Long Relationships

In a recent column, Abigail Trafford discusses the idea that older couples experience greater happiness than younger couples do.

To be sure, “living happily ever after” is more of a fairy tale sentiment than a reality of modern marriage — after all, nearly half of wedding ceremonies are followed by a divorce procedure. But research is showing that for those who stay in marriages, the best indeed is yet to be. Relationships tend to get better with age; older couples are happier and more satisfied than younger couples.

Laura L. Carstensen, director of the Longevity Center at Stanford University, explains, “Long-lasting love grows. Even unhappy couples get happier if they manage to stay together.”

After managing potential conflicts like health problems or financial struggles, research shows that older couples have certain advantages.

An ongoing study of 156 couples at the University of California at Berkeley suggests that older people are better at resolving problems and keeping the flame of attachment alive than younger Romeos and Juliets. Many couples experience a renaissance once they are no longer focused on raising children and getting ahead in the workplace.

“Older couples develop an ability to use positive emotions like affection more effectively, to calm themselves down, to negotiate conflict and to regulate emotions when they get into areas of disagreement,” says Berkeley psychologist Robert W. Levenson, who conducted the study with Carstensen and John M. Gottman of the University of Washington.

The study consisted of couples who were married for at least 15 years and others who were married for at least 30 years and demographics matched those of the Berkeley area. Metrics included spouses’ levels of satisfaction regarding issues like money, children, and socialization. The 1993 report showed that “old marriages have reduced potential for conflict and greater potential for pleasure.”

The researchers plan a “sequel” to the study to see whether the younger couples experience an expected increase in satisfaction as displayed by their older counterparts in the original study. Generational differences, such as the Great Depression, will be considered in the findings, which will be final next year. Trafford adds, “Levenson is betting that the process of aging, which seems to improve relationships, cuts across generational lines.”

A veteran of divorce and author of Crazy Time: Surviving Divorce and Building a New Life, Trafford says wryly:

I hope he’s right. It gives us something to look forward to as we grow old. We may not be able to run as fast or hear as well, but we’re better at what matters most: love. And this age advantage in loving may also bode well for new unions as well as other significant relationships with friends and family.

On a personal note, I enjoy the fact that this study gives credence to those oft-quoted lines of Robert Browning:

Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be…

- - -

marriage, older couples, problem-solving, Robert Browning

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

When JG and I got married, we were basically on the same page about how we wanted to handle our money. We’re both thrifty, for the most part, and we decided to combine our bank accounts but have separate credit cards with little argument. JG loves the ins and outs of personal finance, so he was determined that we’d track all of our expenses, save a healthy amount, and contribute to our 401(k) accounts. Unfortunately, buying flattering jeans and cute home accessories didn’t fall on that list.

I pride myself on finding great bargains. It’s the thrill of the hunt and knowing that in the game between me and the corporate conglomerate, I do not give in to their scheme to make me pay $64 for a jean jacket. JG doesn’t quite see it that way.

I came home one day with two sweaters and a new blazer and I tried to explain my excitement. “Originally priced at $40 each, I got both sweaters for $25! And the blazer was $24 down from $50!”

JG just looked at me blankly. “But that’s almost $50. Did you really need those things?”

“Well, I’ve had my eye out for sweaters and I can always use a blazer. They were good deals and I know I can afford it.”

He wasn’t convinced. “We just bought the house, though. We don’t know what we can afford. Just try to cut back a little, okay?”

“Cut back a little”? Cut back from spending $49 on what would have normally cost $130?

After several conversations that sounded pretty much the same, I realized that, although JG and I both had the same goals in the long run, we were not exactly in step on the way there. Was I supposed to justify every personal purchase I made? What constituted needing something, anyway? I understood the value of a budget, but the blanket request to cut back gave me no structure when I felt like I was doing a good job saving already. To make things worse, JG would get an idea to buy something like a grill and it seemed like we had no choice to spend a lot of money. I was annoyed.

Finally, I asked JG, “What if we each got, for lack of a better word, an allowance?”

“I don’t know if we can afford that.”

“What if we check the spreadsheet? Even having $20 every month to spend on whatever I want would feel better than constantly feeling like I’m automatically spending too much.”

So we checked the budget and, sure enough, we could afford “fun money” for both of us. I like to spend mine each month for clothes or things for the house, but JG tends to save and use the money for things like volleyball clinics, lawncare equipment, or electronics. I don’t care about the bigger purchases and he doesn’t mind when I come home with a month’s worth of bargain buys. It’s the best of both worlds.

