(This is a continuation of my Defense of Early Marriage series. I’m responding to common objections).
“But what if you find out he snores? Or sleepwalks?”
These were the objections a classmate of mine had when he found out that I was engaged after just two years of knowing and dating Ben. He couldn’t believe I was diving in without knowing all these things about him. The look on his face suggested that he was genuinely concerned. How did I know we’d be able to sleep in the same bed together?
My friend clearly believed that compatibility was key to a good marriage. And how could I know that I was compatible with Ben in such a short time? How did I know there wasn’t someone else out there who would be better suited to me? I was only nineteen – how did I know I wouldn’t run into a better match?
My friend’s idea of marriage and compatibility is a common one. We’re all led to believe that compatibility is essential to a successful marriage: we ought to have similar tastes, habits, and hobbies. That’s how we know we’ll get along – if we share similar likes and dislikes. We’re all looking for Mr. or Mrs. Right. Right? We need to find someone with whom we have “chemistry.”
Marrying at an early age means less time to find that special someone. It also means less time to find out who we are. In our early twenties we’re still so prone to change. What if we’re completely different people by the time we’re in our thirties? How do we know we’ll still get along in ten years? Shouldn’t we wait to get married to make sure we’ll still be compatible in the coming decades? Many people think so.
I’ve already written about compatibility so I don’t need to rehash that. But once again, I think Mark Regnerus says it best: “successful marriages are less about the right personalities than about the right practices.”
It’s nice to find someone who likes the same kinds of food and music as you, and shares your sense of humour. It’s nice to be around someone who shares similar sleeping patterns and ideas of proper hygiene and notions of a good time. Very nice.
But for starters, all those things could change with time. And secondly, I think many of those things become less important with time.
Compatibility or chemistry is nice but I don’t think it’s essential to a successful marriage. Much more important than compatibility are:
- A shared sense of commitment to the relationship, and a high regard for marriage
- Good practices of open communication and conflict resolution
- A shared willingness to make sacrifices to one another for the sake of the marriage
I believe that a couple who shares these practices and values is much better off than those who have only “chemistry.” As Regnerus puts it, “People change. Chemistry wanes. Covenants don’t.”
I believe that anyone, even in their early twenties, can be confident that she’s found a good match for her if she has found someone who is equally passionate about marriage and has an uncompromising sense of commitment to her. When I agreed to marry Ben I knew that, no matter what, he was willing to make this work, even if we didn’t agree on other things. And that was enough for me.
In regards to my classmate’s concerns, Ben and I did have a hard time learning to share a bed together. Interestingly, Ben is the one who didn’t have a good night’s sleep for the first three months of our marriage (I slept just fine).
But we learned. We adapted. We were willing to make changes and sacrifices, and communicate until we figured things out. If he does ever take up snoring or sleepwalking, we’ll deal with that too. But we won’t change our level of commitment to one another. And that is a decision I believe a couple can make at almost any age.
No matter what kinds of people we become when we’re 30, 40 and beyond, our commitment level will never change. In that way I think we’re plenty compatible.
What do you think? What are some other practices that contribute to a strong marriage? Is compatibility more important than I’ve made it out to be?
Image - another couple of my young married friends.
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
You hit the nail on the head Kathy, I agree 100%. Those 3 points are totally what can make or break a relationship, similar tastes are cool, but differences create a new flavour of a relationship!
A couple of years ago a friend, who was not married at the time, said that my husband and I were lucky because we found each other so young. “You’ve grown into who you are together,” she said. “It’s harder for me to find someone because I’m set in my ways and so many single men our age are too.” This set me on a tirade.
Grow together? That’s bs. It’s an almost daily compromise to be able to grow together. Often someone feels like they’re getting the short end of the stick. I think if you’re a mature individual and you find someone, like you said, who is open to the flexibility, sacrifice, and dedication needed to make a marriage work, then it doesn’t matter what age you get married.
Aren’t those comments to engaged couples always silly? We weren’t even young when we got engaged and married (25), but my then-fiance’s roommate actually said to me “Don’t you think you should live together first, to make sure it’ll work?” I asked him what he thought I should know, since he was already living with him. Turns out, he couldn’t come up with much – at least not that he’d say to me!
I agree that all three of those statements are vital!
