Conference quark::human_relations-v1

FWIW

I knew my wife as a nodding aquaintence for about 6 months.  We then dated for
about 3 months, decided to get married and were married about 10 months later.

I guess I knew what I was looking for, I also knew I wasn't interested in dating
for years before getting married.  It's interesting to note that my wife told
me when we met that she wasn't going to get married before she was 25, she was
18 at the time.

I didn't ask anyone what they thought.  Nobody told me not to.  A few people 
told me I was crazy to get married so young.  Of course I am fairly strong
willed so many people (who know me) won't bother to disagree with me on such an
issue.

I am still married and intend to stay so.  Happily sometimes, not so happy 
other times (my wife is strong willed also).  11+ years at this point.

I don't think I would have known my wife any better had I dated her longer.
I was reasonably accurate at understanding "who" she was.

Is the a "right" time period?  Not if you ask me.  My best friend lived with
his girl friend for 5 years, got married and then got divorced less than 2
years later.

The key is to know what you want out of life and to determine if your potential
spouse will change it adversly.  Don't expect perfect bliss nor should you 
expect the person to change, though you have to be prepared to deal with them
if you do.

Stan

    IMHO, "Too Soon" = before BOTH of you are ready.
    
    My friend, Terri, met Roger on a Friday.  Saturday they were engaged,
    Monday they eloped.  This happened 17 years ago and they are still 
    happily married, with two lovely teenage daughters.
    
    On the flip side, another friend of mine married his lady love after
    seven years of being/living together.  One year later, they divorced.
    
    Go figure.
    
    Carol

    Not to get too far off the track, but what about the people who
    do wait a long time (4 or more years) before getting married?
    Are their chances of divorce greater?  Did they wait so long, because
    they knew in their gut that it wasn't going to work - but somehow or
    another (maybe wishful thinking) ended up at the alter anyway?  

         I agree with the assertion that there is no formula or set length
    of time for everyone.  Dating for too long can be as bad as impulse-
    marrying.  The pair of friends I have, whose marriage I most admire,
    dated during their senior year of college, and married right after
    graduation.  However, I think they could have made the decision a month
    after they met and still had just as solid a union.
    
                                       Greg

    As one  who  got  engaged  relatively  quickly (we got engaged six
    months  after  we met, but we "knew" we were going to marry with a
    couple  of  months),  it seemed obvious that Cynthia was right for
    me  within  a  couple of weeks. (My friends tell me that the night
    after I met her I talked of nothing else.)

    We were  both  "ready  to  get  married",  and had each broken off
    relationships  in  the  past  few  years  because the other person
    wanted  to  wait  a while, but I think that's only a small part of
    it.  It was clearly the best match either of us had ever had.

--David

    I think it depends on who you are, and your maturity level(s).

    At 18, I met my now ex on December 2, 1973, and we were married on
    January 19, 1974. My divorce was final on June 15, 1988. (I think that's
    the date :-)...)... However, we were legally separated several years
    before that, He just liked making me make my lawyer rich... Neither one of 
    us should have gotten married at the age, but then again, when you are 18 
    you know more than anyone, right?

    My last "real" relationship lasted 3 years. After three years, it was
    clear that we had grown as much together as we could, and marriage was
    out of the question (He was Jewish, I wasn't and his parents figured
    into the picture ever too strongly), so we broke off the "relation" side 
    of the relationship, and now are just close friends.

    I've played matchmaker twice in DEC within the last 4 years, one couple
    was engaged three years before they finally tied the knot last month,
    the other, they dated 6 months, and they were engaged. However this
    last couple were (well still are) both in there mid 30's and they both 
    were "right" for each other.

    As you reach your 30's and up, I think you know what makes you happy
    more then you do at 20... early to mid to almost late 20's I would advise 
    ANYONE to wait it out, with a long engagement, and make sure its what you 
    really need/want/etc. After 30 - (no, I don't know why I choose that 
    mystical age!), if its right, and you know it, then waiting forever just 
    seems like a waste of time to me...
    
    I think it also depends on whether this is a first marriage or
    second/third/etc. Also are there kids involved? All this needs to be
    taken into effect. If its a second/third/etc marriage - is it a rebound
    marriage? With kids, there are just too many questions to consider, but
    they play a very important role in how long you should wait before you
    get married also.
     
    As a light side - I tell my girls that they can get married after they
    turn 42, maybe :-)

    Gail, I agree with everything.  I married at 18, and also chose 30
    as about the right age, but can't think of any reason. 
                                                          
    I have stood hands on hips, sounding like a fishwife, with both my
    daughters about marrying early (^;  I'm hoping the message got
    through....                                           
    
    ..dale
        

    I tend to think of what the record is for a relationship I've been in
    to stay "good" (whatever that means). I would be scared to get married
    to someone I'd been with for less than that amount of time. I'd think:
    "I've had other relationships that lasted this long, and they broke."
    
    I know that this is far from being rational - there's no sensible basis
    for assuming that the relationship that sets the new record is going to
    continue being good.
    
    But, like many people, I'd like to have a springboard of confidence to
    make the leap of faith...
    
    	Andrew.

    I agree entirely with the last paragraph in .1, and with the last
    couple of replies.  It depends on whether you really know what you
    want.  If you're about 20, you think you know what you want, but 
    haven't exerienced enough of life and relationships to really know
    what drives you crazy, and what you can't live without.  I think you
    fall in love in a different way when you're young.  I made an 8-year
    mistake at age 20 - my parents told me so, but of course I didn't
    listen.  By age 30, I understood what they had been trying to tell me.
    
    But it took a bad marriage and considerable dating before I really
    had a clue as to what it would take for me to stay in a relationship.
    I had dated people who were fun and attractive, but they were narrow-
    minded, or just out for a good time, or losers, or spent all their
    time in bars.  When I switched to someone extremely successfull,
    kindness and understanding were missing.  When I found kindness,
    assertiveness was missing.  So over a period of years I compiled a
    list of qualities I had to have in a lasting relationship.  Maybe I'm
    just a slow learner :-) - after seeing what I've gone through, my
    daughter may figure out what's right for her at a much earlier age
    than I did (35).  She impresses me with her perceptions of men, and
    she's only 14.  For me the days of falling in love and losing sight
    of everything else are probably over - I *can't* fall in love with
    someone who isn't responsible, or reasonably intelligent, or
    considerate.  It's much harder to fall in love in my 30's than it
    was when I was younger.
    