Now, if only JG actually appreciated the great deals I find…

- - -

couples, personal finance, compromise, communication

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

In her column, “Tell Me About It,” Carolyn Hax shares her thoughts in response to a letter about how a couple might decide to split costs before moving in together. The anonymous reader fires of a list of questions in her letter:

Should each partner contribute equally to a household fund — a joint checking account to cover rent, utilities, groceries and other shared expenses? Or should they contribute proportionately according to their incomes? (Our incomes are vastly different — I’m a grad student; he has a well-paying job — so that doesn’t seem fair.) And we plan to get married; should the money system change then?

Hax begins her response with a rambling series of what may seem like half-baked generalities:

Some split expenses evenly, some split them according to income, some keep separate accounts, some merge them, some have both joint and separate accounts, some hide cash in joint and separate mattresses. This is the useless portion of the answer.

Some are happy with their arrangements, and some feel bullied, resentful, used. This is a continuation of the useless portion of the answer.

The point is, however, that “there is no correlation between any one type of arrangement and domestic bliss.” Hax urges the reader to decide with her boyfriend what is best for them both and not just in the realm of money.

This is about the hopes, plans, expectations, limits, selfishness and selflessness each of you will bring to this next stage of your life. Find out. Call it renter’s insurance.

In a move that I find admirable, Hax allows for the possibility that, after these discussions, the reader may not want to move in with her boyfriend. She slides personal finance into the realm of the deal-breaker. The conversations, in her opinion, should build the reader’s trust in her partner, but a decision not to move in together requires trust in herself. To conclude, Hax warns, “Don’t pack so much as a lunchbox until you’re confident you have both.”

- - -

couples, cohabitation, finance, personal finance, Carolyn Hax

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

Janet, one of my bloggy friends, is a recent newlywed and several of her posts of late have been about how she and her husband are working to combine their finances. She was gracious enough to let me interview her virtually about how the process has been going for today’s column.

Q. How did you feel about combining finances with your husband? Whose advice, if any, did you solicit?
A. When my husband and I first moved in together (as boyfriend and girlfriend), we kept a running tab of who paid for what and tried to keep things pretty even. After about a year, this system started to fall apart because we got lazy about tracking things. By the time we got married, we both had a good idea of each other’s spending habits, and we felt ready to merge everything together.

Although we were pretty sure we wanted to combine everything, I still sought out advice. I regularly read Washington Post columnist Michelle Singletary, who preaches about the importance of financial fidelity. I read personal finance books just for couples. I chatted with fellow brides on a message board I’m active on. I asked several newlywed friends how they handled money in their marriage.

One thing I learned is that a lot of perfectly functional married couples like to keep separate accounts. Sometimes people want to feel like they still have some independence over their hard-earned money. Sometimes people want to keep their expensive shoe-buying habits a secret from their spouse. Sometimes people want to be able to buy their spouse a gift without them seeing it on the credit card bill.

Q. What were the greatest motivating factors for combining finances?
A. We wanted to build a strong foundation for our marriage. Coming together about a financial plan isn’t exactly romantic, but we want money to work FOR is instead of AGAINST us in our relationship. The last thing we want to fight about is money. We decided to set goals based on shared values, and then work as a team to meet those goals.

Q. How do you and your husband’s financial tendencies align or differ?
A. Of course he would say that I like to shop too much. And I would say he likes to spend money on stupid things like Diet Coke. (Seriously, I do not want to know how much money we spend a year on brown chemically stuff that you pee out 30 minutes after you drink it.)

We both spend money on things that the other would not. But sometimes we just have to let the little things go—as long as we are 100% on the same page about the big things. I do not need to lose sleep over the fact that we could have saved $2.99 at the grocery store if we had done a better job at reusing Ziploc bags. (And yes, that is something I would lose sleep over. And then go out the next day and buy a pair of $40 shoes without thinking.

Q. How have you had to compromise?
A. We sat down to create our big picture financial goals. Luckily, there wasn’t too much compromise here. In the next five years we want to:

1. Buy a house that we enjoy living in but that does not make us house-poor.
2. Buy a new (used) car when the current car dies.
3. Have children and possibly go down to one income.
4. Be able to take vacations and enjoy life without worrying about every last penny.
5. Take on no debt (other than a mortgage).
6. Contribute the max to our ROTH IRAs (and hopefully more) for retirement.

