I am confused. Is posting or commenting here quality time or is it an act of service? I guess it could be both.
It occurs to me that Jesuitical reasoning, stereotypically applied, might not be conducive to marital harmony.
I have the same reaction I always have to these lists, which is: Yes, this is a good set of questions...for the subset of people who haven't thought of them already, and who are self-reflective enough and honest enough to answer them meaningfully.
Then I always get stuck on how big that subset is. Is it 60% of people getting married? Or more like 6%? I used to lean toward the tiny end of the number, but life is slowly pushing me toward the higher end. Common sense ain't common.
Not sure why presidential, sometimes I'm like that. My therapist said it's a good idea for couples to go to couples counseling just for a "tune-up" even if nothing's wrong, and I was kind of interested in the idea, have discussed it with partner.
Jammies and I barely discussed any of those explicitly, but almost all of them arose through the course of spending maybe two years together.
I think that having a list like that is slightly off, though, because I can imagine having had those conversations in bad past relationships, and being able to check them off. But those were terrible relationships because we couldn't navigate conflict, even if we lined up culturally.
I'd say it's more important for both people to have the skills to have a good faith, kind-hearted conversation about things where you have intense feelings. It's okay to disagree on those major topics, especially if one person doesn't care so much and neither party gets oppositional about finding a solution.
Frequency of sex, kids or no kids, big picture on religion - some of those have GOT to be made clear up front, and I have grave doubts about couples who don't get around to those topics, I suppose. I guess I'm backpedaling.
There might be something as useless as a ten year old understanding as to how often sex should happen, but I can't think of one.
I don't think ten-year-olds should be having sex regardless of the frequency.
That was more useful than all couple counseling I've done.
A thirty year old understanding, maybe?
I'd say it's more important for both people to have the skills to have a good faith, kind-hearted conversation about things where you have intense feelings. It's okay to disagree on those major topics, especially if one person doesn't care so much and neither party gets oppositional about finding a solution.
Exactly.
The latest Dear Prudence has a letter from a wife who's routinely awakened by her husband's alarm while he isn't, which is definitely on my never-again list but probably wouldn't come out during questioning.
I saw that. She should have shot him.
This list is a good list, but I agree with Heebie that if these things don't come up over the course of being in a relationship with someone that might be a red flag in itself. And of course finances and how to combine them should be discussed before the knot gets tied.
There might be something as useless as a ten year old understanding as to how often sex should happen, but I can't think of one.
You betcha.
There might be something as useless as a ten year old understanding as to how often sex should happen, but I can't think of one.
How about never? Is never good for you?
3: Judging from the reactions at our pre-cana class when couples were astounded to learn that they disagreed about careers, children, etc, I think a lot of people never talk to the people they are about to marry.
I thought the different languages of love was an interesting and novel take on this. If the two parties have different ones as their first languages, as was the case with me and the former Lady P, you can get tremendous amounts of frustration building up because the other party is so obviously ignoring and rejecting all the loving things your saying and off on some pointless self-gratification of their own.
17: It's an excellent strategy if you just continue to not talk about any of those things through the entire length of the marriage.
My ex and I scored 100 percent compatibility in our pre-Cana.
23: Armchair psychology time? Swivel chair?
Based on your previous testimony, your ex was consciously or unconsciously lying in order to please you.
Do you think I'm right?
just jumping in to agree with heebie and others--people often make the mistake of assuming that who they are marrying is who they are going to be married to later. that people change seems obvious, but most people are pretty lousy at adapting to that change with anything resembling grace.
I resent that remark.
16: My friend Ted said I should just get a mistress.
I think points 5 and 6 in that list are the most important in context, but that's because most of the others should have been sorted long ago. You want to marry me and you don't yet know whether we're cool with each other doing stuff on our own? Puhleeze?
President Ford has it right about sex @7 above, though I might say 1 year rather than 10. I think the sex question needs to be something more like, "Imagine a Venn diagram of your sexual needs and hopes, and your partner's. Do you envisage your sex life in this marriage as restricted to the intersection in the Venn, or trying to include all of both circles?"
Some people are just desperate to get married, and they finally have something great going, so why ruin it by talking and trying to plan out the future? Of course, it's not going to end well, but not much ever does. And shouldn't people at least get a chance to fulfill their dreams, before the roof caves in?
We weren't together very long* before we got married, and we got married in the chapel of my college, and had about four meetings with the chaplain and his wife beforehand. I don't remember details, but I remember a questionnaire thing, and I remember that we thought it was interesting and useful.
*met in March, started being proper friends in June, got together in September, decided to get married end of October, got married in January 1996. Had baby in November.