    Like someone else mentioned, I learned that there was a sort of time
    limit for most relationships.  If I was still interested after the 
    first date, I'd probably be interested for at least 6 weeks.  If it
    made it past 6 weeks, it would go 3 months.  Most of them didn't make
    it past that.  But it took a few years before I became perceptive
    enough that I could predict in advance how long it would last.  I
    finally learned what I would tire of, and what I really wanted.  About
    2 weeks after meeting my current husband, I knew I'd still be
    interested after 3 months.  
    
    It boils down to how well you know what you want, and how perceptive
    you are regarding the other person.  And as .1 said, don't expect
    them to change, but be flexible if they do.  People usually don't
    stop doing annoying things, but if one of you decides you want to
    make a change, then ideally the other person can support that.
    
    Paula

As a youngster it seemed that I was destined to marry my near neighbour: we met 
when I was 6 and she was 5, we attended parties together, and then as teenaged 
years arrived we went to concerts and movies together. Dating moved on to being
engaged - quite formally - and in time we planned to marry.

Then 2 days before the ceremony she broke it off and moved in with her lesbian
girlfriend.

It took a long time to come back from that disaster, though Astrid and I 
remained [platonic] friends. In time - 19 years - I moved to America and 
there...

A friend introduced me to my [now] wife - we went out for the evening, agreed to
a date the following evening and when I picked her up I proposed. We'd have been
married ASAP, but I was 3000 miles from my family and she was 12000 from hers, 
so it took a while for her to get her Mother's permission, and for us to do the
arrangements. We were married within 6 weeks though.

Still happily married? you'd better believe it, but then it is less than 3 years
yet so who knows, but ... we're working on keeping it together - all I have to 
do now is learn enough Thai to know what she is angry with me about :-)

/. Ian .\

    re: .0
    
    > -< How soon is "too soon" to get married? >- ???
    
#1  Too soon, is before both are comfortable with the idea, and can
    make a realistic COMMITMENT to maintain the marriage relationship. 
    
    I feel that, other than this, the replies between here and .0 pretty
    well sum up my feelings and observations. 
    
    I felt partly amused by the person who picked "30" as the right
    age, but they didn't know why. 
    
    Some people (son picked age 26, friend of family was selected by his
    parents at age 35 .. 2nd generation Armenian). This is the reasons I
    was given by some of people. By age (mid 30's) most people have their
    lifes expectations and wealth buildup in process (good jobs, many work
    hours behind them, business as secure as its going to get, maturity in
    process, running around completed, experiences satisfied,
    heavy_education completed and so forth).
    
    Age 30 amused me, because I picked 49 (after two other unsuccesful
    picks). In a way, its sort of like picking stocks or bonds. It is an
    invenstment, and after you make your investment you stay with it, or
    forget it. Unlike gambling, where 'a pure gamble' is strictly chance, a
    viable realtionship is a PRO-active sport or investment. 
    
    In short, they are now more ready,and can now settle down to the more
    tranquil life as they approach the "middle years". 
        
    Sort of like gardening or getting an education.  What you GAIN from it,
    is GENERALY proportinal to what you get out of it. This assumes that
    the other person is doing the same as yourself. If you can't belieive
    that the other person is committing to do their best by YOU, (and you
    by them), then see statement #1. 
    
Bob
    
    
    

                    -< How well do you know what you want? >-

  Great reply Paula!...and as I was reading it, it was like reading my
life...whew.  Yeah, I did all that too at a very young age (17)....
I really feel the part about looking for so much more as you get older
is very true.   Like intelligence, common sense and last but far from 
least a "sense of humor"...these things are so important to me now!.
I am still single and I suppose a little 'commitment shy' but happy.

  Thanks again for putting into words, what is so true....Best of Luck

  Mikki

    Boy, I'm not usually in this conference; just dropped in to see
    what goes on and found this topic!  So here's my $.02:
    
    My husband and I met in early January of '87.  We married in November
    of '87.  He was 30-something and I was in my late 20s.  Never in
    my life would I ever envision myself meeting & marrying so fast.
    
    We had reached a point in our lives where we knew what we wanted
    [or what we didn't want].  Fortunately, we found each other and
    the timing was right, we were right for each other, and we fell
    in love.   However, if we had met when I was much younger--
    I don't think we would have married in a "short time."  I certainly
    wasn't ready to marry when I was younger, and neither was he.
    
    Our families and friends were supportive, and still are [there was
    no reason for them not to be].  We just celebrated our second
    anniversary, and I look forward to at least another 50 anniversaries!   
    
    Everybody's story is different, though... and one of my old favorite
    expressions, "There are no guaranties in life," comes to mind. 
    My only advice [for what it's worth] is:  if you're at all unsure,
    then WAIT.
    
                                                                         

    "How soon is "too soon" to get married"? If you doubt...IT IS TOO SOON!
    The only valid reason to get married is if you  ARE DEEPLY IN LOVE with
    the person, regardles your age.  I married at 19, was very sure of my
    feelings and most importantly, was very sure of his values and
    personality, it did not clash with mine and on top of that, we were
    deeply in love. So! we married.  At 22 I had two kids and at 30 my
    third and last. Twenty five years later we love and respect each other
    as the first day we met, our older kids finished college and got good
    jobs and we still feel young, go out and enjoy life.  If anybody would
    asked me if given a change would I repeat what I did I would say YES!
    I would change NOTHING. To have a great and close family is one of the
    most satisfying accomplishments a human being can have...I consider
    myself a very fortunate woman.

    > How soon is too soon to get married?
    
    
    Anytime before your own funeral.
    
    Kris

    My husband and I married 6 months and 2 days after we met.  It'll be 8
    years together next August.  We've had our ups and downs, but a heck a
    lot more ups than downs and we've got a beautiful little girl which
    adds to the ups even more.
    
