of this love that we are growing together like a precious plant. One day, that plant will grow into a magnificent tree and hopefully bear fruit and bring shelter and joy to our children. You know?

DH sent me this one day and I feel like it sums up love perfectly. In our society, people tend to think they "fell" out of love because they aren't happy with themselves fundamentally - and once the first blush of chemistry and infatuation fade, there is reality. A real human being to deal with - and your flaws, too. Most people run then, or live with it and then something sets off their inner demons to seek another diversion or panacea to their unhealed wounds. It's a lack of intimacy because if you allow yourself to be loved and to love, I can't see how you can fall out of it. It just grows and grows and grows.

Anyway, since I'm writing in circles - here's the quote that DH sent me one day. It's from that cheesy movie Captain Corelli's Mandolin... but it's beautiful.

Love is a temporary madness.
It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides.
And when it subsides you have to make a decision.
You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined
together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part.

Because this is what love is.
Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement,
it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion.
That is just being in love which any of us can convince ourselves we are.
Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away,
and this is both an art and a fortunate accident.

Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other
underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches
we found that we were one tree and not two.

Awwww...

 

[partgypsy]

I wouldn''t know how to answer that unless I was in that situation, well even then I might not know. All I can say it that being married to someone you don''t love sounds like a version of hell. I guess I answered my own question. I don''t think I could stay together with someone I didn''t love. Heck it''s hard enough with someone you DO love.

 

[CNOS128]

Date: 5/13/2009 5:46:44 PM
Author: Judah Gutwein
HollyS,
Your post on this thread (initial comments on page 1) is absolutely awesome.
Would be an idea IMO for people to cut, copy and paste those observations to their fridge.
Just my opinion.

I agree, Holly''s post really resonated with me as well. I wish I were as articulate as she is!

 

[partgypsy]

Oops I didn''t read that carefully enough! I think being "in love" and loving someone are 2 different things. Sometimes I''m in love with my spouse, sometimes I''m not especially if we just had a fight

but I have never stopped loving him. I would be totally fine being with someone I love but am not "in love" with, in fact I think that how most people end up in old age between feeding pureed goo to your husband and wiping the excess off the chin or changing the Depends!

 

[icekid]

Date: 5/12/2009 9:43:14 PM
Author: AmberGretchen
Wow, I honestly don''t know. I''m inclined to say I wouldn''t stay, but I also really strongly believe that so much of it is a choice. Not to say that you can DECIDE to be in love with someone, but you can decide to make a conscious effort in your marriage to appreciate your partner every single day. I''ve only been married for (almost) three years, but I feel like I''ve fallen in love with my DH all over again at least a dozen times during those years. And we''ve really both learned that a big part of it for us is remaining conscious of each other and how much we''re both growing and changing and really engaging in the relationship as much as possible.

This is exactly what I was going to post, Amber! Well-said

I DO feel in a way that being in love is a CHOICE. Like your marriage, after the inital honeymoon period, it takes EFFORT. I am not oh my god in love with my husband everyday. But every so often, I fall in love with him all over again. But it does not just happen; it''s about staying present in our relationship.

This is one of the big reasons that I worry about my job controlling my life; we''re about to make a big move. My hours are extreme. His are not, but are going to involve a long commute. While my hubby is not concerns, I am really stressing that we will not have enough time to reconnect with each other

 

[qtiekiki]

I voted I don''t know b/c I really don''t know. I just think it''s more complicated than just asking for a divorce b/c relationships are two-sided. If I am no longer in love with DH, it doesn''t mean DH isn''t in love with me. So I would have to consider his feelings. And when I am no longer in love with DH, it doesn''t mean I don''t love/care/have feelings for him. But since I am still in love with DH, I can''t think of all the possibilities and decide that divorce is best. And for that reason, I voted I don''t know.