It is nice to have someone with whom I am compatible. However, even though we agree on many things, there are still a lot of things that we don’t see eye-to-eye on. (That’s where numbers 2 and 3 come in handy.)
My wife and I will “grow together”, as can any couple over time. Sure, it’s work. We’ll share experiences, go through disagreements, learn more about each other, and generally grow as individuals. As husband and wife, we’ll be doing it together. Anyone can do that, as long as they are committed to doing so.
I think those three items you pointed out are really important. While it’s certainly nice to date guys with similar interests, it’s even more crucial to find someone with whom you share similar values. Of course, having some common points of interest is sort of essential — maybe you both like reading, or you both love spending a day at the beach — but being open to your partner’s other interests and hobbies is so gratifying, too. I was never a big film buff, but now I can honestly say I really like watching foreign films. I’m extremely extroverted, but I think being with an introvert is far more beneficial than being with another extrovert. We balance each other out.
Having said that, I don’t think I could be with someone who had no interest in food. I think it’s the only “trivial” thing that would make my list of deal-breakers.
Sarah, I’m with you about the food thing. One of my favourite things about my husband is his deep appreciation for food. He can’t cook a thing for himself, but he will relish almost anything I put in front of him, which is so fabulous. I don’t think I could be with a picky eater. Some of my friends are married to men who won’t eat things like pasta or cheese, and won’t touch anything foreign. I could never live with those men!
And of course you’re right — a certain amount of overlap in interests is necessary. But I’m assuming most people met their partners through some kind of common interest in the first place. Whether or not they can stick it out, though, has more to do with values and practices.
I agree completely. I think it is important to have the same priorities, not the same likes and dislikes. Knowing that you both want the same big things out of life (family first, debt-free lifestyle, whatever) makes it easier to overlook the little habbits (not picking up after themselves, leaving dishes in the sink) or annoying hobbies (playing playstation 3, spending too much time at the gym) they may have.
Now this is a point where I can agree without hesitation. Common values are essential. Gary and I really only have one hobby in common (the one in which we met), but we can set a mean budget and achieve goals together.
Two years is plenty of time to get to know someone. I can’t believe people said stuff like that to you! Now, when I announced after a few weeks that we were engaged, -then- people had cause for concern!
“People change. Chemistry wanes. Covenants don’t.”
Hmmm… I don’t see Chemistry as fading. If you DNA matches up good it will always match up good.
Unfortunately there really is no covenant of marriage anymore. Your partner can always just no fault you into a divorce without your consent. It’s not like you can bring up the vows in a divorce hearing, the courts really don’t care at all about them.
Thanks for stopping by, Athol Kay.
I’m not sure I believe that chemistry comes from DNA, so I still think it’s subject to change.
And while it’s true that divorce courts don’t necessarily honour vows as binding covenants, faith communities do. I’m more concerned with the covenants made before faith communities than legal marriages.
Google “Dr Helen Fisher” and see how far that takes you on the biology of attraction and love.
I understand the perspective that covenants are emotionally important, but it’s important to realize that the State is the one that even authorizes religious communities to be allowed to perform legal weddings. As harsh and unromantic and unspiritual as what I am saying is, it is the reality that your wonderful marriage where you performed minimal fault, if any, can simply be torn apart on the whim of a spouse that has decided against continuing the relationship.
Thus I trust in the permanent chemisty of a great DNA match.
“I believe that anyone, even in their early twenties, can be confident that she’s found a good match for her if she has found someone who is equally passionate about marriage and has an uncompromising sense of commitment to her.”
That’s the gem!
Now we’re in a different situation b/c my hubs and I dated 4.5 years and then had a 2 year engagement (everyone was like, just get married already!) but the point is the commitment, not NECESSARILY the similarities. Though they help when, say, one spouse has a very different idea of what “making the bed” entails
But I’m not going to kick hubs to the curb because of it.
My mid-late 20s single friends are finding dating a lot harder now, as we age life gets more complicated with exes, expectations (“I need to get married and have a baby before I’m 30″ pressure), etc. The single life is glorified but I’m glad to be done with it at 25.
So, what are we calling chemistry? I would consider it an ability to get along, in general, without trying too hard, the ability to “ignite” things in each other – whether it be physically or in conversation. There will always be differences, but can those differences be respected?