We haven't had any fundamental disagreements, which I put down to sheer luck.
We've never ever argued about money, which seems rare. Up till now we have always had separate bank accounts as our ins and outs have been pretty straightforward. Now things are getting more complicated (soon to have two proper incomes for the first time in twenty years, soon to have two children at university with asynchronous rent schedules, etc) and we're thinking that a joint account might be useful. Feels very weird though.
As someone who has run some premarital counseling, I would say agree with heebie, with two caveats. First, people often underestimate the impact of cultural expectations on a relationship - the "how did your family fight" question. And secondly, lists like this (along with a moderately competent facilitator, ideally, especially for couples who want to coast on "everything's ok" bliss) can really highlight a couple's ability to fight in a constructive way. Meaning that the questions are important but the answering of the questions is important in and of itself.
And the cultural trappings of marriage make it a particularly powerful and earnest point in most people's lives.
30 led me by clicking "random" to this which may be the greatest excuse for fear of cunnilingus ever
28: As you know, Gerald, I've committed adultery in my heart many times. But Rosalind, who's great in most ways, would not be okay with a real dalliance, and I don't want to lie to her.
My wife's name was the result of her parents going to pre-Cana classes. It's slightly surprising that more people haven't had that idea.
32. Asilon, keep your finances separate if that's what you're comfortable with and set up a new account into which you both pay an agreed monthly sum, roughly proportional to your respective incomes, to cover college expenses and such like.
36: Maybe that's why so many Irish women are named Mary.
These are all things I want to know not only about my partner but also about every person I meet bc I am I am nosy, but I guess I am confused as to the desired end of forcing these conversation on couples who somehow haven't had them organically. Is it to get couples to come to agreements that they can refer back to when conflict comes up? Or is it to get couples to recognize and presumably end fundamentally doomed relationships? Are either of those ends are attainable or served by these chats?
I guess it could just be to develop the habit of having these sorts of talks, which is probably a good habit.
A combination of ending fundamentally doomed relationships, and identifying areas where compromises are going to be necessary to see if they're possible? I guess?
These are all things I want to know not only about my partner but about every person I meet
Hmm, I've never thought about asking everyone I meet how often they want to have sex with me because I assume I know the answer, but maybe I'm missing opportunities.
39: The desired end is to avoid predictable problems. For instance, if Agamemnon had made clear at the outset that he would need personal time sufficient for the waging of a 10-year war, you might have found a way to negotiate some ground rules, rather than gruesomely murdering him.
I don't think it was the time out for the 10 year war so much as the sacrificing their eldest daughter that put that relationship on the downward spiral.
I agree 40 and 42 are what the folks quoted in the article THINK they are doing, I just can't imagine either of these scenarios unfolding in real life:
1) Blissful soon-to-wed Deianeira and Heracles sit down with this list, realize they have fundamentally different expectations about sharing debt, say "this will probably break us up in 10 years so we should just call it now."
2) Same couple, but they decide their feelings aren't so far apart they can't reach a compromise, and decide on, i dunno, sharing undergrad student loans but not grad school. Ten years later, D is fuming because she has nursing school loans H won't help out with on principle, even though he can easily afford to. H says "remember what we agreed on when we were doing that times questionnaire?" D says "oh yeah, right, good point," and never brings it up again.
Iiiiiddddkkkkk whatever, I am pro conversation. This is probably part of a bigger problem I have with Advice Writing generally; the first step is so often "figure out what you want," where "what you want" is at best a moving target and at worst not a thing at all.
42: Also the crucial, "would you sacrifice our future offspring?" question.
43 I mean we agreed we wanted kids before we got married; I did not think the burden was on me to ask whether we wanted them for sacrificial purposes. THAT would have been a useful Times questionnaire.
44. Also, the things that really matter are often unpredictable. D and H could sit down and agree on all the points in that list, but would it occur to them to ask, "What's your view on bloodstained shirts?" Admittedly people these days are less likely to have to worry about being poisoned with underwear, but we're all routinely ambushed by circumstances.
Greek mythology is full of good case studies.
Jason: If -- Gods forbid -- we ever got divorced, do you think you could accept shared custody?
Medea: Not so much, actually.
Jocasta: Do you have strong feelings around incest taboos?
Oedipus: Yes! Let's get a background check, just for peace of mind.
I may be misremembering, but didn't big A kill his daughter because he needed to do so in order to get better wind to sail his ships to fight a war that he was joining because (???? reasons). Key marriage question should be "what is more important, not murdering your own daughter or fighting a pointless, aggressive war."
Paris: Come on! You know you want to!
