Recently
Interplay
DEAR SUSAN: No disrespect intended, but as a happily married woman, I have a take on fellow blogger J's situation: J, I've seen many of your posts, and in my eyes, you sound entitled and desperate. You constantly make references to …Read more.
Single Land
DEAR SUSAN: One of my fellow bloggers still seems a bit upset that he hasn't found a keeper yet. Well, I was in the same position he is. In fact, I have been in "single land" since 2007 and most likely will be for the rest of my time. But …Read more.
Digging
DEAR SUSAN: My definition of singlehood is not having a significant other. I'm reminded of my own singleness every day when I see couples together — contrasted with the way singles are treated. I personally have no desire to stay unmarried. …Read more.
Common Cause
DEAR SUSAN: I find that most angry/bitter single people are that way because they are trying to date "up" instead of looking for someone who has more in common with them financially and in terms of appearance and fitness. Think about it! …Read more.
more articles
|
Love and Non-Marriage
DEAR SUSAN: You responded to my letter asking about unmarried couples with children living together with statements about legally sanctioned family and societal recognition. Sorry, Susan, but I just don't think those are compelling reasons to get married. I don't look out my door every day wondering what society or my neighbors are thinking about my lifestyle. In fact, the older I get the less I care about society's opinion. I'm happy with my living arrangements, and my teens like my boyfriend. Who cares what anyone else thinks?
As for being "legally sanctioned," are you implying there's such a thing as an illegal family? In this day and age, that doesn't make sense. Families are made up of all kinds of different members — married, unmarried, related, not related. What matter more than legality are how they feel about each other and how well they get along. I do agree that emotional cohesion is needed, but only there. To me, cohesion within society has more to do with following rules and laws and getting along with your fellow man outside your home than it does with personal lifestyle choices.
As for messages to teens, this is the message our teens get from my boyfriend and me and our living arrangement: We are partners in love who make each other happy, and they see this every day. The relationship is totally committed and monogamous. Is this not the basis of teaching kids by example what relationships are all about? I am a good, supportive parent, and they have learned from me to make choices based on what is good for them. If they excel in life (and they do), they do it for themselves, not for friends or society. More importantly, they have gained the same values from their father, who lives nearby and is very involved in their lives. So I ask you again, Susan: What possible difference could a marriage certificate make? — Gillian F., Long Island, N.Y.
DEAR GILLIAN: Funny you should ask. That's the very question I'm exploring — uncovering new insights, making my opinions more porous and much less entrenched (more in tune with the needs of families of different compositions, such as yours, based not on rite, but on mutuality of caring). I've concluded that it's not marriage per se that's being rejected, but what the concept of marriage can do. I firmly believe that this quiet global revolution, spinning as it is against formal marriage, will once again revolve toward the sacred union, the sanctity of the marriage rite. But not any time soon. We seem to want a timeout, a pause to experiment with other forms of couplehood. Certainly, singleness still yearns for companionship, a partner alongside. (That is why cohabiters are the fastest-growing segment of the unmarried population.) But we're in the middle of a global shift — a rejection of marriage as a binding pact — for new, untried alternatives. Once again, the single community is on the vanguard, forging experimental forms of love. The younger generations have their own style of relatedness — more casual, less formal, more group-centric, less individual. The older ones are trying new forms of family. The returns aren't in yet; we're still waiting to gauge the effects of these new paradigms on the children. Closely attuned to the changes of the society around them, they will in time be judge and jury. Certainly, this shift is in the name of individual freedom; it's not quite clear whether the mission has been (or will be) accomplished. Hang on.
DEAR SUSAN: Oh, I am so in love. I fell in love with "Prometheus" around New Year's Eve, something he probably knows but hasn't talked about. He treats me better than anyone else ever has. He is so respectful, so loving, so patient and utterly brilliant. Prometheus was born a woman, something he told me very early in January, which didn't affect my feelings for him whatsoever. He is a man in every way, has lived as a man for eight years and has identified with men even longer. He hasn't had a sensual relationship in all that time. He is distrustful of people, some of whom have rejected him for his unusual sexuality or pursued him out of sheer curiosity.
I love him because he is himself without any ulterior motives. I have truly never felt this way about anyone in my entire life, and I am 28. I don't want to scare him away, either, because I treasure our friendship more than anything. Still, I am afraid to take action. Please give me some advice. Is there any way I can gain his trust and begin a relationship? — Carrie R., Santa Rosa, Calif.