    -- Kristy

         Ok I think I agree with those who got married after a day, in
   a matter of speaking. I was in a relationship that just ended after 
   2 years mostly (but not all) because my -ex left me for another man.
   I feel if we had been married things probably would've worked out.
   When you're married you have more of a commitment to stay together.
   Ya' know for better and for worse and alimony and all that...

   Even though I don't think that's the way you should feel about marriage,
   it just seems to be the way things are.

   So the next date I have I am going to propose to her, ANY TAKERS????
   -Ed

    I don't think being married vs. living together means a couple has a
    better chance of staying together.  Anyone in a long-term relationship
    has to work at that relationship in order to keep it going, and
    long-term relationships, married or otherwise, rarely end because
    of one fight or at a moment's notice.
    
    About how you know when it's time to get married, I married my husband
    1 1/2 years after we started dating.  We knew each other for about a
    year before we started dating (as friends), but didn't think about the
    future before we became "involved."  Within WEEKS after we became
    involved, I knew this relationship was different than any one I'd had
    before. Seven months later, we were engaged, but we planned a long-term
    engagement so that we could live together and get to know one another
    better before marriage.  In our case, all our friendship and dating was
    done long distance with just a few extended visits, so spending some
    time living together was important.  Although we had our ups and downs
    during that time, I only felt more confident about the relationship as
    the wedding day approached.
    
    Now we're married over five years and have a beautiful daughter. I love
    my life and am thankful for having met and married my husband. Although
    I may not always tell him how much he means to me (or yell a little too
    much), I wouldn't hesitate to give up everything for him and Jamie.
    
    Sorry I got so mushy, but follow what others have said before--if it
    feels right, DO IT, and if you have ANY doubts, DON'T!
    
    Nancy- 

Of course when I replied I told the truth, the whole truth, and avoided the issue

Both my wife and I were living in the US on [legitimate] non-resident visas. Had we
not gotten married it is probable that today we would be half a world apart and 
playing the red-tape game with British Immigration. It was *much* easier to get
Ann a visa for settlement in the UK by being married than by being fiancees.

Further I am not at all sure how the American INS would have viewed it if we had 
wound up living together in the circumstances of our visas...

/. Ian .\

    Personally, I would never marry anyone I hadn't lived with for at
    least two years.  This is because I know myself well enough to know
    that I can feel madly in love with somebody and then later on notice
    things about them that would make it seem ludicrous for me to promise
    to spend the rest of my life with them.  I figure that if I ever
    wanted to marry somebody after living with them for two yrs. that
    at least the marriage would stand a chance.  Of course, it's possible
    I might spend more than 2 yrs. living with somebody that I didn't
    want to marry, since I don't know if I'd really ever want to get
    married again anyway.
    
    I've been telling my daughter ever since she was a baby that I don't
    want her to get married, or have a baby, until she at least has
    her bachelor's degree.  That would at least make me feel that should
    her marriage fail she will at least be able to support herself with
    a decent job.  Whenever I tell her that now she says, "Mum, I don't
    know if I ever want to get married anyway.  Why can't people just
    date all their lives?"  But, she's only 15, and will probably change
    her mind when she falls in love someday.  The interesting thing
    to me is that I can't remember when my No. 1 Ambition wasn't to
    get married and have a baby.  I think I was born with that ambition!
    (It no longer is my #1 ambition, since I already did it and don't
    have any burning desire to repeat it.)
     But, my daughter says she'd rather have a Ph.D., than a husband
    so I hope she at least gets her bachelor's first!
    
    I married my ex-husband 1 yr. and 4 months after we met.  We began
    dating the day we met.  We were happily married for 7 yrs., not
    as happily married for 5 1/2 yrs., then divorced, and now are good
    friends.  I moved in with my former SO 1 1/2 months after meeting
    him, and I now think it's the craziest thing I ever did as I had
    no idea what I was getting into, and he dumped me 2 1/2 yrs. later
    anyway.  I think that experience more than my marriage has affected
    my ideas.  My parents knew each other casually for 5 yrs., then
    dated for 5 more yrs., and were very happily married for 37 yrs.
    until he died.  But, the interesting part is that my mother fell
    in love with my father at first sight.  It just took her 5 yrs.
    to get a date!
    
    I guess there are no guarantees but I just wouldn't feel comfortable
    jumping into anything as serious as marriage.
    
    Re .15, tsk-tsk.  You sound like my ex-boyfriend.  You changed your
    mind about the homeless, maybe you'll change your mind about marriage,
    too. :-)
    
    Lorna
    

	 RE: Lorna
	 
    
>    Re .15, tsk-tsk.  You sound like my ex-boyfriend.  You changed your
>    mind about the homeless, maybe you'll change your mind about marriage,
>    too. :-)


	 I don't think you've really read a lot of Kris' notes to know
	 where that comes from.  Not having a desire to get married is
	 NOT bad.  It does NOT mean that you have something "wrong"
	 with you, or that you are sour about relationships and what
	 marriage entails.

	 I'm not even sure I ever want to get married, anymore.  And
	 Kris has a lot to do with that (thanks Kris).  The first time
	 he asked me why I wanted to get married, I brought up the
	 wish that I have to dress up and be the center of attention
	 for just one day (I've never even went to proms and such in
	 highschool, so I've never had a pampered, dress up day).  I
	 dream of a white leather wedding gown.  Kris really has made
	 me think of WHY I would want marriage, and I can't find any
	 real reason, besides selfish ones.

	 But WHY, WHY do I want to get married?  If I do, I will never
	 make the promise to "forevermore cherish and love that person
	 til death do we part".  I'm in a relationships for the here
	 and now and because they feel right.  And when/if they are no
	 longer "right", it's better to move on amicably.  A marriage
	 certificate is not going to do me anything different than
	 living with someone.  And living with someone I don't have to
	 lie and make commitments for forever.

	 I'm not soured on marriage, I just realize that it is a very
	 insignificant part of a relationship with a person for me.

	 You live, you love, you move on.  I don't view divorce as a
	 "bad" thing....ever.....only a moving on when things are not
	 right and good any longer.  When people have grown other
	 directions..........................

	 kath

     Re. Lorna
    
>    Re .15, tsk-tsk.  You sound like my ex-boyfriend.  You changed your
>    mind about the homeless, maybe you'll change your mind about marriage,
>    too. :-)
    
    "You sound like my ex-boyfriend" are the words every man dreads
    to hear.
    