Q. As you’ve worked on streamlining, what has been a surprise to you about you or your husband?
A. Although I knew my husband was going to have to look for a new job, I didn’t think we’d spend the first six months of marriage living on one (non-profit) income! Luckily, between unemployment and some contract work, we are still making progress on our goals, albeit a little more slowly. I hope that when we go back to DINK status, we can stash away a lot more in savings since we seem to be doing just fine without a second salary right now.

Q. What has been the greatest challenge so far?
A. The first challenge is outside of our control: it’s a giant pain to deal with changing your name, closing accounts, transferring money, switching direct deposits, etc. I will be so happy when we have one of everything and don’t have to worry about if this account has enough to cover the automatic payments attached to it and if I close that account which other things do I have to switch over, etc. I just want one stream of money in and money out.

The second is just making finances a priority. We feel pretty good about things, which means we get set in our little comfort zone and don’t actively work on moving forward enough. It falls to the bottom of the list.

Q. What advice would you offer to couples who haven’t yet talked about money?
A. If you are serious about making a lifetime commitment to a person (or perhaps you already have), then it’s SO SO SO SO SO SO important to talk about finances. How can you talk about all the things you want in life (house, kids, vacation, security, education etc.) without talking about money?

There are lots of resources to help you get started (personal finance blogs, books, columnists, Oprah, whatever floats your boat). You can start with the links above.

- - -

couples, finance, compromise, financial planning

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

In a recent column in The New York Times, M.P. Dunleavey, financial columnist and regular contributor to MSN Money, recounts the transition she made with her husband from being financial individuals to joining forces. Dunleavey was surprisingly reluctant to take this step:

You would think that writing about money for a living would have helped me to approach the situation with a confident, clear-eyed logic. Instead, I crossed my fingers and closed my eyes and assumed that my abundant love for my spouse would lead to financial harmony, some day, preferably by magic.

At a friend’s accusation that she lacked “financial intimacy,” Dunleavey and her husband had a “cards-on-the-table” discussion about their finances and came to grips with each other’s debt and spending habits.

Our financial illusions about one another were in tatters, but our marriage survived — and the whole experience helped me to understand how some couples can enter their 60s, the wife never having written a check, the husband having no idea that his wife managed to save $1.2 million in pin money during their marriage.

Experts warn that learning to talk about financial interdependence is a slow skill that may take 4-5 years to develop. Because how a person spends money speaks so directly from who that person is, the topic can be painful when disagreements undoubtedly arise. Dunleavey explains:

The cliché is that savers typically marry spenders, but Dave Ramsey, who has written several best sellers, including “The Total Money Makeover” (Thomas Nelson, 2007), came up with what I found to be a more helpful model. “Within most marriages there is a nerd and a free spirit,” he said, and one has to learn to tolerate the other’s foibles before financial progress can occur.

The column offers several tips to making the transition less painful:

- Bypass the hard numbers initially and discuss your hopes and dreams as a couple. Acting as a financial team will allow you to achieve these goals.
- There will always be areas of disagreement, but try to minimize them so that each person has some leeway to operate freely.
- Tolerating another person’s financial tendencies is a learned behavior, so be a willing student.
- Communicate on a regular basis (weekly, monthly) about your finances, but restrict the length of that conversation to less than 20 minutes.
- Declare the bedroom as a zone free of financial talk to maintain healthy boundaries.

Clearly, finances can be a sensitive subject, but entering into a committed relationship without discussing them is an easy mistake. It’s difficult to turn the corner from feel-good attraction to the cold bottom line. Despite the discomfort one might feel during these conversations, there is a positive outlook. Couples who talk about how they spend and save money are inherently thinking about their lives as a unit and the relationship is more than a passing fancy. Ultimately, this investment of time and energy should make its returns in building strong communication practices and a foundation for a future together.

- - -

couples, finances, communication, disagreements

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

Prior to adding The Break-Up to my Netflix queue, I was warned by my co-workers that I should not expect a comedy, so I didn’t. I was pleasantly surprised by the funny moments, but the more prolific scenes depicting arguing and strife did not catch me off guard.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie in the same way that I enjoy a sad book about a topic that resonates with me, like the three-year-old relationship. The experience wasn’t necessarily fun, but it was interesting and thought-provoking. Although I thought that Jennifer Aniston (Brooke) and Vince Vaughn (Gary) both played types rather than actual people (she as the manipulative, wounded girlfriend and he as the insensitive, oblivious bachelor), their interactions tugged at the heartstrings in several scenes.

