Congratulations, Hari. That is wonderful!
We’re up into double decades (20 years +) and still very happy.
Y’all probably know (maybe not) that my wife of 23 years died about 3 years ago.
About 18 months ago, I met a wonderful woman who is now my wife as of two months ago.
My first marriage was rocky to begin with and then settled down to comfort and eventually happiness.
My second wife is probably the most wonderful woman I have ever met. She and I have so many more things in common than I ever expected from another person. Preferences in music, movies, food and sleeping styles. At the age of 53, I sometimes still find it hard to believe that I found two such amazing women.
ETA: My first wife and I argued a LOT. My second and I have never argued. We negotiate and come to a consensus. Maybe it is because we are both middle-aged folks who don’t need the drama. Maybe it is because I should have found her when she was 24 and I was 29 and married her in the first place.
But that is probably way too much information about my private life.
Oh and by the way, Skald, thanks for the topic.
I’m curious. Will the answers remain the same if you take away the dog(s) (or whatever pet is your beloved buddy) and/or the kid(s) and/or X-Y-Z component(s) with little or nothing to do with the spouse (whether it’s $$$ or cost savings or whatever)?
I’ve known people who got married for the security, in order to have one or more kids, generally afraid to “do” life alone (sometimes without ever actually recognizing let alone acknowledging that), yada, yada – the usual reasons – and even a few who simply refused to think about life without the then-significant other’s dog if they broke up.
I’m happily married, although I don’t see happiness as the goal of marriage.
Oh my.
Wut?
I sure do. I can’t imagine entering into such a commitment without personal happiness as a primary goal. I would agree there are reasons to stay in a marriage that isn’t necessarily as happy as one would like. That doesn’t change the goal, however.
I think people who expect marriage to be primarily about happiness are bound to be divorced someday. Or multiple times. Marriage is not always happy. If happiness is your primary goal, you’ll leave each other when times aren’t so good.
Marriage is much better for creating feelings of security, partnership, and even contentment.
I was very happy in our relationship before we got married. The marriage didn’t affect my happiness level. It gave us certain legal rights with respect to each other.
We had a lifelong commitment before the marriage. I chose my husband because we were happy together, but more importantly, I knew our personal styles fit together very well, and that we would make a good team with mutual respect, even in bad times.
We watched the documentary “112 Weddings” on HBO last night and were unsurprised to find that most of the long-time married couples felt marriage was hard, and not always happy–but most of them still felt it was worth it for other reasons.
Of course, I’m a lawyer, and not much of a romantic.
…says the consistently loudest anti-marriage proponent on these boards.
The “half of all marriages end in divorce” statistic is misleading. Sometimes people think it means that 50% of all married couples will divorce. No, what it means is that 50% of all marriages end in divorce. The rate is driven up by a smaller number of people who get married two or more times. More than 50% of people who get married never divorce.
And I don’t think a huge number of the responders here are lying to themselves, either. Happy marriages aren’t as rare as you think. The reason you see so many unhappy couples around you and take note of those ones, magnify them- is because of confirmation bias. I could do the same thing by thinking of all the couples I know who are happy.
I agree. Marriage is about a ton of stuff, but primarily only in the 20th century did “happiness” become part of the mix. I’d say that’s also true of JOBs not being about happiness, but something one in general needs to survive. Nice if you can love what you do for a living, but for most people, that doesn’t even enter into the equation.
It’s trite, but true, that if you cannot be happy on your own, chances are it won’t come from marriage. Then again, the definition of “happy” is a slippery sucker. One person’s happiness is another person’s yawn if not misery.
I guess no one will take a bite at “what if X was absent” (like dog) query/twist above. Oh well…
We have two cats. We love them and they are a fun and funny addition to our lives, but I don’t see them as any way central to the relationship. I think it would be the exception, not the norm, if they were.
I think it was hard to understand. In my case, I’d be a bit happier without my wife’s dog in the picture, and she’d be much less happy. So, the dog stays.
I was just using “dog” as one (possibly bad) example. (Naturally, for those of you to whom it doesn’t apply, no need to take the poll.) It could be just about anything, including a kid or other relative of the spouse to which you’re more attached than the spouse him/herself … or the lifestyle or other stuff to which you wouldn’t have access without this person’s presence. There are many who would see it as a hassle to end one relationship then hunt for another partner who could offer X similar situation, if not do just as well on their own.
I’m still confused. You wanted to know what would happen if X happened, but only if people were going to say that it mattered? Isn’t that a bit like saying “Do you like ice cream? Only answer if it’s yes”?
Original query was: [Would] the answer [whether you are happily married] remain the same if you take away the dog(s) (or whatever pet is your beloved buddy) and/or the kid(s) and/or X-Y-Z component(s) with little or nothing to do with the spouse (whether it’s $$$ or cost savings or whatever)? [Not if X was lost, but if it didn’t exist.]
I’ve known people who got married for the security, in order to have one or more kids, generally afraid to “do” life alone (sometimes without ever actually recognizing let alone acknowledging that), yada, yada – the usual reasons – and even a few who simply refused to think about life without the then-significant other’s dog if they broke up."
Okay, but do you honestly feel any of those people would say, “I am happily married, but if the dog died, I would be unhappily married”? I think that’s where the disconnect is coming in for me.
19 years, and more ecstatic than ever.
… but I think it’s best at this point not to go another 'round on it. 
Speak for yourself. Some couples will stick together until times are good again.
Mrs. C and I got married 44 years + two weeks ago, for no other reason than happiness together.
As I mentioned upthread, we hit a very rough patch about ten years in, and were both miserable for several years, but the friendship underlying our marriage enabled us to work things through. When we finally emerged from the grinder we were closer and happier than ever and have remained so ever since.
Your experience is not incompatible with my statement. You did not view marriage as primarily about personal happiness. You had other considerations that kept you together through unhappy times. In this case, your friendship.
I have been a family lawyer, and have met many people who hit a miserable patch like that and say, “Oh well, I’m no longer happy, so it’s time for a divorce.” That’s what I’m referring to–people who value nothing but happiness (or hot sex, which is another one I saw a lot).