    Maybe you're right.  But I've given more thought and been exposed to
    marriage more than I have been to the poor.  With every thought and
    every opportunity comes a firmer conviction that, for me at least,
    marriage signifies too much of an end than a beginning. 
    
    Some of us are raised to look at life from a profit/loss point of view
    and we see the world in terms of a pursuit for net gain.  This is true
    for all aspects of life, not only material or monetary considerations.
    This "doctrine of gain" becomes a rule by which all judgments are made.
    And in the end the things we do, we do in order to enrich ourselves
    emotionally, materially, physically, spiritually or mentally. 

    Some of us have found that being alone is more rewarding in every
    aspect mentioned. 
    
    re. Kath;
    
>    	 I'm not even sure I ever want to get married, anymore.  And
>      	 Kris has a lot to do with that (thanks Kris). 
    
    See that!?  Women only have to have contact with me and they rethink
    their thoughts on marriage.  Those who are single wish to stay that
    way, those who are married appreciate their husbands, those
    who are divorced go back to their ex.
    
    Tell the truth, Kathy.  Is it the fish ties and pocket protector or the
    "Norman Bates Fan Club" tattoo? 
    
    Kris

    Re Kath and Kris, I was teasing and being a bit ironic at the same
    time (you know, never say never).  I'm not a great advocate of marriage
    myself, although I'm not completely against it.  Like anything it's
    got it's bad and it's good points.  I'm in no major rush to do it
    again.  I think I've gotten fairly good at enjoying the moment and
    moving on :-), once I realized there are always going to be more
    moments.  (as long as I'm alive anyway!)  :-)
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  I know I haven't read a lot of Kris' notes but I remember
    a few things - anti-guns, anti-marriage, awakening compassion for
    the poor :-), right?
    

    
    re. Kris
    
    
>    Tell the truth, Kathy.  Is it the fish ties and pocket protector or the
>    "Norman Bates Fan Club" tattoo? 



	 Most definately the pocket protector.


	 kat

    re .25, Mike-
    
    > 	And chest of glass.  Or was that rubber?

    Gosh, I thought the steel/glass dichotomy was in reference to his
    jaw.  Kris, I think you're just too subtle for us nitpickers.
    
    DougO

    re. Last few: 

    It's steel, dammit!  Steel chin!  Steel chest!  Hair does not grow on
    steel! Call be baby-face and I'll drool on you. 

    re. Steve 

    There are "SHE's" in my life.  And I love each one in their own special
    way.  But I cherish them the most because they are free to do as they
    please and they still spend time with me.  (I can't bring myself
    to tell them that "my" Amex card belongs to DEC.) 
    
>   Damn Murphy and his laws.
    
    Eddie Murphy became a politician?
     

    re. Lorna 

    My stance on marriage is like my stance on guns; I can't understand the
    attraction and I can't even come close to comprehending why anyone
    would find either of them important. 

    I've rattled it around inside my brain, where there is much room for
    things to rattle, for the past 10 years and I still have a tough time
    grasping why someone would want to be married.  To have children?  Then
    it is the desire to have children which is the motivating factor and
    marriage is the only socially accepted way to achieve that.  To have
    someone special always there?  Then the issue is one of ownership and
    the amount of control you have over another person's life and the
    expectation you hold for the "performance of their duty". Support and
    caring and understanding are like presents:  It's better to give or
    receive them when not required or demanded. 

    Whenever I attend weddings and hear the vows being exchanged I always
    ask myself, "How can you two say that?"  How can anyone promise that,
    for the rest of their lives, they will find the other person
    interesting, stimulating, attractive, supporting, understanding,
    patient, communicative and giving and also be able to remain as such in
    the eyes of the other?  Not only for the rest of their lives, but on a
    near-continuous basis. 

    I dearly love Mozart's music and Shakespeare's writing.  You've got to
    be smoking something illegal to take a sacred vow to love, honour and
    cherish them forever.  I can't see that marriage is any different, in
    fact it would be even tougher to make such a vow since, in the case of
    Mozart, the music will be the same in 15 years.  Not so with you or the
    person to whom you have vowed *eternal* love. 

    My father, whom I have come to appreciate as the most intelligent man I
    know, tells me that marriage is not about love or about communication
    or about passion; it is about commitment.  All other aspects of a
    marriage have levels which always change and, as the case may happen,
    there will be times when there is no love in a marriage.  But
    commitment is either there or it is not.  There is no such thing as
    being partially committed to anything.  In order to be committed one
    has to be 100% certain.  He confides in me that if he had understood
    that when he was 29 he would have remained single for the rest of his
    life.  Maybe it's genetic. 

    I get defensive about this issue at certain times of the year.  It
    always happens just before family gatherings where the aunts question
    my sexual preference and the uncles all think I'm boinking my brains
    out with different women every night.  Family... 


    re. Kath 
    
>                  -< But I'll take those biceps any day. ;-) >-

    You caused my VT to catch fire. 
    
    Kris
    

>Note 905.28 by BRADOR::HATASHITA


>>    Call be baby-face and I'll drool on you. 

	 Promises, promises.  ;-)


RE: stance on marriage

	 I was once told by an ex-roommate that she pitied me when I
	 told her that I would probably never be "married"....and if
	 I were, it would probably not be for a long time.  She
	 thought me cynical and pessimist for not being able make a
	 life-long commitment in the space of a ten minute ceremony.

	 I don't see it as cynical and pessimist at all.  Yes, many
	 times I do feel the need to have someone there, but more oft
	 than not, I enjoy my space and my time to myself.  I enjoy
	 not having to be in constant communication/association with another
	 person.  Living with a person?  Well, that might come and go,
	 I'm not sure about that.  It would cut just as deeply into my
	 self-time as marriage would.

	 My mother was moaning the loss of "the family" this weekend.
	 She brought up how the family unit was disappearing from out
	 society at a rapid pace.  She said that every family is going
	 to be dysfunctional by the year 2000 because they won't have
	 a father who works, a mother who stays home and takes care of
	 the children, and a house with a picket fence.  Needless to
	 say, we got into a huge argument.....she couldn't see how
	 marriage was not important to make a "family", love is.