The scene that most affected me occurred toward the end of the movie, after Brooke and Gary had experienced such a large rift between them. In a gesture that I interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate the type of affection she desired, Brooke invited Gary to a concert for which she had already bought tickets, despite the fact that they were uncomfortable and hostile with each other in other venues. She left his ticket at Will Call, bought drinks for both of them, and waited at their seats. After a time, it becomes clear that Gary is not showing, and Brooke is left to walk home alone and ends up crying in her bedroom, when Gary finds her. Due to her past behavior (throwing his things around, kicking him off the bowling team, and trying to find guys to date), he simply thought that the concert wasn’t a big deal to her. The gaping miscommunication was really painful to watch, but I still appreciated the honesty that sometimes, thoughtful gestures don’t always work out. In a normal romantic movie, Gary would have come strolling through the concert during a swell of concert music, but this movie wasn’t a comedy.

The movie also highlighted the potential impact of a legal commitment between a couple in that Brooke and Gary co-signed on a mortgage for a Chicago condo. In some ways, they were more committed to their house than to each other because the purchase involved their time and money. During a scene with their friend and realtor, Brooke and Gary argued about who put more time and energy into improving their condo. Gary claims that he invested more sweat equity, but Brooke counters that his work is shoddy; Gary complains that Brooke’s contributions were nothing more than sponge-painting, but she cites a strong increase in aesthetic value. Their workmanship on the condo serves as a metaphor for their different styles of working on their crumbling relationship. Appropriately, the last scene of Brooke and Gary together takes place in their empty condo, when they’ve packed up to move and split the selling cost. Like other couples who take the real-estate plunge, the break-up of their relationship had economic as well as emotional toll.

- - -

For the latest information on Jennifer Aniston, check out the updates at Jennifer Aniston Watch!

The Break-Up, Jennifer Aniston, Vince Vaughn, breaking up, couples, dating

For more, subcribe to LR.com’s feed

Hi, there –

Sorry that I wasn’t able to call today. I tried and leave you a message during a break, but my phone died on me right then. I haven’t even been in Los Angeles for two days yet, but I’m so tired that it feels like forever. Bringing my “comfortable” shoes to this conference didn’t even help! It makes me glad that I don’t have to spend my days on my feet, like you. I can’t wait to drop into bed. At least I don’t have to report for duty until after 8 tomorrow morning, unlike today – 7:30! Ugh.

Even though this conference has nothing to do with teaching or math or even things that we do together, I find that the most random things remind me of you. I attended a breakout session today about engaging front-line employees and the speakers were from a major supermarket chain out here in California. They have an annual Bag Off every year where each store gets to send their representative, best bagger to compete for a cash prize and a chance to go to the state championships. The kids bagged a certain number of items and I think they were judged on a combination of speed and accuracy, or whatever you would call the groceries being intact in the end. It was so crazy! The baggers were so into it and their stores were all cheering them on. I couldn’t help but think of your stories from working at the supermarket and how you take over the bagging when we go grocery shopping. I just thought, “JG would really love this. He’d want to bag all of that stuff with the rest of them.” And I really missed you, then.

At dinner, one of my co-workers got her meal on a plate shaped like one of those rounded triangles from that project you did in college. I Googled it – a Reuleaux triangle? Anyway, I tried to ask one of my techy friends what the shape was called and he just looked at me and said, “A plate?” It was so odd that you weren’t there to give your spiel about curves of constant width and drilling square holes. I never thought that I’d miss that spiel.

I miss you. These days are long and the brain is tired. And I miss you.

And I love you.

- RA

travel, e-mail, love letter, missing

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund

April 16, 2007, will be remembered as one of the darkest days in the history of the Virginia Tech community and the world beyond.

To remember and honor the victims of those tragic events, the university has established the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund to aid in the healing process and generate financial support.

The fund will be used to cover expenses including but not limited to:

• Grief counseling
• Memorials
• Communication expenses
• Comfort expenses
• Incidental needs

If you plan to give, please click the link below:

An article appearing in The New York Times this week described measures Texas legislators are taking to promote marital counseling and the option of a covenant marriage. Conservative proponents of these proposals cite a a desire that “everyone who enters a marriage, or tries to get out of one, to know that the institution is to be taken seriously, especially for the sake of children who could grow up impoverished because of divorce.”

