Marriage is about convenience?

[Aloe]

My husband told me that "Marriage is about convenience: 2 people helping each other get through life". Honestly, i'm not sure what to make of this. Is marriage really about convenience? I'm thinking it's first and foremost about love, or is this foolish thinking? Can 2 people stay in love for 50 years? When does it turn convenient above all?

[Voyager36]

My husband told me that "Marriage is about convenience: 2 people helping each other get through life". Honestly, i'm not sure what to make of this. Is marriage really about convenience? I'm thinking it's first and foremost about love, or is this foolish thinking? Can 2 people stay in love for 50 years? When does it turn convenient above all?

I think it depends on the people Aloe. 
Some RW might marry a rich guy looking for a comfortable life, others marry for love.
It's the same for guys too I think

[Maniac999]

  Absolutely agree with your husband , Aloe.
 When 2 people are doing something , it's much convinnient and quicker to finish  the job.
 When just one person is doing it, it will take much more time and efforts ..much more then twice.
 I think, your husband used the right word for this.
 We can talk about love as much as possible , but the truth is ...convinnience.IMHO.

[Ade]

My husband told me that "Marriage is about convenience: 2 people helping each other get through life". Honestly, i'm not sure what to make of this. Is marriage really about convenience? I'm thinking it's first and foremost about love, or is this foolish thinking? Can 2 people stay in love for 50 years? When does it turn convenient above all?

I agree with Voyager, different strokes and hopefully both partners are on the same page with the same expectations.

And yes, I think people can stay in love for 50 years even if, after 50 years, it'll probably not be the frenetic, lustful love of the early years.

Perhaps you should ask your husband to clarify just to be sure you fully understand what he meant to say.

[Boethius]

I think you overanalyze things sometimes, Aloe.

Some people can be married 50 years without love, others can't.  He may have meant you have to work together as a couple in marriage, rather than at cross purposes.

[Blues Fairy]

What was the context in which this phrase was pronounced?

As a response to "do you love me?", or in the middle of a quiet discussion of family finances etc.? 

[Shadow]

The phrase can mean many different things.

It does not mean that a marriage is without love, or people do not have to love each other. It means that they should be there for each other when needed, and this has to come from both sides.

I think BF asked a very good question here, the context does matter.

[Faux Pas]

Why can't love and convenience be mutually inclusive? IMO, if one works hard at pleasing their partner and the partner does the same, there is no inconvenience. It's not something you can ask or tell someone to do, they have to want to and it will bring them more pleasure than if they worked on pleasing just themselves. If pleasing your partner is looked upon as inconvenient or work, it ain't love.

[BillyB]

My husband told me that "Marriage is about convenience: 2 people helping each other get through life". Honestly, i'm not sure what to make of this. Is marriage really about convenience? I'm thinking it's first and foremost about love, or is this foolish thinking? Can 2 people stay in love for 50 years? When does it turn convenient above all?

Aloe, appreciate your young husband because he can teach you something. The convenience of your marriage for you is receiving greater love from your husband than you would normally get from a live in boyfriend.

If you don't need your husband for convenience or anything else, then the need for your marriage diminishes. I hope everyday you'd want your husband more and more instead of less and less.

[CanadaMan]

There's a lot of information and room for interpretation packed into these few words.

As others have already pointed out, unless you know the context of why it was said and the intent, then you would be hard-pressed to figure out what your husband was really trying to say.

The word convenience can be used in many ways/contexts.
A popular phrase is a "marriage of convenience".
You certainly don't want your husband to be thinking of your marriage as a "marriage of convenience".
That would not be a good thing.

Most other contexts of convenience are good though.

But the "2 people helping each other get through life" doesn't sound too appealing to me.

Personally I would rather see two people helping each other *enjoy* life together, rather than getting through it. But that's just my personal preference. 

[Gator]

Aloe,

Some men are not romantic, yet still feel love.   When growing up they typically had fewer sexual encounters  than the smooth talkers.

RWD's resident philosopher Shostakovitch has an interesting opinion:

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=11696.msg229980#msg229980

He elaborates further in that thread.

[BC]

Marriage is a civil contract. The love part is icing on the cake, but quite optional.

[Seeker]

Marriage is a civil contract. The love part is icing on the cake, but quite optional.

True.  But I for one would not want to be in that relationship... the one where love is optional. 

Edit to add: I am not saying I think this is what Aloe's husband was thinking or feeling.  Just a comment on a comment.

