People can define “success” for their own marriage however they want I guess. But certainly I think that most couples are hoping when they get married that it will last as long as they’re both alive (regardless of whether this is explicit in the vows). So a marriage that ends in divorce probably fell short of what the couple had hoped for. That’s not exactly what I’d call “successful”.
Of course, making each other miserable for the rest of your lives isn’t exactly a win either.
jsgoddess, I see what you mean. A widowed friend of mine once mentioned a similar point of view. She was uncomfortable with being held up as a beacon of a successful marriage because, yes, they were happy together, but they didn’t last as long as many of her other friends whose marriages eventually ended in divorce. I can’t phrase exactly why, but I think I know what she means.
Perhaps it’s something like:given the choice, she would have chosen to have another couple of decades of happiness and OKness with him followed by a couple of years of discontent or ire, then, divorce, rather than having him die early. To her, the latter would have been better - more successful in marriage terms.
I’d say a successful marriage is one which had more good times than bad and leaves both partners better off (emotionally, etc) than when they started. Those are far more important than any other criteria. 2 ‘failed’ years do not cancel out 30 ‘successful’ ones; it’s not healthy to think of it as a failed marriage, or for it to be labelled as a failed marriage, if most of what came out of it was positive.
Th goal of marriage is not just to have more good times than bad. It’s to spend the rest of your lives together. If it fails in that goal, then it fails.
I think it’s perfectly possible and valid to consider a marriage which lasts for a period of time, was happy and productive, and then ends on fairly friendly terms in divorce"successful".
Take Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins (please! ba-dump-dah=dum!:p), who were together 23 yrs or so and recently split. (a common law marriage, but for all intents and purposes, A MARRIAGE). The very idea of considering their relationship a “failure” is absurd, imo. On what grounds? That they didn’t end up staying together until one or both of them died? :dubious:
They had many good years, had and raised children, and just, for whatever reasons, eventually decided that phase of their lives was over with and sepearated on friendly terms.
There are plenty of marriages which end in death that don’t last nearly as long (and, as the OP pointed out, might never HAVE had both lived).
Seems like a silly. unreasonable standard to me.
Especially considering there are marriages which DO last until “death do us part” which are MISERABLE for some or even most of the time, and can in no OTHER way be termed “successful”. :rolleyes:
I will use myself, a widow of a 23 yr common-law marriage, as an example.
(and yes, we considered ourselves and in all ways behaved as married).
We had many great years, but the last several were a BITCH! The last few, he got sick and the only reason we stayed together was because I simply couldn’t leave him to die alone. (and we couldn’t financiallly swing a separation of residence at that point anyway)
But we were essentially broken up for all intents and purposes for the last 18 mths or so. (breaks my heart, but it was what it was).
I guess because we WERE still together and never separated until he died, our marriage was “successful” by those standards. And considering all the wonderful years we had and our 2 awesome kids, it WAS, all told, by any other standards. HAD we split before his death, would that mean we/the marriage had “failed”?
Relationships are more complex than that, imo; can’t be so easily defined.
But then, maybe I’m just a radical libertine in general with different standards.
It’s been said over and over again that death is not a sufficient criterion to call a marriage successful, only a necessary one. There is a difference between necessary and sufficient.
And yes, the relationship between Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon failed, by definition, when it broke up.
I’ve never been happier to say I disagree with you. That just sounds really horrible.
As an addendum, it’s been bugging me since DianaG posted it and I have to say – cancelling a check that’s been given as a gift is really douchey behaviour.
Well, it’s been said over and over by YOU, I grant. Others have said otherwise over and over.
IMHO, an otherwise successful marriage/relationship which breaks up after almost a quarter of a century by friendly, mutual agreement, can accurately be said only to have ENDED, not “failed”.
We agree to disagree.
Not everyone considers marriage a business arrangement.
And not to hijack, but I’m a parent (and a damned good one, thank you) and I’ve never understood this mentality of “Once you have kids, you just don’t matter.” If I were a mayfly, I suppose that would be true, but I’m human, with another 40-60 years to live after I procreate, and we’re a little more complex than the simple fulfillment of our biological imperative.
That was a joke dear. But for the record, IMO, registering for gifts and throwing yourself a big fancy party and calling it a ‘wedding’ when you’re not actually promising the very thing that defines marriage is really douchey behavior.
I suspect you’re making way too much out of a single word change, they probably just thought they were being cute/clever.
Otara
Taking the civil out of marriage is a bad idea–that’s what makes it different from other relationships. If you want to end it, you have to go through a not so comfortable legal process to do it. The whole point is to say that, I love you so much that I’m going to intentionally make it harder for us to not be together.
I don’t think a relationship fails if you wind up breaking up amicably. But a marriage is a step further, and thus a divorce does mean the marriage failed. But I do agree it can actually be harder than facing the death of your life partner.
One has to wonder if your sensibilities were offended enough that you left shortly after. Or did you still stay and chow down, drink it up, laugh, and dance?
This thread got weird.
The definition of a successful marriage is made by those whose marriage it was. If you disagree with that, I’m sorry you have marital hangups.
They were wrong.
As it happens, that wedding was pure obligation that I wouldn’t have stuck around long for even if it weren’t a brazen appeal for their friends and family to finance their unsustainable lifestyle.
So it wasnt really the one word, sounds like you dont like them in general.
Otara
“You do me; I’ll only muck it up.”
“I don’t think I can shoot my mom, my girlfriend, and myself all in the same day.”
In your opinion, yes. In my opinion, if you’ve achieved the goal of being happy most of the time, what else can possibly matter?
Your kind of attitude makes people even unhappier when their marriages do break down. Yes, yes, I know it’s your opinion and you have a right to it - but it’ll make your friends feel worse, which is pretty shitty really.
ETA: that last paragraph sounded a bit too personal - apologies. I’m sure you wouldn’t actually *want *people to feel that way.
My wife’s friend was in a long relationship with a guy with money, but when she finally pushed for marriage, she got dumped. (And he married someone else soon after.) Though she had fun, she felt she had wasted her time because she could have been looking for someone with similar goals - and in fact she didn’t finally get married until after it was too late to have kids.
On the other hand, if you have a relationship that only lasts a month, but is extremely pleasurable for the first three weeks, I think it is fair to say that the relationship was a failure but worth it. It all depends on what you want to get out of it.
It’s not an opinion. That’s the definition of marriage. If a lifelong commitment is not your goal, then you aren’t getting married.
I’ve already tried to make it clear that I don’t think the break up (or the success) of a marriage necessarily has anything to do with the character of the people in it. Just because a marriage fails doesn’t mean the people did, doesn’t mean they didn’t get anything worthwhile out of it or that it was a waste of their time.