DEAR CARRIE: The only way to creep into his heart is to take your cues from him. A slow road is a safe one, without potholes or sharp curves. And this one is particularly daunting, given his history. Your deep feelings for him will, if constant and unchanging, prove your authenticity. In your physicality with him, slowness must be the watchword. You have no idea what it will be, but his trust in you will conquer the unease and discomfort that is inevitable. So again, go slowly. Look to him for signals to speed up or slow down. When the time feels right, softly and slowly begin a dialogue about his family, upbringing, goals and dreams. He'll sense that it's not out of curiosity, but deep and abiding affection, that you ask those questions. You want to know more about him, as much as he wants you to know, and then ask him what he needs to know about you. You've chosen a complex person to love, but obviously you're up to the challenge. Stay with your feelings, and show them whenever possible. Once he trusts you, his feelings will follow. Handle them like precious gems.
Write to Susan Deitz in care of this newspaper. She will answer all letters that come with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. Or you may e-mail her at info@creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
3 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
For Gillian and the other unmarried couples living together (especially with children): if that marriage certificate is so meaningless, then why are gay couples across the country begging for the right to have that meaningless piece of paper? You don't care what society thinks, that's fine (and let's just hope your kids feel the same way -- don't be so sure they always do). But when something happens to you, don't be surprised when suddenly all the things you just assumed would be there for you will be -- who will take care of your children? Don't assume that your partner will be allowed to step up to the plate (even if he wants to), unless he has legally adopted them or they are his biological children (and I'm assuming they are not). Don't assume that your partner will be allowed to make any medical or financial decisions for you -- that likely isn't the case unless you have legal documentation that puts him in a position to make those choices for you (you know, like a marriage license). For that matter, don't assume the doctors will even share information about your condition with your partner -- in most cases, that is reserved for family (oh, and legallly married spouses). There are a bunch of ways to address these very practical matters that don't require you to get married, but the fastest, easiest way to address most of them is to get married, and if for some reason the two of you are unwilling to do that and would rather jump through multiple legal hoops in order to avoid getting married, perhaps you both should be asking yourselves just how "committed" you really are.
But there is one, completely impractical, completely ephemeral, completely intangible reason to get married, and it's one I cannot "prove" the way I can with all the practical, legal stuff. There's a difference -- there just is. I lived with my husband before we got married. We were already engaged at that point, and I honestly didn't think we'd feel any differently about it, any more committed, than we already did. After all, we were engaged. As far as we both were concerned, we were "married" the minute he asked me and I said "yes." I didn't need the pomp and circumstance -- and that meaningless piece of paper -- to feel any more committed than I already was. And yet, when we came home from our honeymoon and walked in the door together -- the same door we had walked in together countless times before -- it was different, WE were different. I cannot explain it, and it makes no sense whatsoever, not even to me, but there it is.
So far as I can tell, the only real reason not to get married is to make it easier to part ways. If the only reason you're not getting married is to avoid divorce, the problem is with you, not society or marriage.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Lisa
Tue Mar 2, 2010 10:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Way to say it, Lisa!! It is SO TRUE that you do NOT have ANY rights as the partner/friend/live in, as you do if married. A friend of mine was engaged and only 6 weeks from getting remarried to a wonderful woman with a son, that he LOVED. He had a stroke, but lived. He could not talk. AT 45 he was left with only blinking for yes or no. The fiance was not allowed to visit him and had to pack up her things and MOVE OUT, ASAP, per HIS CHILDREN. She DID go see him after a while and was the ONE who loved him and shaved him and read to him, ect. He would have been heart sick at how they treated his fiance. And NO, she was NOT the cause of his first marriage break-up, that was years before. He eventually, passed away, after 4 years or so, and she didn't go to the funeral. The bitter X was there as were the kids and told her NOT to come. She said it was OK, she already said her good-by's to him. The whole thing was so sad. I don't know what became of her and her son, but I hope she is happy again.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Clare
Tue Mar 2, 2010 11:43 AM
|
|
|
|
Well said, Lisa! And Claire's story is a good illustration of that. I think LW may be equating marriage with a wedding - all the pomp and circumstance you mention. A lot of people who are not into weddings, religious ceremonies, etc. simply go to the town hall and get married by a city clerk. This is much simpler - and cheaper - than enlisting legal help to draft all the multiple documents that assure your rights to be the next of kin, to become a parent to your non-biological children should something happen to their biological one, to inherit property, etc. If I may add a point - since it rarely occurs to people - if you happen to fall in love with somebody who is not a citizen or permanent resident of your country, marriage is the ONLY way you can live a normal life together, either in your partner's country or in yours. All of this can be achieved with one 10-15 minute procedure at the town hall. Marriage does not need to involve name changes, vows of any sort, church approval, etc., etc., etc. As you pointed out, Lisa, gay people have been fighting for the right to have that "meaningless piece of paper" for a long, long time, even in the states where a registered domestic partnership provides them with essentially all the rights that married people have with respect to each other. There must be something to it, then. Oh, and I completely agree with your point - if one is willing to go through a lot of legal rigmarole to AVOID getting married, it does beg the question: why is it so important to avoid this particular legal act?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Ariana
Sun Mar 7, 2010 7:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
