Marriage

[fennel]

The whole "speedy wedding" fear doesn't make sense to me. What you are suggesting to him shouldn't cause that fear in him. Can you explore his fears with him more deeply?

Originally Posted by fennel

The whole "speedy wedding" fear doesn't make sense to me. What you are suggesting to him shouldn't cause that fear in him. Can you explore his fears with him more deeply?

I'd love to. It's an ongoing discussion with him lately. He asked me to be patient, that he does want to get married to me, that he's sure, he's just not ready yet he said. And I don't want to push him but I am ready.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by fennel

I hope you don't mind my adding my two cent's worth.

I am a lesbian. I have been with my partner for over fifteen years. I agree with you that terms like "bf, gf, partner" don't really do justice to the length and depth of our involvement.

When we'd been together for two years, we had a public faux wedding, invited all our friends and family. I live in a state where gay marriage is not recognized. It was our way of trying to convey the depth of our commitment to each other.

Three years ago, our state passed a domestic partners bill that allowed us to become more legally entwined, so we immediately jumped aboard and paid the $ and signed the documents to get more "legal". This is about basic stuff, like being able to be at the other's bedside during a hospital crisis, being able to convey property to the other, etc.

Two months ago, there was a one week window of possibility of legal marriage for us before the supreme court justice here put a "stay" on it. During that week, we moved heaven and earth to become legally married. I imagine that as of this moment, we are not "officially" married because of the stay...but, I can tell you that when the justice declared us married, we both wept. It felt completely different.

I'm a romantic, but to me, it's about saying that you are truly invested in this other person...it says that you're not going to pack your bags and leave if the going gets rough- and the going will get rough, occasionally. It's about being as intertwined, emotionally and legally, as you can get with the person you love.

So, it's not just a piece of paper...but, you know that.

Good luck with your period of introspection.

Fennel...first of all...congratulations
Second of all...I was extremely moved by your post.

BTW I agree full stop it is not just a piece of paper when you make an authentic gift of yourselves fully to one another.
What we do here on earth, in our day-to-day "waking world" is absolutely a beautiful and tangible manifestation of what we do in spirit,
when we are living in integrity and alignment with spirit.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Royalite

I'd love to. It's an ongoing discussion with him lately. He asked me to be patient, that he does want to get married to me, that he's sure, he's just not ready yet he said. And I don't want to push him but I am ready.

Royalite, I agree with everything Fennel has said to you.

All the rest here is purely my general observations and has nothing necessarily to do with you personally. But I'll put it forward anyway because it's always good to have information based on the human species as a whole

Very generally speaking...for me, if a man has been intimate with a woman for 2 yrs (!!!) and then sees living together as the next step, then at the very least I'd assume he is not ready for marriage to that particular woman at that particular time. That is, either he may not be ready to marry (anyone), or he may just not be ready to marry that particularly woman. In either case, that may not be an acceptable situation for any particular woman -- especially one who has invested of herself in a relationship. Unfortunately a woman who has given her body, heart and soul to a man has, to many a man's mind, little or no leverage or "hand" in the relationship. (And women often do or have done this at some point, for we are trusting and loving creatures by nature).

In this very modern scenario, many a man will feel that they have the upper hand as the woman is already providing sex, love, comfort, and general emotional support freely -- and has done so almost from the get-go in many cases. With little or nothing up front from the man beyond sex and his regular presence. Moreover, once a woman has had sex and/or has emotionally bonded to a man, he may even feel she is "in the bag" and that she is there for him as he sees fit...shameful and lax, yes, but often true. In economic terms, we could say a man in this situation is "free riding" on the woman's bonding through sex. It's a win-win for him. He's getting sex, and he's tying her to him emotionally with no real further effort. The downside may come when she seeks commitment based on the bond as she perceives it. It is real to her, after all. It may or may not be as real or as deep to the man, depending purely on the degree of his authentic emotional engagement. And this is where the morass and confusion lies.

The man often feels he has no need to offer commitment and perhaps not even love in order to simply continue to partake of a good thing. In turn, having got into this situation by giving of themselves so fully, many a woman have had to decide whether they can live with what they ultimately feel is a lopsided or unequal situation, where their deepest needs for commitment and/or love are not being met, or not being met adequately. Women need to realise that men say and do a lot of things for sex and touch and even for love and support from a woman, but they may or may not be willing to rise to anything further than enjoying what she has freely and lovingly offered.

