I’ve been reflecting on relationships and the traditional paths we often follow when it comes to love and commitment. As I navigate the dating scene again, I’m curious to hear your thoughts on an unconventional approach: what if we prioritized marriage first and then allowed romance to develop afterward?



In a world where casual dating and fleeting connections seem to be the norm, I believe there’s something beautifully profound about building a foundation of commitment and partnership before diving into the romantic aspects of a relationship. Here are a few reasons why I find this perspective intriguing:

• Shared Values - By focusing on marriage first, we can ensure that we share the same life goals, values, and visions for the future. This alignment can lead to a more stable and fulfilling relationship.

• Intentionality - Entering a marriage with the intention to build a life together can foster a deeper sense of responsibility and dedication. It shifts the focus from simply enjoying the moment to nurturing a long-lasting partnership.

• Emotional Security - Establishing a committed relationship first can create a safe space for both partners to explore their feelings and develop emotional intimacy at a comfortable pace.

• Less Pressure on Romance - With the commitment in place, we can enjoy the journey of getting to know each other without the pressure of trying to impress or “win” one another over in the romantic sense. We can focus on building a strong friendship and partnership.

• Collaborative Growth - In a marriage-first approach, both partners can support each other in their personal growth, understanding that they are working toward a shared life, which can enhance the romantic connection as the relationship matures.

What are your thoughts on this approach?

That is traditional method. Some Indian still follow arranged marriage. U might get ur answer there

Yes, kinda similar but I'm not referring to arranged marriage by family.

More like voluntary choice by individuals at own will.

Not a man but my 2 cents...
Short answer: NO.
Long answer: to me, marriage is to legally bind, or "officiate" 2 individuals together. If you need marriage to commit to a relationship then you probably shouldn't marry in the first place.
Divorce involves legal proceedings, meaning you waste more time and money compared to a bf/gf breakup. So I'd imagine it's easier to stay married + stay committed. But that's exactly why I think you shouldn't marry first to foster the commitment; if you can be loyal and committed before adding the legal binding, then your loyalty and commitment will increase after marriage. In reality however, people get complacent instead and that's how marriage dies.

I'd suggest studying the legal aspects of marriage first to decide how you want to treat marriage. This thread talked about it a bit:

I had this "debate" with my best friend many years ago. It initially started around the topic of sex before marriage and its evolved into arranged marriages and such.

As a christian he was of course on the side that sex should be reserved for marriage, and that time my argument was along the lines of you have to try and know each other first before making the commitment.

He understood my point, but also emphasized that in a relationship the commitment to commitment is actually more important. Then he brought up how arranged marriages do work if the couple and their social circle helps enforce it.

After all, you change in marriage and you may not become compatible in 10 years when you are compatible now. I strongly disagreed at that time, but now that I'm older, married and with kids, I've come around to his perspective.

That said, there are many pre-requisites for it to work. The partners typically need to be chosen and vetted by trusted members of the social circle and they all have to be invested in the relationship to make sure it works. Holding the partners accountabie to each other.

Generally if the couple are good people, I don't see why a marriage couldn't work out and romantic love blossom. If anything, it has been the natural way for most of human history

Takudan silverhawk

Thanks for your input.

I'm asking because years ago, there were several men who treated marriage as transactional.

They asked me lots of questions to qualify me as potential wife/marriage partner, and then they proposed unofficially on the first date itself.

The reason was they didn't like to waste resources (time, money, energy) on romance, and they preferred going straight for marriage + having children, with duties for both the husband and the wife fully spelled out and agreed by both parties.

It's also partly to protect themselves from emotional hurts and losses from break ups.

Those men usually were kinda jaded already and fully focused on their career/business, so they just needed a qualified woman to get married to and fulfill the marital/parental duties + meet their family expectations.

If that's the type of men/relationship that you're looking at getting into marriage and then blossoming into romance, its not going to happen.

That type of man isn't really looking for a wife; or more specifically, he's not looking to be a husband. That is an important criteria you should be looking at.

What typically happens is the man and woman do their husband of wifely duties in their social circle, but there's no love/passion. Then either side will end up getting that passion met outside the marriage.

Yeah, it's more of a pragmatic marriage right from the start. Personally, I think it has its purpose and uses though.

