SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I've noticed a "trend" (well I've seen it in a couple of threads) where SIers have said, "You've only been dating for X weeks/months. You can't know you're committed."

But then I look at my parents. They just celebrated their 47th wedding anniversary.

They met in September, got engaged in October, and were married the following March.

From meeting to wedding was 6 months. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that when they got engaged after a month of dating they were pretty seriously committed. I mean you don't generally get engaged to be married without being committed.

Both sets of grandparents knew each other less than a year before getting married and both sets were married for more than 35 years and in both cases the marriage "ended" because one of the spouses died.

So ... how long is long enough? Is it really a determination we can make just by reading a message board?

Wonderful question! Look forward to people's opinions.

Not only days play into it, but how often and long you see each other, and whether you knew each other beforehand.

I saw a study that indicated that the divorce rate is higher for people who lived together before they got married, and also for people who had sex before marriage (isn't that most everyone, though?). Of course there could be many causes for this...

I think, for people who really have their shit together, and who really have chemistry, things could move quickly and be healthy. Because along the lines of broken attracts broken, healthy attracts healthy, too.

But a month before getting engaged? I think that's either dumb luck or they were shining healthiness like beacons.

[This message edited by OnceInALifetime at 3:51 PM, March 7th (Thursday)]

SG,

It was a completely different world back then.

My aunt and uncle (married for 70 years before he passed away last year), had a similar time-line. My sister ner H (married 48 beofre he passed away in 2009) married at 19 (but, if they could have, they would have married at 15 right after they met!).

Why did that work then, but we now favor long engagements, waiting longer until marriage, and get divorced in record numbers?

Maybe because they simply believed they would stay together. They questioned very little (unless there was abuse, rampant infidelity, etc). They made a promise and then they did not tune into Dr. Laura to see what they were doing wrong. They met someone and declared it to be a match - without the benefit of a dating profie or algorhythims matching every aspect of their personalities. They stayed with their someone without looking up old flames on Facebbook and wondering "what if".

The world was a smaller place back then. Maybe they felt the had fewer options. Maybe they just felt lucky with what they did have.

wolf

I agree that it doesn’t operate on a set timeline, but I don’t think it follows with landmarks like engagement, cohabitation, marriage, or even children. Being committed to someone is a choice. If you expect commitment before someone is ready to make that choice, you will likely send them in the opposite direction.

Let your partner's actions speak to their readiness. When their actions indicate they are more committed than not, it is safe to start addressing the areas in the not committed column.

[This message edited by Crescita at 3:56 PM, March 7th (Thursday)]

My parents met the weekend Kennedy was shot, and married the following July. Dad was in the Navy and spent most of that time on cruises. They've been married ever since! I think your level of commitment and whether you are ready for exclusivity is entirely dependent on the people in the relationship.

I guess the odd thing to me is that the happiest, longest lasting marriages I know (not that they are without problems because nothing is perfect) are not the ones where the couple knew one another for months and months before their year (or more) long engagement.

Yet I see fairly consistently here the equivalent of "It can't be that serious you've only been dating for 3/6/9 months."

As for it being smaller world with fewer options ... Both of my parents are from cities with 2+ million residents (even back in the 60s) and my mom is from another country. So I doubt that they felt they had fewer options. LOL

I started dating WH#2, 3 months after filing for divorce from XWH#1. He had been divorced for 4 yrs and said he was ready for a committed relationship. He asked several times if I didn't want to wait or was it too soon. I knew that I loved him after a few dates, but didn't say anything. He actually told me he loved me first. Now looking back, maybe I should have waited, maybe my vision was blurry, but I also was not the one that cheated on him. So he is the one that wasn't ready, not me.

But they did have fewer options, SG. Back when your parents got married, people weren't staying single. There may have been more people around them (which would increase their options from those in rural areas), but you were still fairly restricted geographically. People stuck within their neighborhoods, then their high schools and - later - their colleges.

Also, people were expected to pair up and get married. People did not stay single for long (with rare exceptions). People didn't live together: they got married. If you did get a divorce, or were widowed - you got REmarried. Single people were the minority.

Wolf

Legend has it my parents were married about six weeks after they met. My father proposed they marry before the end of the year for tax reasons. My mother said she knew they were going to end up married so she had no problem with it. They were married 43 years when he passed away. I don't know that they were always happy years but they had a good marriage overall. They stuck together.

I don't think there's a set time period to say "Okay, we're good. Green light!" It's different for everybody. But I am a believer in when you know, you know. And if you're seriously reluctant or questioning things, then it's probably not "it."

It is always dependent on the individuals, of course, and there are always instances where you can point to someone and say "Hey! they married the day they met and look how it worked out!" but there are FAR more instances of marriages NOT working out when people marry before they have known each other thoroughly.

I like the writings that talk about the "5 Stages of Committed Relationships" and those almost all say the first stage "Romantic Stage" lasts from 2 months to 2 years. The Romantic Stage is one where you really are putting your best foot forward and not necessarily showing all your quirks to your partner, etc. It's the most fun :-) It's the following stages that really put a relationship to the test on whether it has a good chance of lasting.

So I think it depends on what you've seen together and how you've been tested but still I find it hard to believe you REALLY have passed through the first few of those stages in a matter of weeks.

I think it CAN work and as you get older, you are better able to know what you want/what works, but you still take a big risk moving too quickly. You really don't know someone until you've traveled with them, had the flu with them, dealt with major family stressors around them, etc. You have to see them at their worst and vice versa.

I'm not real sure on that one. I think it's more a matter of making it work.

2 of my sisters married guys from the neighborhood we'd known forever.