“Divorce is what keeps many of our people in poverty,” said Representative Warren Chisum, a Republican and sponsor of several marriage bills. “I am trying to do something to raise people out of poverty.”

One of Mr. Chisum’s proposals, approved by the House on Thursday, would waive the $30 marriage license fee for couples who take eight hours of premarital instruction courses. He also proposed increasing the fee to $100 for those who do not take the courses, but opposition from members of both political parties forced him to back off of that effort. The opponents said that would have amounted to a marriage tax and would have discouraged marriage.

Other legislative proposals include the following items:

- Extend the waiting period for a no-fault divorce in Texas from two months to six
- Allow a three-month waiting period for a no-fault divorce if the couple participates in 10 hours of marital counseling
- Create a covenant marriage option wherein a couple agrees to participate in marriage counseling and make all efforts to preserve the marriage, despite difficulties

Not all conservative groups support the idea of covenant marriage, a measure that some states have taken that has not yet seen clear results. Kelly J. Shackelford, President of Free Market Foundation (a conservative, non-profit advocacy group associated with Focus on the Family), draws marriage into the realm of black-and-white contracts, saying, “It is the only contract currently in the state of Texas that you can breach with impunity.

It is interesting to note that Texas social workers oppose these proposals.

“We’re all for protecting healthy families and strong and healthy children,” said Carol Miller, director of government relations for the association. But, she said, there may be negative unintended consequences from some of the legislation.

Ms. Miller worried that extending the wait for a divorce would delay court orders for custody and child support.

“This is not necessarily in the best interest of these children,” she said.

In general, I firmly believe that strong marital counseling can create significant change in a new or struggling couple. I would be optimistic that a couple with a qualified counselor, commitment to the relationship, and willingness to change would experience a positive impact.

I am not convinced, however, that this is the territory of the government, mostly because a committed couple should do what it takes to preserve their relationship. There is stigma around counseling and “what kind of people” get therapy, but if the end result is a stronger relationship and better self-awareness, the counseling is worth sacrificing any remnant of dignity or self-assurance a person has once had. Texas legislators are using these proposals to save marriages and prevent divorce, but I am skeptical. I simply find it hard to believe that if a partner is bent on divorce, 10 hours of marriage counseling will change that person’s mind.

couples, marriage, counseling, divorce, New York Times

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

451 Press is starting up a new channel of City Blogs! If you live in one of the cities below and you love to share what makes your city great, go ahead and apply. Don’t forget to mention Long Relationships in the reference section!

Albuquerque, New Mexico
Arlington, Texas
Atlanta, Georgia
Austin, Texas

Baltimore, Maryland
Boston, Massachusetts

Charlotte, North Carolina
Chicago, Illinois
Cleveland, Ohio
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Columbus, Ohio

Dallas, Texas
Denver, Colorado
Detroit, Michigan

El Paso, Texas

Fort Worth, Texas
Fresno, California

Honolulu, Hawaii
Houston, Texas

Indianapolis, Indiana

Jacksonville, Florida

Kansas City, Missouri

Las Vegas, Nevada
Long Beach, California
Los Angeles, California
Louisville, Kentucky

Memphis, Tennessee
Mesa, Arizona
Miami, Florida
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Nashville, Tennessee
New Orleans, Louisiana
New York, New York

Oakland, California
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Omaha, Nebraska

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix, Arizona
Portland, Oregon

Sacramento, California
San Antonio, Texas
San Diego, California
San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Seattle, Washington

Tucson, Arizona
Tulsa, Oklahoma

Virginia Beach, Virginia

Washington, D.C.

A night out on the town can be a lovely treat for a couple, but it can be pricey. Dinner, drinks, and entertainment can slim down even the fattest of wallets and the pressure to pick up the tab can weigh heavily on the male counterpart. Balancing a special night against a lofty price tag can be tough. What’s a couple to do when she wants to be treated to Chez Expensive, but he can’t get over the high prices for food that he doesn’t even like?

A conflict like this usually has a few different issues swirling simultaneously:

His Side
- Why does she need expensive food to have a good time?
- I can’t afford dates like this very often, but there’s a lot of pressure to spend more money more often.
- I hate trying to convince a waiter that I know French or how to order wine.

Her Side
- I’m not high-maintenance, I just like good food.
- Why can’t he understand that it’s nice to have a night away from the daily routine?
- It’s fun to dress up and spend the evening together.