	 Everytime I see my family, like Kris, I get the old Q&A
	 session.  "Who are you seeing?" (Like I HAVE to be seeing
	 someone).  "How serious is it?"  "When are you getting
	 married?"

	 I'm tired of it.  I'm tired of having society pressure me
	 constantly how I MUST be married or I will be an old maid.


	 I don't need a piece of paper, a life-long promise, and a
	 house with a picket fence to be happy, to be committed to a
	 relationship, to be whole.  I don't need lies, because *I*
	 know I'm not capable of making a commitment for more than a
	 week down the road, how could I ever be capable of making a
	 life long commitment.
	 	 
>    You caused my VT to catch fire. 

	 Hahahaha...................<no comment>




	 kath

    When we speak of marriage today we are looking at a social
    institution that has had it's basics changed. We all speak of "love"
    but that is NOT what marriage has traditionally been about. Marriage
    is a social contract for the transfer of land and property. It is
    the assurance of clan continuation and the glue of profitable family
    allegiance. When marriage evolved it had little notion of love as a
    means of enduring. It was your duty to your family to make a good
    match that would benefit them, not to find personal fulfillment.

    No wonder we have so much trouble staying happy in marriage. It is a
    custom that no longer fits our societal and personal needs. I don't
    believe that people were meant to be loners, we are social animals.
    But the social institutions that govern family need to be changed to
    fit the world we live in today.

    Should love be the basis of a lifelong commitment? Is marriage the
    best way to realize that commitment? I don't know. I want to believe
    that love has a place in our world and that people can live together
    in peace and happiness. We won't be able to do that using tradtional
    social customs that no longer fit our lifestyles. Unfortunately, the
    words "that's the way we've always done it" carry a lot of weight.
    liesl

	 "I don't know where to begin
	 in this world we live in
	 are we living in love
	 or are we living in sin?"

				"Living in Sin"
				Bon Jovi

	 What a truly moving song, I actually sat down and *listened*
	 to the words.  

	 I feel the concept of marriage is a product of our society to
	 allow sex to be "acceptable" between two people.

	 In ancient (Biblical?) times there were reasons to not have
	 sex outside of marriage (unwed women with children were
	 shunned, a woman couldn't support a child without a man
	 figure, birth control was not safe even if it might be
	 available in whatever crude form).

	 I don't feel it applies any longer today to say that two
	 people we have sex outside of the bonds of matrimony are
	 "living in sin," but some people still hold to this belief.
	 The reasons it was a "sin" in ancient times, no longer hold
	 for today.

	 It's sad to see our society putting so much emphasis on
	 marriage when it's really a mere convenience to "giving
	 blessing to" a union between two people.....to prove it
	 "acceptable."


	 kath


	 

    Re .31, and even Jon Bon Jovi got married this past year! :-)
    (so he's not "living in sin" anymore; let's hope for his sake
     he's "living in love"!) :-)
    
    I agree with you and what's even more discouraging is that laws
    still make it beneficial for many women to get married.  Laws
    put such an importance on marriage that it's hard to ignore.
    
    Another aspect is that it's one thing for a man, such as Kris, to
    say that he can see no advantage to himself in getting married.
     There probably wouldn't be any advantage to him to get married.
     But, most women even today do not make enough money to raise a
    child or buy a home on their own, so without a husband they really
    can't realize these goals.  I know there's more to life than having
    a child and a house, but still both can be very nice to have, too,
    and I certainly could never have either on my pay alone.  Therefore,
    I could say that it was still advantageous for me to get married.
     Marriage afforded me the financial and emotional support I needed
    to be able to have a child and a nice house.  It might be nice if
    I could have done it alone, but I couldn't and neither can most
    women even today.  Until all women make as much money as all men
    - not just equal pay for equal jobs - but until secretaries make
    as much as truck drivers, for example, marriage will not go out
    of style because women will need it to get what they want.  And
    if men want love and loyalty and knowing their kids are theirs,
    they'll have to go along with it or go without women.  So, I don't
    think marriage will dissapear overnight.  
    
    Although, I admit I can't relate to the idea of making a lifetime
    commitment to somebody and sticking with it even if you're not happy
    with them anymore.  It seems like unnecessary self-punishment to
    me. (and most people, apparently, which is why there are so many
    divorces)
    
    I think if men and women really were economically equal then that
    would go a long way towards getting rid of marriage.
    
    Lorna
    

>           <<< Note 905.32 by DZIGN::STHILAIRE "a day in the park" >>>

>    to be able to have a child and a nice house.  It might be nice if
>    I could have done it alone, but I couldn't and neither can most
>    women even today.  Until all women make as much money as all men
>    - not just equal pay for equal jobs - but until secretaries make
>    as much as truck drivers, for example, marriage will not go out
>    of style because women will need it to get what they want.


	 I don't find that true anymore today.  Most of the women I
	 know can easily "go at it alone" and do.  (But then again,
	 cost of living in the area you are in plays a major factor).

         Also, I don't agree in the least bit with the statement
         "until all women make as much money as all men.....until
         secretaries make as much as truck drivers."  You can never,
         nor SHOULD you ever fight for anything more than equal pay
         for equal skills, because demanding anything more is
         demanding for the inequality to go in favor of women, and
         that is dead wrong in my book.  

	 On Good Morning America this morning they surveyed some women
	 all over the country about the "changing family" and most the
	 women said that they don't need men any longer to support
	 them and make a good life for themselves.  That they know
	 that being a single woman is never bad and that you can do
	 anything and everything that single men can do......and that
	 includes making a good life for yourself.

	 
	 If secretaries are not happy in the current pay scale
	 attributed to secretaries, then Digital offers practically
	 free schooling to any of their employees, and the secretaries
	 (and others not happy with their pay) have ample opportunity
	 to take advantage of this schooling to get themselves into a
	 position that does pay what they feel they deserve....and a
	 position they will enjoy. 


	 It will never happen that secretarial pay will skyrocket, and
	 that should be accepted, and if people want more pay for a
	 better life, no one but themselves can give them that better
	 life.



	 kath

    
    	Small nit.
    