Helen: True, but Menelaus has strong beliefs on the permanence of marriage. Like really strong. And I did agree I was cool with that.
53: I forget -- was Priam worse than Hitler? Did he have WMDs?
(???? reasons).
Brother of Menelaus, the cuckhold who actually launched a thousand ships.
A cuckhold is rare wrestling maneuver used in troubled marriages, in case anyone was wondering.
53: Yes. The reason was that all the warlords of Greece had agreed to fight anyone who abducted Helen, so that no-one would fight over her. Yeah.
All prior diplomatic commitments should of course be disclosed in pre-marital discussions.
49, 52:
honestly you don't even need to use new questions.
Glauce: Ok, ok, Jason, this is number 3! Ok. 'Will our experiences with our exes help or hinder us?'
Jason: *blinks*
59: My comments are a mere John the Baptist to Stabby's Jesus.
58 -- oh right. But then wouldn't wind blowing the wrong way be like the best thing ever and an awesome excuse literally sent from the heavens. OH SORRY I can't fulfill this promise I made in order to maybe get a woman that I totally did not get and that now someone else is sleeping with in a way that 100% does not affect me directly. SORRY JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT WIND ISSUE.
60:
But now also cracking self up imaging Jesus and JtB going through this list. "Do we like each other's parents?"
What a busy day at work this has been.
61
But no bc everyone knows you can sacrifice your daughter to fix a wind issue. That's like flaking because "ugh, sorry, can't get a cab" hello, Uber is real.
I agree with 40 and 42. They won't prevent all problems, but what would? They seem useful. I think at worst, people would have the discussion, and then when 44.2 unfolds and the relationship has problems, at least both parties have a higher chance of admitting that they were warned and are partially to blame.
As for how and when people fight, I've never done it much and when I do I tend to be passive-aggressive about it. Cassandane is a little more willing than me to get in someone's face, but not much. I can think of two times she's blown up at me ("Blown up" meaning "got snippy for 10ish minutes and slightly raised her voice at the end of it") and I humbly apologized both times even though I don't think I actually did anything wrong the second time. Occasionally I worry that we don't handle it better when there is friction, but that's rare enough that it's a stupid thing to borrow trouble about.
Sorry to be all earnest in this thread.
The extent of your conquests excuses you. 'Heavy lies the crown', etc.
"At least both parties have a higher chance of admitting that they were warned and are partially to blame" makes sense as a matter of reason; ime though, I am like, rarely persuaded by my partner bringing up stuff I said years ago. It's different if the parties are having ongoing conversations, but then that means the parties are reflective about this stuff anyway and don't need to be prompted to discuss it at any specific point before marriage, no? Or can this sort of questioning prompt ongoing reflection that would not have been otherwise prompted? Maybe! That would be valuable.
I've been imagining that there are only (1) people who talk about this kind of stuff all the time anyway and don't really need this list and (2) people who don't talk about this kind of stuff, whom a one off check list won't help, but I am very often wrong about the number of kinds of people there are in the world.
Hm. I guess I can see being reminded of a conversation years later being useful where there are strong broader norms and the normal response to a breakdown would be to appeal to the norms. Eg.,
"I can't believe you slept with someone else, that's not how people act."
"We agreed to monogamy but I was upfront about it not being intuitive for me; I broke our agreement but I didn't act inconsistently with who I said I was."
"Fair point, die in a fire."
Slightly apropos: TWYRCL will be playing a rare wedding gig (at a Lutheran church) tomorrow. We have had several ... entertaining exchanges about (1) exactly how tacky it is to schedule a wedding on Holy Saturday (very) and (2) whether the wedding party and/or guests will complain about the unexpectedly bare and drably-dressed church (probably?).
"Mooooooooom! This altar is all stripped and stuff! Daddy, fix it! Tell them I need the cross in my vow selfies!"
Ah, the "You knew I was a scorpion when you agreed to take me across the river" defense.
"We agreed to monogamy but I was upfront about it not being intuitive for me; I broke our agreement but I didn't act inconsistently with who I said I was."
Saaaaaartre, $NAME is exhibiting mauvaise foi agaaaaaaaain
It's best to explicitly ask if your prospective spouse is actually a scorpion in disguise (or any sort of arachnid, for that matter) well before the ceremony.
68
Sort of, but the ensuing fight has the potential to be less "you knew I was a bad person when you married me" than "you knew I was making what I considered a compromise on this point when you married me."
Idk!! This person I am describing keeps sounding terrible, but there's some way I think the second fight is less toxic than the first.
37 - oh god, yes, there will be three accounts rather than just one all-encompassing pot. I still don't really understand how people live like that.