First, women connect a special night out to a partner’s affection and intention because of the planning and extra effort involved. The time is set aside for the two of them to spend it together, which is always important. To be fair, men don’t often feel comfortable in a formal dinner setting and the quality time doesn’t always alleviate a feeling that they’ve been robbed.

I think the solution here lies somewhere between hitting up the local diner for a burger every weekend and ordering escargot at the French bistro downtown. Here are a few suggestions for settling the dining-out dilemma:

Strike a balance of cost and frequency
If a couple is saving for a major purchase like real estate or a car, even saving small amounts of money every month can make a significant impact to that bank account. Saving does not mean, however, that a couple needs to take away all traces of luxury. Instead of going out to a high-end restaurant once a month, a couple might only splurge every 6-8 weeks. On the other hand, a couple could choose to less expensive options more frequently, like brunch on the weekends.

Leave after the first act
If indulging in a multi-course meal is out of the question, just go early for drinks and appetizers. The atmosphere and good cooking of the establishment will permeate to these small bites and the shorter time commitment will free up time to spend elsewhere, if desired.

Take charge in the home kitchen
Who says that fancy meals can only be had at restaurants? If you’re not comfortable making something that sounds French, learn to make dinner staples, like spaghetti and meatballs, lasagna, or macaroni and cheese, and serve them at a table dressed with cloth napkins, lit candles, and supermarket flowers. Turn off the television for the night and pop in a Sinatra album. Being in the privacy of a home means that couples can improvise a dinnertime dance without a thought about who might be looking on. Best of all, cooking at home is always less expensive and the effort it takes is a real way to show how much you care. It doesn’t hurt to note that men who cook are much more attractive than men who simply pay.

couples, dates, expensive taste, budget, eating out

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

Over at Food History, Gillian wrote several posts about foods that pertain to her Jewish background that made me remember how different JG and I used to be about food. When we got married, I realized how living together forced us to confront all our differences, including how we shopped for groceries and what we ate.

I grew up helping my mom and grandmother make authentic Chinese food, like squid, bitter melon, and various mysterious dumplings. Due to my parents’ rule that I wasn’t allowed to leave the dinner table until my plate was clean, I developed into a rather undiscerning eater; I learned to just eat everything because it didn’t matter whether I liked something. JG, on the other hand, had an all-American upbringing with pizza, PB&J, and turkey for Thanksgiving. He learned to cook early on when his tastes did not align with what was served.

When JG and I got married and started to cook together, it became clear that we were on different ends of the food-loving spectrum. Well, that’s not completely true. We both loved food, just not the same food. I loved vegetables and balanced meals, but JG could get by on just carbs. I craved comfort foods like meatloaf and mashed potatoes and JG preferred foods that were too greasy for me to handle well. I enjoyed branching out and trying new cuisines, but once JG found something he liked, it was hard to persuade him to try another menu item. I had strong opinions about food, but I didn’t like to cook. JG liked to cook, but he didn’t like that many foods. We struggled to make meals that we both liked to eat and cook.

I don’t think we got settled into a food groove of our own for about six months. In the beginning, I simply had to convince JG to try things. Beef stroganoff doesn’t look that appetizing, but JG agreed that it tastes oh-so-good. When I found out that he didn’t like corn on the cob (what in the world!), I persuaded him to try grilling it. JG has been very good about trying new things and I love to expand his food horizons.

For my part, I’ve learned that some shortcuts are okay. I plan on learning to make pasta sauce, but for now, we’re using the jarred stuff. When we have friends over, we might buy a box of frozen bagel pizzas. If I can take a little help from the store without sacrificing nutrition or satisfaction, it’ll be okay.

We each drift toward our original food patterns when we’re stressed out or don’t have the energy to think too deeply and I think that’s okay. It’s funny how our individual food upbringings made such a difference in how we expect meals to be, but we’re learning that food is just another area in our relationship where we keep striving to meet in the middle.

couples, compromise, cooking, food

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

I love asking couples what “their” song is. Eyes light up, smiles broaden, and the story evokes fun memories. Often, it’s a milestone filled with sentiment like a couple’s first dance or kiss; I also enjoy the stories where something funny and mundane happens, like when two people collide, but the Cranberries are playing in the background.

A significant song can be a heartfelt keepsake between partners. It can be an anthem for celebrating anniversaries and other milestones, and during hard times, familiar music can be a comforting reminder of the past. Even though a couple’s song can be mostly sentiment and sap, there’s no downplaying what an inside joke or common bond can do.