    	Kathy, you have never been a secretary and you have no idea how 
    	hard some of them work.  Schooling does not equate hard-workers 
    	does not equate blossoming pay scales.  I know many secretaries 
    	who put in far more hours and who do far more work than their 
    	managers and/or the people they support.  
    
    	It's sort of like saying nurses deserve to make so little money 
    	because they haven't put in as much schooling time as doctors, 
    	yet there's no arguing the fact that it's the nurses and other
    	non-doctors who do the bulk of the work.  Especially the dirty 
    	work, which I believe is what should merit higher pay.  And if
    	anyone has ever been a secretary, or a nurse, they are well-
    	aware at just how bountiful the dirty work actually is.
    
    	Carla
    

    Re .35, thanks, Carla, for making those points.
    
    Re .34, Kath, you have brought up so many issues that I can dispute
    I really don't know where to begin.  And, you and I have disagreed
    on this so much in both mail and notes that I am reluctant to open
    this can of worms again.  But, I will say that I am amazed that
    you say that most of the women you know are easily going it alone
    on their pay.  Kath, most of the *men* I know are not easily going
    it alone on their pay, nevermind women.  I am currently living with
    my ex-husband, a DEC software engineer, and another male friend,
    a DEC technician.  It takes all three of us to meet the mortgage
    on my ex-husband's house.  Another of my closest friends is a Ph.D.
    principal hardware engineer at DEC, (a male), who has custody of
    one child.  He has been unable to save for a downpayment on a house
    in Massachusetts.  So, with this in mind, the idea of a secretary
    or a waitress or female tech or owning her own home in Massachusetts
    is ludricrous.  It's difficult for me to believe that the cost of
    living in Colorado is so low that a person making say, $23K a yr.
    could afford to own their own home, plus raise 1 child and pay for
    for daycare.  That would really be something.  Both woman and child
    would be in rags and half starved I would think, to say nothing
    about the car she might be driving (maybe a bike with a seat on
    back for the kid?).
    
    As far as the comment that any secretary who isn't happy with the
    pay scale should just get another job, well that is a very easy
    answer to a complex problem.  It's like passing a homeless person
    on a cold winter night and saying, "Hey, if you don't like the cold
    get a job!"  Maybe they'd like to, but who knows what individual
    circumstances caused them to be where they are right now.  For them
    to get a job, might be like somebody saying to you, "Hey, Kath,
    run for President next time."  Yes, there are training programs
    at DEC but perhaps the person who is a secretary is not good at
    any of the things the programs are for.  Maybe there are only 20
    openings and 50 people applied and she didn't get accepted.  Maybe
    she has a problem with that old bugger "low self-esteem."  Maybe
    she doens't have a high I.Q. and really can't do a higher level
    job.  Maybe the secretarial pay scale and raises have lagged behind
    those of WC 4's, so that she is really making less every year. 
    Life is complicated.  Kath, you really have difficulty understanding
    the feelings of those less fortunate than yourself.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .33, just to clarify on my comments about marriage and children
    which you, in turn, commented on.  I think that love and the desire
    to have children can be two separate issues.  It is true that many
    people want to have children with someone they love and raise the
    children together.  I always thought that was ideal myself.  But,
    I think that, just as two people can love each other and not want
    children, that a person can want children even if they don't want
    a one on one, long-term love relationship, and I don't see anything
    wrong with these people having children if they can afford to care
    for them.  My point was that most women today still don't earn enough
    money to raise children (well) alone.  I was not suggesting that
    women should marry men they don't love just to have children.  I
    was trying to suggest that if a woman is in love with a man, and
    doesn't want children or more children (as I don't) that she might
    be happier to live with the person without getting married.  But,
    if she wanted children and couldn't afford to raise them alone,
    she might want to marry a man she was in love with first, and then
    have children.  This doesn't mean that she only thought of the man
    as a sperm donator or whatever you said, but only that she recognized
    that she would need the help of a willing father in order to raise
    the kids.  Therefore, it would still be advantageous for this woman
    to be married.
    
    Lorna
    

    While I'm not trying to dispute anything that has been said here, let
    me offer a little in the way of personal experience.
    
    I am a single parent living in Colorado raising a 5 year old.  For the
    past three years I've worked for Dec starting at $5.75 an hour as a
    temp and then moving all the way up to WC2.  I'll be going to WC3 in
    January.  In Colorado a single parent can make it on those wages and if
    I'd handled my money a little differently I probably could be driving a
    late model car and bought a modest house.  Unfortunately circumstances
    and legal fees and therapy for my daughter have prevented me from
    achieving those goals.  I've been in Massachusettes recently for
    training and I honestly don't think I could have done that there.  The
    cost of living is radically different in the two states.  I think that
    Kathy's and Lorna's perceptions of reality would be quite different were
    they to switch places both in job situations and geography.
    
    I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
    
    Nanci                                                     

	 BTW...I just want to point out that I'm not belittling
	 secretaries and their work.  They are very supportive to me
	 and to my work, and I feel everyone should be who and what
	 they want to be.

	 I could, quite easily have chosen secretarial work as my
	 vocation, but I chose not to, because it does not interest
	 me, just as being a doctor did not interest me.

	 I'd like to make that perfectly clear, okay?


	 RE:  Carla (and general discussion)
	     
>    	Kathy, you have never been a secretary and you have no idea how 
>    	hard some of them work.

	 Ah, nit again.  Yes I have.  I was a secretary for the
	 engineering faculty for 4 years in college.  I know exactly
	 how hard secretaries work because I worked my butt off as a
	 secretary--which included many long nights in the lab, and
	 working during my holidays.

	 I also work my butt off as an engineer, which includes many
	 long nights and some weekends, as well.
	 
>	 I know many secretaries 
>    	who put in far more hours and who do far more work than their 
>    	managers and/or the people they support.  

	 And they should be rewarded for that.....As well as the
	 people in all other professions (managers included) that work
	 long, hard hours over and above the call of duty.

	 There are hard workers in every profession, and they are
	 sluff-offs in every profession as well.
	    
>    	It's sort of like saying nurses deserve to make so little money 
>    	because they haven't put in as much schooling time as doctors, 
>    	yet there's no arguing the fact that it's the nurses and other
>    	non-doctors who do the bulk of the work.