M&J met in '62, dated from 71(?) and were married in '83.

A&B knew each other from about '70, started dating in about '85, and married in '87.

I suppose WWW. I see the point you are making, though I don't necessarily agree that that is the reason that shorter "courtships" have resulted in solid relationships.

I'm just curious because I see it here said rather dismissively fairly often. "You can't be ready for the exclusivity talk." "How seriously could it be" followed by "you've only been dating for 3 (6,9, etc) months?"

I mean I get it when someone is "head over heels" for someone on the 2nd date and they've only spent a few hours between those two dates with the other person. That might be pushing it just a tad.

But how long is long enough? And is that something that we can reasonably presume to comment on?

Edited to add:

Spirit wrote:

You really don't know someone until you've traveled with them, had the flu with them, dealt with major family stressors around them, etc. You have to see them at their worst and vice versa.

This is true. But I don't see that you can get to that point of having been there through a major family stressor, the flue or travelling with them without being committed. Unless you're planning to marry a sibling most people form an attachment and an intention to commit before they've done all of those things together.

[This message edited by SouthernGal at 4:27 PM, March 7th (Thursday)]

It's one thing to do the fast track thing with a first love or when you haven't been married before.

But when there is so much baggage being dragged into it, that's when it probably isn't the best idea.

I think the questions about it's 'not being enough time' come more from our experiences and shared confidences than from an era phenomenon. We're all here because we've either been burned or have burned someone. Some feel they have broken 'pickers'; others seem to leap into new relationships before they are ready (I won't say healed; I don't think you can ever fully heal from a destroyed relationship-you just get more healthy.)

I feel it's more of our shared experiences that color our perception of the time it takes to make a healthy relationship.

Okay, hurtinky. Fair enough.

But what's the standard? How long is "long enough" to be considered not rushing?

P.S. - this is a completely academic exercise for me as I am not currently dating and have no plans to do so any time in the next 3 or 4 years (depends on how long it takes me to finish my BSN and MSN degrees).

But I don't see that you can get to that point of having been there through a major family stressor, the flue or travelling with them without being committed. Unless you're planning to marry a sibling most people form an attachment and an intention to commit before they've done all of those things together.

This is why I feel like commitment doesn’t follow a landmark like marriage. Marriage is an intention to commit. Sometimes it takes several years after marriage before people start putting themselves and their spouses before people and things that are outside the marriage. Some never do, hence how we all ended up here.

I don't know, I did marry super fast and that ended horribly. We were married less than 7 months after our first date. Xwh's culture that was completely okay, since he comes from a culture where most marriages are arranged and one would literally meet their potential mate in front of the parents and if they got on well were then married shortly after.

Xwh was ready to marry me asap, but I did prolong it a bit more. I was ready to settle down, so I was not afraid of the commitment.

I think people really do overemphasize "lack of exclusivity", truth is I do not multi-date, I think anyone who is really serious about dating doesn't generally multi-date, so for me exclusivity is pretty much a given, I won't date someone unless they feel the same way. And yes that is discussed early on.

I think it's due to a number of inter-related factors.

First, people of earlier generations expected marriage to be difficult and also expected to stay married. Yes, folks had affairs and yes, folks stayed in miserable situations. No question. But I think today's folk expect marriage to be effortless and love means you never have to say you're sorry.

People were raised with the expectation that marriage required sacrifices and commitments and that it would be tough and there would be tough times. Present generations raised on crappy romance novels of real jackasses becoming wonderful, caring partners and Disney-esque "happily-ever-afters" expect it to be easy.

I see the same unrealistic expectations with younger folks and their work ethic.

I don't think marriage has changed, but I think the "expectation" of marriage has changed. We expect our spouse to be not only our partner, but our best friend, our soulmate. That's a lofty goal. Not to say you shouldn't have commitment and love and friendship in a marriage, but I think the standard has gone far beyond what people can reasonably deliver.

Arranged marriages, for the most part, don't have as high a divorce rate. Something to consider (and I say for the most part because I'm talking about arranged marriages between adults in a culturally accepted manner via parents and community, not some of the atrocities we read about where 65-year-old men require 11-year-old "brides.")

Cat

I don't know if there is a magic answer. There are so many variables. Some lightening speed situations work, some who are engaged forever don't.

Speaking of arranged marriages, my DIL was in one. When she was 18, her (very lovely) parents married her off to her first cousin. He lived here, so he went to Jordan and married her and brought her here. It lasted two years and they jointly asked their uncle, the patriarch of that family, if they could get a divorce. He agreed. And the family just pretends it never happened. I asked my son once how they can all just pretend that this weird thing never happened, and he said, "Because Uncle Sami told them they would." Interestingly enough, many of the other arranged marriages I witness in this family seem to be very strong, loving, and vital. Her parents are first cousins. Siblings are married to first cousin siblings. It is so intertwined that it boggles the mind. But I swear, they are all wonderful, loving, accepting people.

I married my exWH six months to the day that we met. I met him while I was in the process of getting divorced. We married thirteen days after the divorce was final. I loved him like there was no tomorrow.

"You can't be ready for the exclusivity talk."

I met new guy 13 days ago. We started talking 8 days ago, went on 3 dates, and he told me that he intends to be exclusive but doesn't expect it from me yet as he is the 1st guy I have dated post S.

I was blown away.

My STBX asked me to marry him after 6 days. Granted, we had been friends for almost a year prior to dating, but still, kind of scary to move so quickly. Then we ended up dating for 4 years before marrying.

I truly think there is NO way to determine how soon is too soon or how long is too long.