It’s the latter, I think, that will make or break relationships. A lack of respect will kill a love relationship faster than anything else.
I’m not saying that like should marry like. I married an engineer. I hate math; math makes him happy. On paper, we shouldn’t work for a lot of reasons. But we both like to think, and mull, and talk while we think. We like things that make us think. Those traits aren’t going away anytime soon – we’ve been this way since before we were married.
Not coming to any conclusions, here, just thinking…
I find this discussion interesting, but I also find this entire topic very confusing. It has me wondering what the difference is between compatibility and chemistry? Are they different? Can you have great chemistry and bad compatibility or visa versa? I suspect people that feel they are compatible would suggest they have good chemistry as well.
Maybe compatibility and chemistry should be defined for the purposes of this conversation? Just a suggestion.
-mike.
Micheal — that’s probably a good idea. I have kind of been using chemistry and compatibility interchangeably, which is probably sloppy. Although I am saying that neither is as important as sharing the right practices/values. What do you think are the differences?
What do I think is the difference, I actually need to think about that. I believe there are differences. Values one has are probably factor that would be part of ‘compatibility’ as a bigger measure. I don’t feel chemistry has anything to do with values.
As for are values / practices more important, I think it is difficult to say this definitively. At the very least one would have to define chemistry, compatibility, and values to the extent that one understand them in context of this discussion.
I will give some thought to chemistry and compatibility, but if anyone feels they can help, please jump in.
-mike
Sorry to boot in here, but I have an opinion (of course.)
I consider chemistry to be the lust factor. It’s what might initially draw you to someone in particular. It could be physical attraction, or perhaps it’s the way that person makes you feel. Whatever it is, it’s almost immediate.
Compatibility speaks to the long-term. Chemistry might wane over time or diminish completely — you could find yourself no longer as attracted or at all attracted to the other person. Compatibility is the ability to make a real go of things because it assumes shared values, priorities, life goals, etc. Of course there are couples who are perceived as incompatible (she votes liberal and he leans conservative), but who are compatible in other ways.
Kathleen,
If two years is two short, then your friend would think my husband and I are clinically insane, we marred 10 months after we met.
We’ve now been together for more than 4 years and we’re happily married.
I don’t think there’s a perfect age, or correct amount of time. I so agree with your point that commitment, communication and compromise are the key, chemistry doesn’t hurt either.
Thanks so much for this post!
no I’m just waiting for a picture of our wedding day to show up…lol.
I agree with the post but I think that for single people your explanation will not make much sense, especially with all the commitment phobia in our culture. It’s easy to say “commitment” and “resolution” but few actually know the meaning and with divorce being an option it’s difficult for single people to imagine that there might be truth to “for better or for worse” or even “ever after” (fairytales).
…And I disagree with one of the comments about “growing together” being BS. I have friends who are a lot older than me (I just turned 23 and I married at 21 but many of my friends are past 30) and they complain about being set in their ways and liking freedom and not being able to stand another person in their “space” and not wanting to compromise themselves to another. I agree with them wholeheartedly. I even had a conversation with a slightly older friend about how I also value freedom and I do sometimes resent being married and confined to a single household, but I also believe that the longer you live alone, the more independent you are, and the more “set in your ways” you become it will become more difficult to adjust to a relationship. This is why I decided that I would either marry young or I would marry when I’m in my 30s, when hopefully I’d be mature enough to make mature compromises.
Also, I think “growing together” is relevant even in my less-than-2-year-marriage as my husband and I find that we have become more similar, we begin to like the same foods, have the same habits, and even our perspectives have grown similar. I think that growing together means being on the same path together, which isn’t always important to people. It’s fine to be on separate paths and then meet half-way, or to be on parallel paths, so I think it’s just about individual desires; what kind of relationship you want.
I think I agree with you, Jessu, in regards to “growing together.” I think there’s an advantage to being less “set in our ways” when getting married. It’s easier to adapt to living together if you haven’t already had years on your own to develop your own habits.
I also agree that concepts like “commitment” may be difficult to grasp for people who have grown up with instability and lack of commitment. Maybe we’ll have to work together to find good ways of defining these terms.
