Child BridesAre "starter marriages" new?
Posted Monday, Feb. 4, 2002, at 12:37 PM ET
Apparently there is a new vogue for having brief, childless marriages in your mid-20s. Pamela Paul has chronicled the phenomenon in her new book The Starter Marriage and the Future of Matrimony. The author, herself married at 27 and divorced after less than a year, bases her argument on interviews with 60 young divorced couples from around the country.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponWhat is shocking is not that people are having these brief marriages, but the spirit of innocence with which they seem to have entered into them. Paul describes being "mesmerized by the romantic idea of marriage and blinded to the reality." One man she interviewed said, "She wanted to get married, and I figured it would be the solution to all of our problems." But where would they come by such an unnaturally utopian view of marriage?
It's not as if this generation lacks evidence of unhappy and difficult marriages (see, among countless other examples, The Corrections, or practically any episode of Oprah). Not to mention the fact that, as Paul points out, many of these new divorcees themselves have divorced parents. So, where is this profound naiveté coming from? On the Today show Paul explained, "Most people hadn't given the idea of marriage a great deal of thought before they got married." She tried to suggest that these unfortunate couples had been dazzled by the wedding itself: "These couples devote one year to planning the wedding, this huge party, and don't give a thought to the idea they will be with this partner for 50 years." But is that really possible? You spend a year musing about napkin colors and flower petals and somehow the fact that you are about to commit your entire life to another person manages to elude your notice?
Paul and the people she interviews (who, she assures us, have gone to the "right schools," and had the "right jobs") seem astonished and somehow cheated that their marriages don't work out. Paul takes the attitude that they were somehow duped into getting married by a "marriage culture" that promotes what she calls "matrimania." She says they were made to feel that it's "un-American" not to get married. But why are these "overachievers" so weak willed and easily influenced? Surely glossy spreads of wedding dresses are not enough to base major life decisions on.
The familiar sense of victimhood that permeates the book seems a much more telling sign of the times than Paul's argument itself. The idea is that the culture has tricked her, not that she has made a mistake. This way of thinking does seem characteristic of our generation: the desire to lose one's private sorrows in a sociological trend, to surrender all responsibility for your actions to the "culture" that shapes you like Silly Putty. I have no doubt that writing the book made the author feel better and, as she suggests, helped her to explain what happened to her divorced parents, but Paul doesn't in the end seem to come to any conclusions. She says living together may be bad for relationships. On the other hand, she says not living together and rushing to the altar may also be bad. (In her defense, she interviews an astonishingly callow group of people. There is the woman who observes, "I think my generation more than any other feels alone." There is Sam who says, "Sex was always lousy but I assumed it would get better once we married." And then there is the woman who did not want to interrupt an episode of Friends for a discussion with her husband about whether or not to get divorced.)
As Paul strains to find causes for her new phenomenon, one begins to wonder if it's new at all. Is it possible that relationships are hard no matter when one embarks on them? That losing someone is always painful, whether its 1952 or 2002? Paul's effort to write about these early, floundering marriages as a New Thing is what gives her book its tinny, dishonest feel. Young love has always been vain and arrogant. People have always made mistakes when they were young (Take poor Countess Olenksa in The Age of Innocence …). And is the so-called starter marriage all that different from another awful experience that so many people in our generation have had—namely living with someone for years and then breaking up? These are de facto divorces and leave one jittery and jaded in similar ways.
All the generalizations Paul comes up with border on the parodic: "This generation is extremely optimistic about marriage"; "We are an extremely impatient generation in an increasingly impatient society"; "Americans have always been a very outgoing, gregarious people." What is unique and tragic and eccentric and interesting in each failed relationship defies this kind of tidy summing up. Anyone looking for solace or understanding would be better served reading Flaubert or John Updike or Richard Ford, and leaving The Starter Marriage to the perusal of the assistant producers of Good Morning America. There is, however, one important message we can all glean from Paul's research: If someone asks you to marry them, just to be safe, you might want to give the idea some thought.
Lithwick Reports From the Supreme Court Hearing on Giving Juveniles Life Without Parole
Mad Men: Will Sally Draper Ever Forgive Her Father?
The Weirdly Sexual New Ad for Halls Lozenges
Central Europe Has Really Been on a Hot Streak Since the Berlin Wall Fell
It's a Bad Idea for the Government To Cap Malpractice Awards
How Many Times Can Someone Fire a Pistol in Seven Minutes?
Comments From The Author of The Starter Marriage
I wouldn't respond to Ms. Roiphe because I feel everyone is entitled to their own opinion, were it not for the fact that I think she misrepresents the people whom I interviewed for this book. I agree with Ms. Roiphe's criticism of the current cult of victimhood, however I don't believe that critique is fairly or accurately aimed in this case. As discussed in the book, nobody thought of themselves as victims nor expected to be absolved of all responsibility for their marital failures. If anything, people felt consumed by guilt, remorse, and a sense of failure that led them to a process of self-examination and recovery. Four out of five divorces are unilateral. Many of the people I interviewed did not choose to be divorced, yet even they felt responsible for their own poor choice of marriage partner. Any suggestion that those interviewed expect to be pitied or excused for their behavior is a discredit to the impressive self-awareness and maturity, often gained at the unfortunate expense of divorce, of those individuals.
--Pamela Paul
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
Notes From The Fray Editor:
Rachel presents some interesting statistics to support her thesis that "the numbers of currently never-marrieds are rising…because more people are taking the time to figure out who they are and what they want before making a life-time commitment." She then got into a great discussion with Pamela Paul, the book's author (and see also above) here. We like AGB's observation that "there is a direct correlation between the size, expense, pageantry and 'everything must be absolutely perfect' zeal of those weddings I have witnessed and the swiftness in which the relationship self destructed." See here for a view on children and marriage. SDH mentioned a friend who "had the sort of engagement that military historians study," Randy Moran replied on whether marriages are easier now than hitherto, and there's the makings of a good thread there.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
"And then there is the woman who did not want to interrupt an episode of Friends for a discussion with her husband about whether or not to get divorced."
There you go! There's your answer right there--how did these people get to be so naive? From watching Friends, of course! So they think you can be 20-something and be a waitress or a mostly unemployed actor or an occasional masseuse (not, by the way, pronounced muhsoos) and live in a huge beautiful apartment with a bedroom for each person. Hey, if you can do that, you can do anything! Making a success of marriage when both people are shallow and delusional is a walk in the park by comparison!
--Kassandra
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
How has everyone managed to overlook the obvious reason for so-called "starter marriages"? Birth control meant that there were fewer "starter children" to keep the couple together, once it was obvious that they did not belong that way.
--Cassandra
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(2/4)