My Version of Marriage

[Auburn]

Alright, so way back, in another thread, I said that perhaps INTPs just aren't the most suited for marriages to begin with. I'm beginning see that this is more and more true for myself. I believe Tekon and EB worded my thoughts quite nicely in other thread:

I just want a honest, stimulating, lasting relationship. Or relationships. I don't think a single person can provide all that I need, and me provide all they need, and even less for a whole lifetime. People change. And people have distinct, but no less valuable characteristics. Why isn't there more polyamory in the world? Damn that possessiveness, that jealousy, that insecurity, that misunderstanding.

There are exceptions to the axiom, but for the most part, the prospect of two people sharing life and space for fifty years or more and remaining "in love" is small to negligible. This may sound strange coming from a consummate Romantic, but reality is what it is.

I do like the idea of a powerful, deep, and meaningful relationship, but personally I would like it better if both parties maintained their "independance" - never
forming a dependency on the other. I value the idea of detatchment, and not having to wear anyone else's burdens, just your own.

I guess what I'm trying to portray is almost more of a "friendship", but one that is as profound and meaningful as a marriage, if not more, yet never ceasing to be made up of two autonomous people. I hope I can better explain this by paraphrasing the words of Linsejko:

Two people who can be playfully affectionate, and yet intelligent.
Two people who want to deeply understand, and are also capable of understanding each other.
Two people who are creative in their expression of love.
Two people each with an inner depth to invite the other into, an inner world to explore and join in.
Two people who are sensitive, who are real
Two people who can sees past the other's lies and will even show the other their own.

And yet also:

Two people who are looking for their own meanings to life
Two people who walk separate paths that just happen to be side by side
Two people intrigued by the other, but also many other things
Two people who choose to search out their own individual meanings to life together
Two people both placed in this bizarre thing we call reality, lost with no direction - and this similarity, and the drive to find a direction, is what binds them together.

*shrugs*

This is just what I see as the closest thing to marriage I would be content with. Somehow the tradition of marriage doesn't seem to be right for everyone. I know that being so close to someone, yet without commitment, is heavily frowned upon by many circles, but I wouldn't have it any other way. A partner (as described above) would be an enormous support, and I to her, as our individual search for truth remains the main focus of our lives.

Does anyone else have a similar ideal? Is this unrealistic? any thought are welcome

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I do like the idea of a powerful, deep, and meaningful relationship, but personally I would like it better if both parties maintained their "independance" - never forming a dependency on the other. I value the idea of detatchment, and not having to wear anyone else's burdens, just your own.

A relationship is how one relates to another. In a relationship of commitment - a resulting state (-ment) of each 'giving over', or 'sending over' (Latin - mittere), with another (com-) - connections are forged. The deeper the realtionship/commitment, the 'thicker' the quality of the connections and the greater the number of connections.
Sometimes, these connections concern assisting the other with some of their 'burdens', but this is a natural part of a relationship. Each helps the other see their 'burdens' in another light or perspective, which in turn, may result in the other reducing the intensity of the burden themselves, if not relieving it completely. It's not that one 'takes over' the burdens of another, but that one opens up the 'packsack of burdens' the other carries to help them examine the contents.

A deterioration of the relationship occurs is when the connections begin to bind one to another, or when one expects the other to carry part or all of one's burdens.
The metaphor is of two sine waves, each of a different amplitude and frequency, yet in harmony with each other. The paths of the two sine waves intersect at irregular points along their respective progressions.

I guess what I'm trying to portray is almost more of a "friendship", but one that is as profound and meaningful as a marriage, if not more, yet never ceasing to be made up of two autonomous people.

Any relationship of commitment, which also involves the aspect of mutual love, must include friendship.

A friend is a lover, literally. The relationship between Latin amīcus "friend" and amō "I love" is clear, as is the relationship between Greek philos "friend" and phileō "I love." In English, though, we have to go back a millennium before we see the verb related to friend. At that time, frēond, the Old English word for "friend," was simply the present participle of the verb frēon, "to love." The Germanic root behind this verb is *frī-, which meant "to like, love, be friendly to."

...from Dictionary.com

I can better explain this by paraphrasing the words of Linsejko:

Two people who can be playfully affectionate, and yet intelligent.
Two people who want to deeply understand, and are also capable of understanding each other.
Two people who are creative in their expression of love.
Two people each with an inner depth to invite the other into, an inner world to explore and join in.
Two people who are sensitive, who are real

Perhaps a greater clarification of what is meant by 'real'.