[Daveman]

My husband told me that "Marriage is about convenience: 2 people helping each other get through life". Honestly, i'm not sure what to make of this. Is marriage really about convenience? I'm thinking it's first and foremost about love, or is this foolish thinking? Can 2 people stay in love for 50 years? When does it turn convenient above all?

Well, the "emotion" of love ebbs and flows...  Yes, it is about love... and yes it is about convenience, and yep, about helping each other through life.

To me it's about the best friend that you fell in love with... i do think it is possible to stay in love, though it's more like a rollercoaster than fantasy land.  I guess it would all depend on one's definition of 'love'. 

[Seeker]

Well, the "emotion" of love ebbs and flows...  Yes, it is about love... and yes it is about convenience, and yep, about helping each other through life.

To me it's about the best friend that you fell in love with... i do think it is possible to stay in love, though it's more like a rollercoaster than fantasy land.  I guess it would all depend on one's definition of 'love'.

I think you defined it well, at least for what I want in a relationship.  And before the debate starts, I know that is different for all of us.  Good thing too... because we are all different as people.  Imagine how lonely we men would all be if women only were attracted to the Johnny Depp types (as an example of a 'looks' desire).

[Boethius]

Well, the "emotion" of love ebbs and flows...  Yes, it is about love... and yes it is about convenience, and yep, about helping each other through life.

To me it's about the best friend that you fell in love with... i do think it is possible to stay in love, though it's more like a rollercoaster than fantasy land.  I guess it would all depend on one's definition of 'love'. 

I disagree that love ebbs and flows.  If it does, it is a love built on sand, not rock.  Lust, OTOH, ebbs and flows.

[Daveman]

I disagree that love ebbs and flows.  If it does, it is a love built on sand, not rock.  Lust, OTOH, ebbs and flows.

Notice I didn't say that love ebbs and flows.  I indicated the emotion of love.  Love in the sense of a feeling can vary by mood. Love as an action verb is another semantic rendering.  "In love" yet another.  One problem we have is that 'Love' is a word that carries enormous ambiguity as well as multiplicity.

And of course the 'feeling' ebbs and flows, even with love built on a firm foundation.  Sometimes one can feel extremely close and romantic , and at other times more distant and not in a mood for tenderness, less affectionate (having nothing to do with lust, though of course lust varies by mood as well).. those are the immediate feelings... if we indeed 'felt' the same amount of passionate love at all times, our loving moods would be invariable.  They are not, though some vary more or less than others.

That doesn't mean we 'love' someone more or less, it just means that love's definition is much more than merely an emotional feeling, perhaps undefinable but maybe more of a state of being.  It's a multifaceted word which should be banned from the lexicon for it's bad behavior.   

[Daveman]

Anyway, strangely enough, I forgot to actually make the point I originally intended to make (my senility is showing again).  To quote again those indelible words of the Great Italian Philosopher, "Marriage is a container for a relationship"...

So the cup of marriage holds whatever two people put into it. That whatever will vary from one couple to the next and even what one partner puts in as opposed to the other.  How one defines what marriage should contain may vary considerably from that of the partner.  It often seems to in these cross cultural deals and perhaps with the population at large as well.

Aloe and her man may define what goes into the cup a little differently.  That's not necessarily a negative as definitions of all this vary by individual.  Acceptance and understanding are more important than placing emphasis upon carbon copy definitions as the latter is unlikely to completely manifest, even with the impetus of notorious RW complaining.   :evil:   

[Aloe]

It was in the context of cool down after an argument. His work might send him to the usa. This is like 5th time he would go on a trip abroad, every time to a different country, with 5 star hotel and stuff, while i sit here, bored and super jealous that he gets to go to all those countries Is it bad to be jealous of that? So anyway, i told him if he goes, im coming with him, he says we cant afford it, so i say then if he goes, im going to london or something, cuz i wanna go somewhere too, he doesnt say anything to that, so a couple quiet hours later, out of the blue to me, apparently he was building up anger the entire time, so i ask him whats wrong a few times, he just blows up and leaves the house for unknown direction, screaming that i ruined his morning and now im gonna ruin his month too (first time this happens), so after he came back 3 hrs later, we talked, and thats when he said that phrase. In reply i asked what about love? He says love too. So i ask, what comes first, love or convenience? He says he doesnt know.