After having seen so many cases of couples who married for love but still ended up cheating and getting divorced, or cheating but staying married with lots of problems, I sometimes question why marry for romance. There's more heartache when more passion is involved, and passion does fade over time... which will eventually lead to couples staying together for pragmatic reasons.

Basically,

Scenario A: Marry with passion → passion dies over time → become pragmatic

Scenario B: Marry with pragmatism → passion lacks from the beginning → still pragmatic

In both scenarios, spouses may cheat, since there's no passion. The difference is... which is less heartbreaking?

This post has been edited by Ralna: Oct 23 2024, 10:15 PM

Passion can be reignited, so its typically better that its been there before.

People cheat, get divorced etc. because couples are no longer willing to put the work in. We live in a culture now of instant gratification and selfishness. Its about my needs, my happiness, me, me, me. Yes those things are important, but it should all be in service to a higher goal/purpose.

Ultimately, it boils down to whether the couple wants it to work or not. In your initial example of men who want to get married for pragmatic reasons, the onset is already wrong as they are still seeing things from their individual perspective and not becoming together as a single entity.

Eh are we living in the same planet? I hear the complete opposite when it comes to men's self protection -- they choose to avoid marriage because a divorce would mean their wealth siphoned by their ex spouse, citing Bill Gate's case.

Feels to me the men you described just want a nanny+maid+prostitute packaged as wife. I still stand by my point: marriage is to reinforce a functional, committed relationship by the means of law.

Married or not,
- both can commit to each other
- both can build/destroy each other
- both can cheat on each other
- both can hurt each other

It therefore becomes wise to establish trust and common vision for the relationship before moving to romance. But also helps to take some of the pressure off, which allowing us to better discover each other in a non-date scenario.

Preach!

TLDR of marriage before romance? NO, NO and NO.

TS thoughts of marriage is rather naive. If only a life partner can be easily found with just an interview of questionnaire, then divorce lawyers and couple counselling will be out of business 😂

There is a saying “don’t get married for the sake of marriage”. This statement could not be more real. Marriage not just involves romance. It’s in fact, romance is just one element. Commitment, responsible, care, attraction, trust… it is more complex than merely love. Marriage is a marathon. There would be mundane days, there will be challenges. How are you and your partner going to face the problems ahead? Especially there is no foundation beforehand? Add a baby into the mix and challenges tenfolds 😂

Even if two people are good people that tying the knot, there is no guarantee that the marriage will last. Married first is like turning a gashapon and hoping you will get the one you wanted. You have no idea what is inside before putting your money on it. What are their values? What are their beliefs? Their behaviour? Is it aligned with yours? Is he what he claimed to be? That can’t be easily test with just a questionnaire. Like what Takudan have said, going through a divorce is much more messy than a merely bf gf relationship. The financial and time lost, finance split, child custody…

The reason why you see those people cheat after married is because they assumed tying the knot is the end game and they lazy to manage the relationship anymore. As time goes by, love fades away then cheating comes in. Or maybe, some of those people are the one you refer, marriage before romance, but it didn’t work out.

I wish TS all the best in finding true love. Instead of married first, why not select friendship first before romance? Those are often the happiest couples, as what I realised and noticed 😃

At least in your friend’s case, it is still OK as they only lack in the sex part of the relationship, which I think still can be cultivated provided that they are compatible in beliefs, values etc. Unless one of them has weird fetish, then I think need to tell beforehand…

cannot la...if later on find out both party have a totally different perspective then how?

You've got a good point there.

Next, in the case of pragmatic marriage, with men treating marriage as an official partnership, the women would be equal partners to form the single entity (unless the women don't know how to establish their position and just blindly listen to the men). It's just like a biz partnership where both partners work for a common goal.

Just asking because I'm in my curious mode regarding such dynamics.

I'm just narrating what those men told me. You should ask them where they got the idea from. Not one man, but several men thought like this.

This is why I'm curious to find out from this thread. I'm thinking from the other POV (those men's POV) that women don't usually agree with. Just thought it was kinda interesting to explore the reasons behind and general views.



This post has been edited by Ralna: Oct 24 2024, 10:49 AM

Actually, come to think of it further, pragmatic marriage is a popular genre in novels and dramas: some rich and handsome men come up with contracts to get a wife, and still women agree.