Two people who can sees past the other's lies and will even show the other their own.

A similar request for the phrase "other's lies">

Two people who are looking for their own meanings to life
Two people who walk separate paths that just happen to be side by side
Two people intrigued by the other, but also many other things
Two people who choose to search out their own individual meanings to life together, both placed in this bizarre thing we call reality, lost with no direction - and this similarity, and the drive to find a direction, is what binds them together.

I concur with this, especially the last point.

This is just what I see as the closest thing to marriage I would be content with. Somehow the tradition of marriage doesn't seem to be right for everyone.

Marriage traditions stemmed mostly from pairings of children by parents for political (in the broad sense) and material gains by their respective parents. Children were 'commodities' owned by their parents, by the male especially, to do as he saw fit. Hence, the payment of dowries by the father of the bride, for she must come with some additional material gain for the groom's father to accept her.

I know that being so close to someone, yet without commitment, is heavily frowned upon by many circles, but I wouldn't have it any other way. A partner (as described above) would be an enormous support, and I to her, as our individual search for truth remains the main focus of our lives.

There is always some form of commitment involved, even in a casual friendship. There is a 'bonding with' on some level or levels, which neither of the two may be conscious of.

 

[Auburn]

Perhaps a greater clarification of what is meant by 'real'.

As an example, to me, being aware of the fact that humans are dynamic, ever changing, and ever evolving is being 'real'. To believe that your friendship will last a lifetime, or to hope that it somehow does, is not being completely honest to me. There's always the possibility that you will both mature into liking different things and different qualities in others. I suppose a better term here would be "realistic" and "reasonable".

A similar request for the phrase "other's lies"

Basically I envision two psychologist analyzing each other. The one is able to catch discrepancies in the other's thought, feeling, actions that s/he may be blind to - and vice versa. This is an amazing benefit because there are many subtle lies that we tell ourselves and others without knowing.


Hmmm...
I think perhaps the problem I have is moreso with the tradition of "marriage" itself. Perhaps it works for other people, but just the ideal of having something external to "represent" the commitment that two people have internally doesn't appeal to me. To me the internal commitments people have should be enough in themselves. Using external things to represent such a commitment too often leads to the falling back on those external things alone as the reason to stay bonded to each other when the original source of bondage disappears.

The P side of me is probably why I wouldn't want to make a "lifetime" commitment. We are all dynamic people (especially us NP types) who naturally change in opinions and interests. It would be presumptuous of me to ever say that I will be one way or another - or have a passion for one person or another - for all my life. I don't know that.

I would much rather have someone like me who understood that we humans are dynamic, and who is perfectly aware that change may take us apart. However, for the time being, and as long as our friendship holds true, we would act very similar to a married couple. I would prefer such a friend over a marriage any day!

(P.S. - EB - thank you by the way for always putting up with my random posts and often skewed perceptions of things. I really appreciate it )

 

[Ermine]

To summarize what has been said, I want to marry a man who is my very best friend that I'm physically attracted to.

However, like Auburn said, I don't care much about the external commitment of marriage. The wedding shouldn't be elaborate, the ring (if there must be one) doesn't need to be expensive. Also, I wouldn't marry a guy that would keep me from being friends with other men just because of marriage, just like I can have other friends while having a best friend, though I would spend the most time with the best friend.

For me, the term "very best friend" would encompass the adaptability, the connection, the commitment, and level of closeness along with the needed space. Everything I need.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

As an example, to me, being aware of the fact that humans are dynamic, ever changing, and ever evolving is being 'real'. To believe that your friendship will last a lifetime, or to hope that it somehow does, is not being completely honest to me. There's aways the possibility that you will both mature into liking different things and different qualities in others. I suppose a better term here would be "realistic" and "reasonable".

That is what I thought you meant, and I agree fully. Existence itself is dynamic, so it woul be foolish or naive to think that any relationship would be otherwise or attain a complete level of permanence.

Basically I envision two psychologist analyzing each other. The one is able to catch discrepancies in the other's thought, feeling, actions that s/he may be blind to - and vice versa. This is an amazing benefit because there are many subtle lies that we tell ourselves and others without knowing.

Though I see and agree in principle with what you're saying, caution should be utilised in the application of this. No one wants to be with another who points out one's 'flaws' to a great degree. Though, I you mean that this can occur within the context of other events, then I would consider it an admirable quality.