	 But (don't you hate 'buts'? :-) )  Doctors are the ones that
	 make life-saving/life-threatening decisions.  Nurses and
	 other non-doctors cannot make those decisions.  Many doctors
	 spend many an hour each day in surgery and/or making
	 diagnosis and such that, while that might not be hard
	 PHYSICAL work, it is very hard MENTAL work.


	 I believe the point in "equal pay of equal skills" in rank,
	 at least (ie, doctors to nurses; engineers to technicians,
	 etc) lies in the notion that one party can do the job of the
	 other, but the reverse is not always true.


	 Now the question I want to pose........should wages be based
	 on a skill level like that, or should they be based on an
	 "amount of work done" level, or a combination of the two?


	 And isn't this a rathole in this topic?  ;-)


	 kath
    

>           <<< Note 905.36 by DZIGN::STHILAIRE "a day in the park" >>>

>   But, I will say that I am amazed that
>    you say that most of the women you know are easily going it alone
>    on their pay.  Kath, most of the *men* I know are not easily going
>    it alone on their pay, nevermind women.

	 Lorna, quite simply you live in Mass, I live in Colorado.
	 The cost of living is quite different here than it is there.
	 I stated that cost of living is a major factor...realize that
	 the downpayment for a house in Colorado can be $500. Realize
	 that to buy a huge house here, you don't have to spend over
	 $100K.

	 Cost of living is a major factor.
	 
>    As far as the comment that any secretary who isn't happy with the
>    pay scale should just get another job, well that is a very easy
>    answer to a complex problem.


	 I didn't say "get another job", I said it was an OPTION.
	 Personally, I don't want to run for president, so I won't.
	 I'm pretty happy in the job I am in right now.  Someone that
	 is unhappy with their pay has the OPTION, through DEC, to
	 have their education paid to get a job that PAYS more and
	 that they LIKE.  Option....not a requirement.

	 But if someone in a now paying job decided they don't want to
	 'not be a secretary', well, then there are consequences to
	 staying where they are.

	 Also, I don't advocate low raises for secretaries, nor do I
	 advocate that they should not be paid more.  It is very
	 unfortunate, and I will fight to give secretaries (and
	 others) the opportunities for advancement that everyone has (in pay
	 as well).

	 But, Lorna...there is a point where a person needs to ACCEPT
	 that right now, this instant, their pay is NOT going to
	 double in the job that they are in, and if they DO need/want
	 more pay, they are the only ones that can do anything about
	 that.

	 YOU don't like it, *I* don't like it.  But that is a fact
	 that THAT IS HOW IT IS right now.  It is NOT CHANGING,
	 especially now that ALL raises across the board are being cut
	 back.

	 Face it, Lorna.....the fact is that IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
	 RIGHT NOW.....none of us like that, but it's the truth.

	 I'm not advocating that it is "right" or "it should be this
	 way", but that is how it is.
	 	 
>.  Maybe the secretarial pay scale and raises have lagged behind
>    those of WC 4's, so that she is really making less every year.

	 I find that to be awful...that should never be the case,
	 with secretaries, with ANYONE.
	 
>    Life is complicated.

	 Yes, life is complicated, but life is not going to change at
	 the snap of a finger, that MUST be realized.

	 If a person is not happy with what they have, then it is
	 totally up to them to do something about it.  The fact is, no
	 one is going to do it for them.
	 
>	 Kath, you really have difficulty understanding
>    the feelings of those less fortunate than yourself.

	 No, Lorna, I don't.  You're putting a lot into what I'm
	 writing.  You're saying that I AGREE with this philosophy
	 that secretaries should be paid very low, which I do not
	 agree with, I abhore it.

	 But i accept that you can fight it right now, and how that
	 our society does something about it...or.....you can actively
	 do something to better yourself so that you don't have to be
	 in that position.

	 And just because I am not a secretary at the moment, just
	 because I am an engineer, does not mean that I don't
	 understand and i don't sympathize with this very real
	 problem.

	 The facts are there, Lorna.  Society will not allow
	 secretaries to get higher raises because, you see...someone
	 has to be on the bottom, someone has to be paid low.  If not
	 secretaries, then who do you suggest?  It is unfortunate that
	 you are in that position, but someone needs to be on the
	 bottom.

	 Consider this....every secretary, assembler, nurse, etc gets a BIG
	 raise.....to put them equal with engineers and managers and
	 doctors and such.  Prices of the products must then be raised
	 to meet those higher salaries, which means everything is more
	 expensive at the marketplace....which means your big raise in
	 salary did absolutely nothing for you.

	 I put to you, who do you propose to place on the bottom of
	 the wage scale and what jobs should be there?

	 It's unfortunate, and I hate it as much as you do, but our
	 society is set up this way......when you snap your fingers it
	 is not going to change......no one can change your situation
	 but yourself......to accept the situation means to accept
	 consequences.

	 I agree, secretaries, on the average, do a d*mn good job, and
	 should be rewarded accordingly....I feel they have been
	 unjustly snubbed, and I abhore that and I fight that.....

	 but.......just where do they go in the chain?  And who goes
	 on bottom?

	 kath

>         <<< Note 905.38 by BSS::VANFLEET "Living my Possibilities" >>>

>    cost of living is radically different in the two states.  I think that
>    Kathy's and Lorna's perceptions of reality would be quite different were
>    they to switch places both in job situations and geography.


	 Yes, Nanci...I agree totally.  I know that I could not drive
	 the car I do, and live in the house that I do, if I lived in
	 Mass.  I know that I would be very near the poverty level in
	 Mass on my current salary as an engineer.


	 New England and California are very different, cost of living
	 wise, than the rest of the US (I suppose I could throw
	 Florida in there too, it's expensive).

	 Unfortunately, the jobs, especially within DEC, are where the
	 cost of living is the highest.


	 kath

So Lorna as I understand it you would have every one making $10.00 an hour
regardless what their job might be?
If that were true where would the drive to better oneself come from? Who would 
do the so called dirty jobs like for example trash collectors? Around here they 
make $15+ per hour if the same person could make the same amount turning as
a sec or exec, Who would perform these other less desirable jobs?