[Ade]

It was in the context of cool down after an argument. His work might send him to the usa. This is like 5th time he would go on a trip abroad, every time to a different country, with 5 star hotel and stuff, while i sit here, bored and super jealous that he gets to go to all those countries Is it bad to be jealous of that? So anyway, i told him if he goes, im coming with him, he says we cant afford it, so i say then if he goes, im going to london or something, cuz i wanna go somewhere too, he doesnt say anything to that, so a couple quiet hours later, out of the blue to me, apparently he was building up anger the entire time, so i ask him whats wrong a few times, he just blows up and leaves the house for unknown direction, screaming that i ruined his morning and now im gonna ruin his month too (first time this happens), so after he came back 3 hrs later, we talked, and thats when he said that phrase. In reply i asked what about love? He says love too. So i ask, what comes first, love or convenience? He says he doesnt know.

First thing; when guys, young guys especially, have an argument they have a tendency to dig themselves into a hole by saying stupid things they don't necessarily mean and which they have a hard time retracting without, in their mind at least, losing a lot of face. By saying this I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying that that's the way it is.

Secondly, you sound somewhat petulant about this travelling thing. After all, this is work related and I guess somewhat out of his control. If he's right and you really can't afford to join him, then you're being selfish for spoiling this opportunity for him and making him feel shitty about something he shouldn't have to feel shitty about. If you can afford for you to take a small break then fine do that, but that's a holiday whereas his trip is not as it's work related even if he may get to live it up a little in the evenings. What would be far better though is if you suggested that you both go to London when he's back so you can have a short holiday together.

[Aloe]

I am not sure if we can afford it. We wouldn't get into debt, that's for sure, but i guess if i came to america with him, our funds would approach 0 by the end of it. But England is 10 times cheaper to reach.
He doesnt take me to Brussel or Brugge, and your suggesting he take me to London?  

[Aloe]

He does tell me all the time, that what he said was stupid and he didnt mean it (not about this phrase, but about dozens of other masterpieces he comes up with),  but why, why, why the hell would you say it in the first place if you dont mean it? I think he means it when he says it, and maybe means it a little bit at all other times, otherwise why say it?

[Shadow]

It was in the context of cool down after an argument. His work might send him to the usa. This is like 5th time he would go on a trip abroad, every time to a different country, with 5 star hotel and stuff, while i sit here, bored and super jealous that he gets to go to all those countries Is it bad to be jealous of that? So anyway, i told him if he goes, im coming with him, he says we cant afford it, so i say then if he goes, im going to london or something, cuz i wanna go somewhere too, he doesnt say anything to that, so a couple quiet hours later, out of the blue to me, apparently he was building up anger the entire time, so i ask him whats wrong a few times, he just blows up and leaves the house for unknown direction, screaming that i ruined his morning and now im gonna ruin his month too (first time this happens), so after he came back 3 hrs later, we talked, and thats when he said that phrase. In reply i asked what about love? He says love too. So i ask, what comes first, love or convenience? He says he doesnt know.

Perhaps you should ask him to explain what the cost would be if you joined him.
A small estimate.
If the company pays, the ticket could be business class, which would mean that thet ticket alone would cost $1000. To add you to the hotel room would probably mean extra breakfast at $50 a day, $350 for one week. Your meals would not be included, if you go to McDonalds or equal places add $20 per day .. $ 140.
Then you will be sitting bored in your hotel room as he has to spend time working and you can not join him, at a price of $1500 for one week. For that money you can go on holiday and enjoy together when he takes some free time.
The 5-star room is nice but mostly useless when you are on a business trip.

I understand its no fun to sit at home while he is away, but at the same time its not a lot of fun to join him either.

[Ade]

I am not sure if we can afford it. We wouldn't get into debt, that's for sure, but i guess if i came to america with him, our funds would approach 0 by the end of it. But England is 10 times cheaper to reach.
He doesnt take me to Brussel or Brugge, and your suggesting he take me to London?  

Yes, tell him you want to go with him. A long weekend, flying to Stansted with Ryanair it's cheap as chips - hotel is more though of course but you can find cheapish hotels around. If you're going to there at the beginning of July, let me know as my wife and I will be there for 4 nights as first part of our summer holiday and I'm sure she'd be interested to say hello.

[Shadow]

I am not sure if we can afford it. We wouldn't get into debt, that's for sure, but i guess if i came to america with him, our funds would approach 0 by the end of it. But England is 10 times cheaper to reach.
He doesnt take me to Brussel or Brugge, and your suggesting he take me to London?  

I understand he does not want to take you to Brussel... hate that place  
Brugge might be nice, long time since I was there.

As for destinations like London and the US, do you have visa to go there? Remember that you have a Russian passport and no matter of your residence, you still need to apply for visa, which are not always easy to get.