When I got married at 22, I thought compatibility was really important. By the time my husband and I went through years of marriage counseling and eventually got divorced 10 years later, I realized that liking the same music, movies and books had very little to do with anything.
You’re absolutely right, that open communication and conflict resolution are key. A willingness to make sacrifices for each other and the relationship is important, too (I like to think of it as looking out for one another’s best interests first, rather than your own).
But I think you did miss one important side of compatibility that I urge all people of any age to consider before getting married. I think it’s important to have compatible temperaments. That doesn’t mean you have to be exactly the same when it comes to introvert/extrovertness, whether you tackle conflict straight on or avoid it, etc. But there are some highly problematic temperament differences that can make the day-to-day aspects of marriage almost impossible. My husband and I were on wildly different ends of the spectrum in all the wrong ways.
One more quick thing.
I urge people to be careful about suggesting that people who get divorced just weren’t committed enough to marriage. I know that’s not what you said, Kathleen, but you hinted at it, and I often hear that sentiment. There definitely are some couples who go into marriage thinking “Well, if this doesn’t work out we can always get a divorce.” But there are also many many divorced people who never dreamed they would be anything but 100 percent committed to the promises they made. My husband and I both grew up in Christian homes, our parents are still married, and we were involved in church our entire marriage. Our problem was definitely not that we had a low regard of marriage.
Thanks so much for your thoughts, Kristin. I think you make a very important point in terms of needing compatible temperaments. I think the reason I overlooked it is connected to the fact that I was sloppy in defining “compatibility” and “chemistry,” which some of my readers have thankfully helped to clarify. I’m sure that you’re right about this and I’m glad you mentioned it.
Also, I apologize if what I said suggested in any way that people who have been divorced had a lower level of commitment. Thanks for catching that. Those of us who haven’t gone through divorce (or other difficult things) are often unaware that our words might imply such things. I’ll try to be more sensitive about it in the future. You’re right, I definitely didn’t mean that, but I can see how reading between the lines can bring out such an interpretation and I’m sorry for that. Thanks again for sharing.
Thanks for your response, Kathleen! I really didn’t feel like I needed an apology—I just wanted to raise some awareness about a common misconception that younger, happily married people often have about commitment to marriage being a magic glue.
I know I had that impression when I first got married, and the false security in that commitment might have made us too relaxed in other areas of our marriage that we should have been working on.
I really appreciate what you’re doing on your blog—I definitely could have benefited from a community like this when I was struggling in my young marriage. You’re doing something important here!
I’m glad to see the discussion about what compatibility really is. I think you are right that compatible values are what is most important, a compatible mindset about what marriage can be and how responsible each of you must be to the commitment. My fiance and I definitely have some differences but I think we are “compatible” in that we complement one another and we are both willing to learn from one another. While it used to make me sad (and sometimes still does) that he doesn’t LOVE to do all of the things I LOVE to do, I realize that his willingness to do some of those things with me anyway is more than enough and shows more about real love. The same goes for me: The fact that I don’t like to do some of the things he likes but I choose do them anyway means MUCH more to him than if we conveniently both just liked to do the same things. I think maybe it is easier when you like similar things, but I don’t think it is necessary and in fact I think having to make that effort and take an interest because you love your partner shows more about being committed!
Thanks!
That sounds like a pretty great set of definitions, Sarah. I guess I can’t really argue. Thanks! Perhaps I will need to go back and clarify my terms in the post above. Other thoughts, readers?
I like Sarah’s definitions. I would add to compatibility that it is a set of personality traits, opinions and beliefs that while may be different do not affect the feeling of one person towards the other.
For example if you have someone who believes that each partner is equal in a relationship and the other partner believes that women are more important then men, I suspect that would be traits that would move things more towards the incompatible side.
-mike.
Yeah, I agree with that. Also, I don’t think the goal of a relationship is to gain control or empowerment. It seems silly to me to wage power wars; whether you’re married or in a long-term relationship, you’re a team. It’s not about one upping each other, but about supporting and encouraging each others’ successes. And I suppose, in a way, “compatibility” means different things to different people, depending on what a person values and where they are in life. What a twentysomething values in a relationship may be vastly different from what an individual in their sixties needs.
Agreed. Sarah, you write / explain very well!.
-mike.