Exciting/ The ME Marriage /Take Back Your Marriage / Signs of Times - Jan 3/2011

Mon Jan 3 23:00:46 EST 2011

- NEW RESEARCH: EXCITING TRUMPS PLEASANT
- THE HAPPY MARRIAGE IS THE ŒME¹ MARRIAGE
- MARRIAGE IN CONTEXT
- SIGNS OF THE TIMES  BOTH INVOLVING PRIESTS AND MARRIAGE
-----------------------------

- NEW RESEARCH: EXCITING TRUMPS PLEASANT

For Satisfying Marriage Go Fro EXCITING Over Pleasant

Aron says couples should try activities that are new and challenging for
both parties.  "What maintains the sense of love and passion and excitement
and connection, is that each of you is feeling that the relationship and the
partner is making you grow, and giving excitement to your life, and you
associate that with the relationship."

"If you go canoeing all the time, going canoeing again isn't that great a
thing," says Aron. "If you go to the opera all the time, fine enjoy it, but
if you've never gone to the opera and as long as neither of you hate the
opera, give it a try."

Aron says beyond adding exciting activities day-to-day, you should also
consider how you can help your partner grow in their long term goals.

"The things that affect you most are things that are new and challenging and
exciting. In the long term though it's things that you feel you're growing
from, that you have more in your life because of your partner."

Here¹s the full article:
http://tinyurl.com/35kfhqp
--------------------------------------------------

And, here¹s the same researcher featured prominently in Sunday¹s New York
Times with emphasis on ³if you want to show you love me, expand me²:
- Sustainable Love
THE HAPPY MARRIAGE IS THE ŒME¹ MARRIAGE
By TARA PARKER-POPE
January 2, 2010

. . . a process called ³self-expansion.² Research shows that the more
self-expansion people experience from their partner, the more committed and
satisfied they are in the relationship. . . .

. . . The notion that the best marriages are those that bring satisfaction
to the individual may seem counterintuitive. After all, isn¹t marriage
supposed to be about putting the relationship first?

Not anymore. For centuries, marriage was viewed as an economic and social
institution, and the emotional and intellectual needs of the spouses were
secondary to the survival of the marriage itself. But in modern
relationships, people are looking for a partnership, and they want partners
who make their lives more interesting. . . .

For the full article: http://tinyurl.com/3xrvynq

---------------------------------
- MARRIAGE IN CONTEXT

This email exchange between an Australian wife and Bill Doherty is an
excellent reminder that successful marriage requires a proactive stance (a
taking responsibility for your marriage) AND also that marriage succeeds or
fails in the context of our families. Her parents were so good handling her
marital complaints  wonder how they did with her siblings¹ marriages?  -
diane 

Fri Dec 31, 2010 
Dear Dr Doherty
> I recently came across your book Take Back Your Marriage at the local library.
> I think youŒve nailed a worrying trend; the consumerism of marriage. I could
> see examples of this in the failure of friends and relatives marriages, such
> as the husband who told his wife on leaving her ³I no longer love you², my
> sister in-law who announced she¹d left her husband and father of her kids
> because ³he ran the marriage like he ran the local cop shop² where he was
> the police sergeant, and the friend who attended marriage counselling for
> help with her relationship, until the counsellor assisted her partner in
> telling her he was leaving! My friend was rightly UNIMPRESSED that she had
> to pay for that session! Luckily my husband and I have a strong marriage. We
> have the last marriage standing among our combined five wedded siblings. The
> reasons for our success: I searched long and hard for someone that I felt
> was compatible  over 10 years. He ticked the most important boxes on my
> list of requirements BUT was not perfect in every way. Importantly, he was
> game to take me on - I know I have weaknesses too. We met and were engaged
> within a month, significantly faster than most courtships. I accepted his
> marriage proposal on the following conditions:
> 1.       At least one year¹s engagement (to give me time to check his
> credentials and to fall in love with him), and;
> 
> 2.       Attending a couples communication course.
> 
> Then at about the fourth year of our marriage, I was getting a bit
> disillusioned with him. There were a long list of annoyances, including his
> approach to problem solving. For example, when he offered to defrost our old
> fridge, I thought GREAT! That was until I saw him walking past with my
> hairdryer! Fortunately I have a good and open relationship with my parents,
> and during a visit from them, we sat down and I confessed to Mum and Dad how
> my husband was annoying me and said I felt I¹d be better off alone. Much to my
> surprise 
> my mother confessed to me that many of the annoyances I had, she had had
> (and still had) with Dad. It was at that point I realised how men and women
> are different and if I wanted to be in a relationship I¹d have to get over
> it. Which I did. We now make light of these differences. So it was really
> thanks to my parents our marriage survived and thrived. Reading your book
> made me realise that. So on our Christmas visit to them (we live in
> different cities) I thanked them. I¹d like to state that not all parents
> make good confidents. The love between parent and child is unconditional
> while the love between spouses is conditional - on their continued
> commitment and good behaviour. Bottom line, many parents think their child¹s
> partner is not good enough for them. If that¹s the case, they will not be in
> a position to provide unbiased advice. On our Christmas trip to my husband¹s
> home 
> town (we get around at Christmas) I discussed your book with my in-laws. I
> suspect they¹ve been providing advice to my husband¹s two siblings on their
> marriages, which both failed. I got a rather strong reaction from his
> mother, which on reflection, may have been because she suddenly realised that
> perhaps the advice she had given these two was wrong! Too late now and she
> cried. But going forward I hope they will
> support their children¹s relationships, given that their children are
> flawed...as we all are. So just wanted to write to you to thank you for
> writing your book. If you have a spare copy, perhaps I can purchase one
> from you? Kind regards, XXX, AUSTRALIA
>  
>  
Dear XXX,  
Thanks so much for your marriage story.  There is a lot in what you wrote
that struck me, beginning with your wise decision to attend a couples
communication course as one of the conditions for getting engaged. Knowing
how to communicate is half the battle. The other half you arrived atlater:
commitment to the person we marry despite the fact that he or she does not
turn out to be our ideal mate (not best "marital service provider" for
us). As you suggested, women in particular have to come to grips with the
fact that he's not like their best girlfriend and never will be. (Not that
this would necessarily make things work out for the best; lesbian couples in
one major study had twice the divorce rate of heterosexual couples.) Your
story of your mother's wise support for your marriage is another striking
feature of your story--and the comparison with your in-laws is sad. All of
this plus the therapist story from your friend--you covered most of my book
in your note!

I'm happy for you and also sad that yours is the last marriage standing
among the siblings.  I hope we can make things better for our children's and
grandchildren's generations.

I think the book is still for sale in Australia.  Getting a copy to you from
the States is a much bigger deal.

Thanks again for writing.
All the best,
Bill Doherty
www.drbilldoherty.org
------------------------------------------------
- SIGNS OF THE TIMES  BOTH INVOLVING PRIESTS AND MARRIAGE

1) Massachusetts: Bishop solemnizes marriage of two female priests
January 03, 2011
http://tinyurl.com/3a39p8l

2) Fr. Cutié: The Ex-Catholic Priest on His Marriage
January 3, 2011
 . . . Cutié emphasizes that he's not against celibacy per se, but believes
it should be optional, especially for parish priests, as it was at the
church's founding. "Please, the first 40 Popes were married," says Cutié,
noting that the ban on clerical sex and marriage was one of the many
misogynist constructs of the medieval church.

- FOR INFORMATION about how to post to the Smart Marriages® newslist;
subscribe or UNSUBSCRIBE, or an archive of all past posts:
http://www.smartmarriages.com/newslist.info.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/attachments/20110103/f8296517/attachment.html>