Hmmm...
I think perhaps the problem I have is moreso with the tradition of "marriage" itself. Perhaps it works for other people, but just the ideal of having something external to "represent" the commitment that two people have internally doesn't appeal to me. To me the internal commitments people have should be enough in themselves. Using external things to represent such a commitment too often leads to the falling back on those external things alone as the reason to stay bonded to each other when the original source of bondage dissappears.

Agree again. A piece of paper does not a relationship make, unless it is a business relationship. Any relationship promotes 'growth' to each participant, yet growth also implies 'growth apart'.

The P side of me is probably why I wouldn't want to make a "lifetime" commitment. We are all dynamic people (especially us NP types) who naturally change in opinions and interests. It would be presumptuous of me to ever say that I will be one way or another - or have a passion for one person or another - for all my life. I don't know that.

A very astute and mature attitude. If only I had a sliver of this 'wisdom' years ago, I would hve approached my relationships differently.

I would much rather have someone like me who understood that we humans are dynamic, and who is perfectly aware that change may take us apart.

Yup, I would too.

(P.S. - EB - thank you by the way for always putting up with my random posts and often skewed perceptions of things. I really appreciate it )

Please, you do not have a 'skewed perception of things', you have your own perceptions founded on your life experiences and accumulated knowledge, as does everyone else. Veracity of perception is subjective, and always will be. I consider everyone's perception of reality as valid as my own because I cannot view/experience reality the way you do or anyone else does.
Never apologise for your opinions or for what you believe is true. No one holds the keys to truth, so yours is just as valid as any other.

I have gotten more insights to areas of life from people here, especially those many years younger than I, than from staggering through my many years of life.

 

[Dutty]

There are couples who have spent over half their life together, and never been married. Maybe that is the secret, don't let the marriage papers tie you together, let your hearts.

I think that people get married way to fast.
Finding someone your compatible with after going on bad dates, or not dating in awhile is an exciting feeling. And may lead to spontaneous feelings for them which can be mistaken as love, when in reality its the newness of the person.

 

[LucasM]

I know that when I marry, I'll be true and honest to the special li'l darling whomever that turns out to be. But I won't rush into anything till both my heart and brain are satisfied.

 

[FusionKnight]

I do like the idea of a powerful, deep, and meaningful relationship, but personally I would like it better if both parties maintained their "independance" - never forming a dependency on the other. I value the idea of detatchment, and not having to wear anyone else's burdens, just your own.

Any relationship, but marriage especially, is a sharing of burdens. A person will live a very sad and empty life if they never realize this fact. It's a partnership in which the success of either party is the goal of both partners. This means sharing risk, reward, burdens, and success.

As an example, to me, being aware of the fact that humans are dynamic, ever changing, and ever evolving is being 'real'. To believe that your friendship will last a lifetime, or to hope that it somehow does, is not being completely honest to me. There's always the possibility that you will both mature into liking different things and different qualities in others. I suppose a better term here would be "realistic" and "reasonable".

I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning bugs the heck out of me. I've been pondering it a lot lately. Where has this idea come from that the success or failure of a relationship is defined by blind chance, like lightening strikes? Relationships require work, sacrifice, compromise, sweat, tears, and sometimes blood, in order to succeed. To simply leave a relationship "up to chance" is to consign it to failure before it's even begun. A relationship succeeds because the partners have decided it would succeed, and did everything in their power to make sure that it did.

As a friend of mine put it, it's like cooking: nobody just throws random ingredients into the oven, and just hopes it turns out okay. You are required to exercise judgment in what ingredients you pick and what processes you subject them to. The success or failure of the dish is largely dependent on how much attention, care, determination, intentionality, and judgment you have applied to the problem.

I think perhaps the problem I have is moreso with the tradition of "marriage" itself. Perhaps it works for other people, but just the ideal of having something external to "represent" the commitment that two people have internally doesn't appeal to me. To me the internal commitments people have should be enough in themselves. Using external things to represent such a commitment too often leads to the falling back on those external things alone as the reason to stay bonded to each other when the original source of bondage disappears.

You're very right that the trappings of marriage are not the marriage itself. Government permission, a ceremony, a ring, a kiss... these things are symbols of an internal decision and commitment to the betterment of each other. To me marriage is a partnership between a husband, a wife, and God. Marriages like this that have no external signs, to me are just as legitimate (and sometimes more so?) as those with external signs.

The P side of me is probably why I wouldn't want to make a "lifetime" commitment. We are all dynamic people (especially us NP types) who naturally change in opinions and interests. It would be presumptuous of me to ever say that I will be one way or another - or have a passion for one person or another - for all my life. I don't know that.