I'm not saying this is the perspective of all modern men or women. But many if not most modern men in relationships today frequently expect sex very early on, well before they have determined if they like, much less love, a woman. And so the free and joyous offering of both his authentic love and his commitment to a woman (or even the capacity for these things) are often not what a man is looking to have to put forward in most relationships with most women most of the time.

Because of these facts: most men (just like most women) will authentically love only a very few women, perhaps just one or two, in their lifetime -- and this is normal and reasonable. Likewise, a man may marry once or maybe twice. In the meantime (door number two), a man may be willing and very able to sleep with many women if there are few or no hard and fast strings or rules. Perhaps even long-term and perhaps even including living with some of them -- but nothing more than that, necessarily. And door number two is where most men are at most of the time with most of the women they are with.

However, it is very difficult for authentic love to develop in a relationship when the primary focus has been on sex and casual/uncommitted companionship, well before love on some level was firmly established. You can also think of it as door number one being essentially mutually exclusive from door number two, in nearly all realities. This is true in the main for a number of reasons. Why is this so, we might ask?

First, we need to come to a better understanding as a culture of what authentic and enduring love is, broadly speaking. Authentic love is unconditional and actively desires and seeks the good of the other -- not because the other is sleeping with you and boosting you emotionally -- but simply for who they are, and for no other reason than their good. This enduring love occurs when both parties stretch and give to one another freely and with reciprocity. Because unconditional love seeks the good of the other, and so it does not seek to primarily use the other for sex, touch, and/or support or ego boosting -- for those are self-serving and utilitarian goals, and that is exploitation of the other.

Paradoxically to some, unconditional and enduring love in partnership thrives on complete and total reciprocity and mutual gifting of the self to one another, including both mutual commitment and intimacy. No cherry picking only of the intimacy without commitment, for again that is self-serving and that is exploitation of the other. A relationship is not reciprocally unconditional when, say, sex and sexual exclusivity is both expected of and given by the woman, but love and commitment are not also both expected of and given by the man. Without full reciprocity, love is neither mutually unconditional nor enduring, fully alive, or freely passionate. With all these qualities, however, love is authentic and real, and commitment is joyfully and freely given. And within this context of enduring love and commitment, intimacy and passion are both secure and unfettered...and can be sustained over a lifetime.

What we can call authentic love develops most strongly and purely in the absence of any utilitarian aspects -- and that is why it is so hard to find in today's world between partners when so often one party or partner gives so much of themselves whilst the other gives relatively little of themselves. Sometimes it's helpful to ask yourself and your partner not only what they seek in a relationship (this is critical), but also what they can and will offer in a relationship (this too is critical).
Because as many of us can attest, no one can row a boat for two singlehandedly for long.

Peace & blessings
7L

[joyfirst]

Well, marriage is a contract between a couple and the state, really. The only contract, that people can sign without reading the clauses (they are not even on the license). They don't find out, what they are until something happens - divorce or one spouse losing lots of money in gambling and other being responsible for it. Not sure, that many people would marry, if they would read the law first. But then again -some people marry five times or more, despite the knowledge. I was married, and decided, that I won't do it again.

[7luminaries]

Agreed, I don't know if I will marry again either. That completely depends on a variety of factors, which may never come together suitably to even remotely tempt me.
But I would never enter a relationship if I was opposed to commitment. Nor would I entertain another who was opposed to it.

Marriage or any binding commitment is not just a contract between you and your temporal government. Like everything else, what is above and what is below are linked, or mirrored. There is a clear spiritual aspect to public commitment, where the love and connection in spirit is made manifest in the bond pledged in the waking world.

No holding back or cherry picking. IMO, authentic love means that we mutually make a complete gift of ourselves to one another.
If either one of us is not prepared for this, then there's no point in getting deeply involved in the first place.

Peace & blessings,
7L

I got married because I wanted to be married to my spouse, with all that entailed, for the rest of my life.

I wanted the commitment and security, the shared covenant, the legal advantages, etc..

There was (at that time) a certain amount of respect and protection culturally that came with being married, and I wanted that too.

There was nothing forced or false about it for us. We didn't do it because we were expected to etc. We wanted it.

I was (and remain) heartbroke that we divorced after 27 yrs.

The expectations, the legal aspects, and the cultural feelings towards marriage are very different from what they were 30 years ago. I doubt I would do it again.