Loving all the Greek relationship analysis!
I don't understand how "you knew I was making what I considered to be a compromise" is supposed even remotely to function as an excuse. Yeah, and I expected you to … make the said compromise. That's kind of the whole idea.
73: "But you knew you were asking for more than I could give. But I couldn't say no to you, because I couldn't bear to lose you"
Come on, we've all read those kind of novels, right? Some of us have even lived them.
66
I've been imagining that there are only (1) people who talk about this kind of stuff all the time anyway and don't really need this list and (2) people who don't talk about this kind of stuff, whom a one off check list won't help, but I am very often wrong about the number of kinds of people there are in the world.
I think few people are completely either/or on this and most exist somewhere on a continuum. (You know, like homosexuality!) Some people would happen to talk about these issues daily, some would talk weekly, some would talk monthly, some would talk once every 10 years. It's ineffective for the every-10-years people and unnecessary for the daily people. But presumably for people in between, the pre-wedding quiz would make things explicit and help them keep each others' stated beliefs in mind between when the topics come up naturally.
73
It's not an excuse, at all. But it moves the conversation to "It's fucked up that I --actually-- cheated" from "It's fucked up that monogamy is hard for me."
Basically "you agreed, when we spoke about this, that the fact that I considered monogamy a compromise doesn't make me a bad person. I am still quite possibly a bad person for failing in our agreement, but I was not always already a bad person."
Oh, I see, I misunderstood the spirit in which this claim was being offered.
I think few people are completely either/or on this and most exist somewhere on a continuum. (You know, like homosexuality!)
I'm 100% gay for constant low level bickering.
"When she said she wanted to wait until marriage, I didn't think she was hiding her true arachnid nature. Should have asked."
Ah, the "You knew I was a scorpion when you agreed to take me across the river" defense.
"You fucked up. You married me."
Thinking further, some potential additiona value to lists like these:
1) as said above, perhaps prompting generally reflective people to reflect on some specific thing that hadn't yet come up
2) raising the concept that something could BE an issue, especially for people who are very young or inexperienced in the world (e.g. relatively common but really notable unspoken assumptions about religion, IME).
(Somebody needs to help me procrastinate, here. I'm supposed to be doing my taxes.)
I'm putting off my taxes to see if the IRS gets back to me on the fake return.
Could a FPer bring the DC meetup back to FP?
We did the pre-cana in Edinburgh, where I was living at the time.
Initially, the priest who was to marry us (in Canada) said we didn't have to do the course: since I was in Scotland, and Mr Plain Jane was in the US, and we were going to marry in yet a third country (Canada), the logistics were complicated. Said priest was a lifelong friend and schoolmate of my father, and he also knew me from high school (where the school principal, a priest from the same order, was my dad's cousin). Then the priest who was to marry us died suddenly; and the new priest, an "outsider" (i.e., not part of the cosy little Irish RC world in which my father was raised and educated), was a "stickler." Which is to say, he was, no doubt quite rightly, not willing to bend the rules.
So I had to scramble to quickly find and register for a pre-cana course in Edinburgh (my mother would have had a fit if we had had to change the wedding date), and Mr Plain Jane had to fly over to take the course. It was actually kind of fun. Our classmates used to invite us out to the local pub after every class.
86: They're all writing cock jokes at the other place.
I do and do and do for you people, I swear.
It's why Bell Biv Devoe wrote a song about you.
90: You sound like my mother. And therefore you wear a crown of thorns...
I have worn crowns of thorns several times, on Halloweens. Woven from rose and blackberry.
What sort of Halloween costume involves a crown of thorns? Or, rather, brambles?
I also carried some forged nails until I misplaced them.
Guess what: they're uncomfortable.
Yeah, they're not meant to feel comfortable. If you truly aspire to martyrdom, that is.
Yeah, they're not meant to feel comfortable. If you truly aspire to martyrdom, that is.
Oh, I must have misunderstood that.
"So devoted to their children, and they make such good husbands."
My mother, on the Jewish neighbours next door.
I was assuming some sort of fertility god.
The idea for Halloween is that you dress up as something you aren't.
I have worn crowns of thorns several times, on Halloweens. Woven from rose and blackberry.
Those sound more like Samhains.
88, 89. Are they good cock jokes? Maybe I should finally join the other place.
The religious makeup of this place seems to closely mirror SCOTUS.
Off topic, but per our JCrew conversation, this might be their single most ridiculous clothing item:
https://www.jcrew.com/womens_category/Collection/outerwearblazers/PRD~E4686/E4686.jsp
It's affordable because you can pass it down. If six generations wear it, it's a bargain.