And I hereby place on record that I fully believe that any male or female 
doing the same job at the same performance level and experience, should 
recieve equal pay. FWIW- I know several women doing my same job that make
as much and in cases more than I do although this is not always true in other
companys.
Why not do something about it instead of just complaining about it?

-j
P.S. My neighbors wife IS a trash collector(sanitation eng as she likes to be 
called) and makes more hourly than I do.

    Re .42, you know you amaze me!  When did I ever say that everybody
    should make $10.00 an hr.!  I do not think that, and I have never
    at any time in my entire 40 yrs. of being alive voiced that opinion
    to anybody or written it in notes during the 3 1/2 yrs. I have been
    noting! Are there any other opinions you would like to pretend that
    I have, and pass along to others?  I'm sure it would be quite
    interesting to see what you come up with.  Next thing I know you'll
    be telling people I'm a Communist spy from Cuba.  Ya gotta get the
    facts straight, here!  This is human_relations, not the Enquirer!
     We're not reading this in line at the grocery store, unless i'm
    terribly confused.
    
    Saying the equal pay for equal work is honky-dory until you take
    into consideration that all jobs that have been traditionally done
    by males are high paid jobs and all jobs traditionally done by women
    are low paid jobs.  THis happened because the labor of women was
    not valued as highly as the labor of men in this white, male dominated
    society.  Even today the only way women can make as much money as
    men is by doing a job traditionally done by men.  The roles
    traditionally done by women such as caring for children, the elderly,
    sick people, serving food, and doing secretarial chores are still
    undervalued by this society.  
    
    I would gladly work as trash collector for $15. an hour, but I don't
    think I could do a good job because I am very small and couldn't
    lift heavy things.  Very few men, however, are 5'1" and weigh 95
    lbs.  So, most men could take the trash collector job instead of
    my secretarial job and make 5 bucks more an hour.
    
    Have a nice day,
    
    Lorna
    

    Re Kath, first of all, no hard feelings, anyone who likes Axl Rose
    can't be all bad! :-)
    
    As far as the nurses vs doctors argument goes, I think nurses do
    wind up making life and death decisions.  Sometimes in the absence
    of doctors and sometimes simply through the care they give.  If
    they make a mistake a person can die.  When it is considered that
    most RN's today have master's degrees (5 yrs. college) and their
    pay is compared with the astronomical pay of doctors, it really
    is not fair in my mind that such a huge indescrepancy exists.  Doctors
    and lawyers have been elevated to the level of gods in our society
    and paid fortunes and I consider a crime.  
    
    Kath, as far as secretarial pay goes I think that a good part of
    the problem is that secretaries are placed lower on the ladder than
    they should be.  I don't think they belong on the bottom.  I think
    the main reason they are on the bottom is that most of them are
    women.  I'm not advocating that secretaries be elevated to the status
    of engineers.  (When you're making peanuts even a little more money
    helps.)
    
    I consider secretarial pay and my personal career to be two different
    issues.  That is why I am upset when I complain about sec. pay and
    people only tell me that I should get a "better" job.  That is a
    different issue, and not something I have time to go into here.
     I do appreciate your comments in support of secretaries.  
    
    Sorry for the rathole.  Back to the subject:
    
    No one should get married before the age of 25, and not before living
    with the other person for at least 2 yrs. first.  There, now that
    issue is settled!
    
    Lorna
    

    My husband and I met in July and were married in October.  We are
    pleasingly happy and content.  We have both had other lengthy
    relationships, in fact, I have been married previously.
    
    My first husband I lived with for four years, married him, and two
    years later divorced him.  A total of 6.5 years or so.  We knew
    each other a long time before we married and it still didn't work.
    
    I don't think it really matters how long you know someone before
    marriage.  Sometimes being married, forces you to stick it out rather
    than throw in the towel.  It's easier to walk out when you are just
    living together.  Either way, there is a period of time of adjustment
    when you are getting to know each others likes and dislikes.
    
    If your heart feels good, then do it.  BUT, like anything else,
    don't be stupid.  Just keep your eyes open.
    

    Re .45, I know there are no set rules that always work for everybody.
     Everyone has to make their own choices based on their own experience,
    but when I read something like what you wrote "My husband and I
    met in July and were married in October.  We are pleasingly happy
    and content.", it really doesn't seem to me to be proof of anything.
     I mean, I was ecstatic two months after my marriage, too, but we
    later went on to get a divorce after 12 1/2 yrs.  If you said that
    you got married two months after meeting, and now 15 yrs. later
    you are both very happy and still in love and would do it again
    tomorrow, then I'd say, "Wow, it worked for them!  So, that proves
    it can work sometimes!"  But, being happy after only 2 months of
    marriage doesn't prove anything to me.  I mean, who isn't?  (I suppose
    a few people aren't.)  Oh, well.  Good luck.  Hope it works out.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	There was an interesting panel on the Oprah Winfrey show a few
    	days ago:  Newlyweds who are having serious marital problems.
    	Most were young couples who had known each other for years but
    	after several months of marriage were looking for other lovers
    	and/or outside diversions because their spouse wasn't living up
    	to their expectations.
    
    	The linking thread that I saw in all the couples was a rampant
    	immature attitude towards working together.  I don't think it
    	has anything to do with knowing someone for six months or six
    	years.  If you're enthusiastic to work out your problems, your
    	success rate is going to catapult past those who would rather
    	hide their head in the sand ... in someone else's sandbox.
    
    	Carla
    

    RE: .46 - LORNA, ",it really doesn't seem to me to be proof of
                       anything."
    I don't think anyone is trying to "prove" anything here.  That
    is why all I said about my current marriage is we are pleasingly
    happy and content.  No one but God knows what our future holds.
    The example that I used the most was my first marriage because
    that is where I had the most experience to share.
    
    My sister and her husband knew each other 3 months and married.
    Nine years later they are still married.  A co-worker here, knew
    her husband 3 months and married.  They had it anulled a week later.
    My parents knew each other about 6 months, married, and divorced
    19 years later.  I don't think it really matters either.
    
    I like reply .47:  "If you're enthusiastic to work out your problems,
    your success rate is going to catapult past those who .............
    That I feel is the key to ANY successful relationship.  Putting
    in 100% effort, and from BOTH SIDES.  One person can't keep it
    together if the other won't.