From ChatGPT:



Should I feel privileged that I got such offers from rich and successful men, in my twenties?

I didn't accept their offers back then though; rejected straightaway because it was so 'un-romantic'.

However, now... hmm... let me explore such POVs further. Kinda interesting to dig deeper as I recently become single again.

Just giving some serious thoughts; I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing; neutral.

This post has been edited by Ralna: Oct 24 2024, 11:24 AM

Sharing what I asked ChatGPT:

Neutral: It can works and it can fails at the same time.

Why it can works?

It worked for my grandparent generation. My paternal grandpa & grandma was the evidence that the arranged married can works. Their entire lifetime love journey continue to inspire their grandchildren. I once asked my late grandpa how he met my grandma, he said they didn't go through the phase of getting to know each other. Just a letter from their family (China), he was eldest son to which family & he was to marry the daughter of with family. They were fleeing the war at that time ( fleeing the civil war & Japanese occupation). Just like that, they tied their knot at Malaya ( before our country independence). They build their relationship over time. The conditions were simpler then, ppl were simpler, the mindset was simpler, the life intention was purer & kind.

On/off two off them would came into heated arguments in front of their grandchildren. The weird part, whenever my grandpa quarreled with my grandma, the moment he turned his face toward their grandchildren, he can changed into another calm person instantly. There was one time, after the heated argument, the grandpa brought us (grandchildren) into the rubber farms. We are able to observe how he vented his anger (argument) to do something productive on the farm. After he finished the venting, he told us " In marriage, argument & fight is inevitable. If you need to quarrel & fight, then quarrel & fight on the issue not personally. After the quarrel, man up & make the first move to apologize to your wife because life need to continue after the quarrel". On the quarrel day, you can see my grandma tears flowing like a river, the next day after they reconciled, they would be lovey dovey again.

1 observation cannot be used as conclusion.

Why it can fails at the same time? There are more miserable arranged marriage cases vs successful one. The failed one, it became so toxic & resentful that the husband/wife would blamed their previous generation that they didn't choose this candidate /marriage.

***

In the current modern time, why I think it is "neutral"?

There is analogy between personal relationship vs workplace relationship.

Workplace relationship - the teamwork within the workplace team members are not built in 1 day, the team members do not know each other, some joined, some left. Whenever there is new member joined in, it will takes awhile for the team to adapt & optimize the coordination level to achieve the most synchronize cooperation. This one is only possible if all the team members have the positive & correct attitude to work toward the common goal. However, if the newly joined in member is not cooperative type / trouble maker, the existing members will leave or the team performance will be pulled down. It happened, during the interview the HR said the candidate was tip-top, after joined - all the team members need to cover this newcomer shortfalls.

In short, if you get the correct ppl, there is chance of success. If you get the wrong one, the relationship failure is certain. The most scary part, how to be certain the one you are getting is correct?

Hence, personally I'll views it neutrally.

***

On the view toward the evolution of marriage since ancient time till the current modern time:-

We are living in the self correcting society. Those practice in the ancient time, if a practice has caused the harm to the society, the society will self corrects the practice to prevent the similar harm from repeating again. The individual in the past do not have freedom to choose. Some of them were born as slaves, their fate were determined by their lord/ master. In the past, the family treated their children as possession or tools for their personal goals, life of a younger generation was dictated by the previous generation. Their life is destroyed just like that until there were so many movements to spread the awareness to change this.

Changes already taken place , the current modern society already enjoys so much freedom to dictate their own fate including their life partner. Going against the society's self correcting action seem to be against the "flow" in my opinion.

Thanks for sharing your views on both POVs.

From my understanding, it's more important to look at WHO rather than HOW the relationship started, and WHAT should be the end outcomes we want to achieve as marital partners.

*

As for the self-correcting action in the society, I partially agree because there seems to be too much freedom until some men and women get married to 3-10 partners in extreme cases. Men and women change partners and spouses like changing clothes.

Next, as divorces become more and more common in modern times, marriage has lost its sense of solemnity and permanence, with children being impacted the most. This impacts the future generations and societal structure.


Such is the mindset of current generations towards marriage... until the (Chinese) government has to set a new law.

Kinda sad, isn't it?

This post has been edited by Ralna: Oct 24 2024, 11:47 AM