Marriages (or any relationships) aren't built on passion. Passion is like the lighter fluid. Commitment and friendship is the fuel.

 

[NoID10ts]

I strongly agree with Fusion on this.

Except for the God stuff


Marriage, romance, and love have been hijacked by sickly sweet songs, sappy poetry, puke inducing tv specials, and various grotesqueries of romance cinema. People have been made to believe it should be something that it can never be. Marriage is hard as hell, but when healthy, very rewarding.

 

[Decaf]

I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning bugs the heck out of me. I've been pondering it a lot lately. Where has this idea come from that the success or failure of a relationship is defined by blind chance, like lightening strikes? Relationships require work, sacrifice, compromise, sweat, tears, and sometimes blood, in order to succeed. To simply leave a relationship "up to chance" is to consign it to failure before it's even begun. A relationship succeeds because the partners have decided it would succeed, and did everything in their power to make sure that it did.

As a friend of mine put it, it's like cooking: nobody just throws random ingredients into the oven, and just hopes it turns out okay. You are required to exercise judgment in what ingredients you pick and what processes you subject them to. The success or failure of the dish is largely dependent on how much attention, care, determination, intentionality, and judgment you have applied to the problem.

I really liked a lot of what you had to say, but I will add that there is an element of chance in a relationship that is very difficult to account for and potentially damaging to assume it will work out with enough effort. Both partners need to have a similar idea of what they want out of life. Because both individuals have now consigned their future to a shared pot, any strong desires that are mutually exclusive (i.e. what environment to live in, whether to have kids, religious affiliation, money decisions) have the power to destroy a relationship from the inside out. If there is no suitable middle ground one partner must sacrifice their desire for the other.

I'm not suggesting that compromising is a bad thing in a relationship. There is no relationship that doesn't have a few of those cases that I described. They DO however introduce that degree of chance (or more specifically an unknown variable). Is that compromise going to demand of one partner more than they are able to forfeit without hurting them? For my own parents it was religion. My dad was devout and highly dedicated to the wellbeing of the church of which he was a member (and at times an elder). My mom eventually couldn't deal with being always second. Since then they've both moved on to healthier relationships that don't force them to sacrifice how they feel about those things. They're not perfect and still require a lot of work, but I think they've done better at avoiding the landmines.

edit: I suppose that's also the negative impact my parent's divorce had on me. I can't be in a relationship without instinctively looking for its weak points. My Fe isn't childlike enough to push forward anymore.

 

[shadowmouse]

FusionKnight has my complete agreement and endorsement. The significance is in the decision to share and work at the relationship and in the continued follow through. The best marriages I have had the privilege of witnessing are between people who are capable of functioning independently but CHOOSE to share the burden that comes with intertwining your life with another person and are happier for it. Personally, I think of marriage like the engineering design process, it is not an end state but a continual refinement. As a religious person I also especially agree with the part about it being between the pair and God.

I also share a portion of Auburn's fear about total commitment. As an INTP I don't deal well in absolutes. There is always room for change. It took some extensive work to rewrite my feelings on the issue so that I was truly able to accept that the perfect relationship does not exist and cannot be crafted no matter how hard or long you try. The best we can get away with is doing the best we can and working together to work around/through the issues. I've found that the primary road block is finding someone who understands this in the same way you do so that you are working from the same page. Of course maintaining this requires that you communicate. Not talk at one another, but really communicate, and both being willing to accept that you might be wrong. In fact you might both be wrong and need to find a new set of answers.

I'm not sure that made any sense. Sorry. I also don't claim to be an expert on any of this.

Cautionary Note : My parents divorced when I was 19. I have a dim view of interpersonal relationships, especially marriage, as a result. As an aside however I would like to note that I have a much more stable relationship with them both now.

On the other hand, If anyone does find an Empathic Metamorph (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Empathic_metamorph) I have a standing bounty of 1 million credits and trip to the Cayman's in it for you. :P

 

[Waterstiller]

I like what Auburn and EB have had to say thus far.

 

[loveofreason]

I'm deceptive by nature. It's not intentional, but it does mean that people get close thinking I'm one thing when I'm really also another. Call it a trick of the light. Let's say they're not prepared for the darkness. I bring out the best and worst in others.

I'll never really know what they see on the surface, but without fail they are unprepared for the person they meet when they become close.

Now I have walked the path of folly and tried to change my nature. I've sickened trying to protect others from the less er... attractive aspects of myself. (In truth these are aspects also of their own soul, but they don't want to know.) The corrosive poison of self compromise has left me scarred to the degree I think I may no longer be able to heal.

I now face the fact that no matter how much someone thinks they like me, it is all a fiction. Eventually they will be dis-illusioned and, if I let them close, broken-hearted.

What has this to do with the OP?

At the end of the day we're alone, some more alone than others. My version of intimate relationship is simply to be understood and understand.

It is further away now than ever.

I echo the sentiments and underlying despair. Hard work might be the solution for some people, but for others of us marriage simply isn't in our nature. Call us transformation catalysts.

 

[Auburn]

At the end of the day we're alone, some more alone than others. My version of intimate relationship is simply to be understood and understand.

Love, I have written those exact words before, not more than a few months ago. I share your sentiments on the difficulty of compromise as well. Personally, the devotion, the sacrifice, and the compromise necessary for a lasting marriage is an enormous hindrance to my own free spirit.

I have but one opportunity, one life, to explore this reality and satiate my curiosity as far as possible. The only commitment I may hold forever is that of simply wanting to understand. I would love a friend who would do this along side me, however my eye is single. Underneath it all, my true passion, my real purpose, would be to understand this reality to which I have been summoned.


In the spirit of romanticism...

I am forever married to curiosity...

My one true love...

 

[loveofreason]

Stay free!

I don't see why love can't be as profound without all the attachment baggage. Even more so perhaps. The transitory nature of experience demands we let go.

Attempting to build 'commitment' mires us in the quick-sands of material illusion. Perhaps this is what the soul wants, and what material existence demands; that being why we find ourselves sinking into the mundane.

But I can rail against it! And when circumstances and timing permit I can break free of attachment's gravity, however briefly. I know where I can breathe. Where I can fly and where I can not. I will not forget the nature of spirit.

 

[fullerene]

for all the fucked up people I've gotten to know, LoR, I really can't imagine you being any worse inside at all. Feel free to take me up on that bet if you want, but I doubt your depravity when it's compared to my own.

 

[loveofreason]

Haha. I don't doubt you're depraved.

I'm obviously too sheltered and must get out there in the sewers some more.

 

[Auburn]

I truly wish I was more eloquent with my words. What I speak of is not a bondage, but actually a liberation. I am married to that which has no bonds... to the free spirit of exploration... to freedom...

I don't see why love can't be as profound without all the attachment baggage. Even more so perhaps. The transitory nature of experience demands we let go.

Very true.

Also, love, to he who has no expectations but to discover the honest truth, nothing is disappointing for everything is enlightening.

In all honesty, I am very curious as to what truly is inside of you; and be it what it may, I only wish to understand you, whatever that may entail. To someone who seeks disillusionment, the reality is a pleasant sight, however grotesque it may be.

 

[Waterstiller]

I truly wish I was more eloquent with my words. What I speak of is not a bondage, but actually a liberation. I am married to that which has no bonds... to the free spirit of exploration... to freedom...

You've been eloquent enough, m'dear.

Downright inspirational. (you too, Lor; I appreciate and relate to your posts in this thread)

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I have but one opportunity, one life, to explore this reality and satiate my curiosity as far as possible. The only commitment I may hold forever is that of simply wanting to understand. I would love a friend who would do this along side me, however my eye is single. Underneath it all, my true passion, my real purpose, would be to understand this reality to which I have been summoned.


In the spirit of romanticism...

I am forever married to curiosity...

My one true love...

Hmmm... Deja-vu. I said something very close to this twenty some-odd years ago. It still holds true, but one must struggle, at times, with the impositions of basic survival and shelter.

What I speak of is not a bondage, but actually a liberation. I am married to that which has no bonds... to the free spirit of exploration... to freedom...

.....who has no expectations but to discover the honest truth, nothing is disappointing for everything is enlightening.

I had a brief discussion with another in the real world, who asked me if I was 'content'. I replied that contentment has never entered my sphere of thought, let alone been a goal or level to arrive at. Contentment would be suicidal to me. Existence is dynamic, and as I am existence, I also am dynamic. The stability of motion. The stasis of constant flux.
The 'Bohemian' half of my name is not accidental, it is chosen and accurate.

There is a part of me who wishes to encounter another with whom I could travel with. All of my encounters have been, sadly, terminally addicted to anchoring to dry land. I realise that, as an Idealist and a Romantic, the likelihood of this occuring is slim, yet... hope springs eternal.

 

[loveofreason]

Egad, are we all romantics?

Now I have a new motto ...married to freedom