JG and I have never agreed on what our song is. We didn’t have dancing at our wedding, so we didn’t have to pick a wedding song, thank goodness. If I had chosen a song, though, it would have been Steven Curtis Chapman’s “I Will Be Here”:

I will be here
When you feel like being quiet
When you need to speak your mind
I will listen
And I will be here
When the laughter turns to cryin’
Through the winning, losing and trying
We’ll be together
I will be here

I love how the whole song is just about being there. There are no high-falutin’ images of knights in shining armor or damsels in distress. It’s just two people who are here for each other. JG, on the other hand, preferred “Ugly Day”, by Five Iron Frenzy:

I can’t believe this ever happened,
I didn’t think it ever could,
I’m the author of sappy love songs,
Trading in my bachelorhood.
Something snapped deep inside me,
Something that somebody said,
I felt the brush of angels wings then,
Your voice echoed in my head.

Ugly day, the sun is shining,
Every cloud’s got a silver lining.
Ugly day, the skies are blue,
Now every day is ugly without you.

Even though JG very sweetly sang this song to me at the beginning of our relationship, I was hard-pressed to officially declare it as our song. I mean, it’s a very nice song, but there’s only so much sentimentality embedded in a ska song. Somehow, I didn’t feel right about a song that had “ugly” in the title and and was rather tongue-in-cheek.

Sometimes, though, a song can spring out of the blue and resonate with a couple, regardless of a lack of attachment to historic relationship moments. When JG and I were solidly best friends in college, one day he told me excitedly, “I found the best song for us. Come over and hear it!” That song was “You and Me”, by Dave Matthews Band:

See you and me
Have a better time than most can dream
Have it better than the best
So we can pull on through
Whatever tears at us
Whatever holds us down
And if nothing can be done
We’ll make the best of what’s around

Discovering a new song that seemed just right for us crystallized it as one for the books. When we hear that song now, it brings back memories of sitting on dorm room bunk beds, drinking milkshakes, and ordering calzones. There isn’t a majestic sunset or first dance, but it’s still ours, all the same.

couples, our song, inside jokes, milestones

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

With all of this talk about proposing, it begs the question, “How did JG ask you?”

As proposals go, I’m rather picky. As I’ve mentioned, I dislike public proposals hypothetically but I loathe the thought personally. If I had anything to say about it, there would be no ballfields, blimps, or bullhorns present if the memory was going to be free of dread. Also, I tend to glaze over during proposal stories that involve some sort of recitation of Shakespeare or poetry. I love literature, but that is not the point of the proposal. Save it for the open mic, Buddy, and get to the point.

I communicated my preferences as clearly as I could after it became clear to JG that he would probably have to think about the delivery of The Question. He thought my proposal pet peeves were amusing, however, and felt the need to taunt me every time we were at a sporting event or saw a plane fly overhead. “What if I proposed to you right now, on the scoreboard?”, he’d ask. “What if that plane is a skywriter and it spelled out a proposal from me?”

I’d roll my eyes and mutter that if he knew me at all, none of those absurd things would happen. And they didn’t, thank heaven.

At the end of the summer spent apart, JG and I moved back in for our last year of college. After getting situated in our respective rooms, JG suggested that we go for a walk. It would be a nice way to enjoy a relatively empty campus.

We set out on our usual loop and I had an inexplicable feeling that something big was going to happen. I did my best to breathe deeply and act normally, but my mind was racing.

Oh, my gosh, what if JG is proposing tonight? He’s been grumbling about how he hasn’t found a ring yet, but what if that’s a front? He’s being awfully quiet right now… But maybe nothing is going on. It won’t be good if I get all excited and then nothing happens. I can’t be disappointed if this is just a normal walk, but it would be so cool to get engaged tonight! It’s so pretty out and hardly anyone is around, yet. No, I can’t get excited. That’s not fair to him or me. I can’t fool myself into thinking that every walk or time alone means a proposal. Besides, JG might not even have a ring, right? Okay, I need to be fine with the fact that we are not getting engaged tonight. And that’s okay. No need to be let down. It’s okay.

Presently, we sat down at a bench that we thought of as ours. It looked to me as though JG took something out of his cargo pocket, but in response to my inquisitive face, he said, “Oh, just a mosquito.”

Okay, calm yourself down.

Then we were quiet. “I love you,” JG said.

“I love you, too!”

Silence, again. What is going on?

“I love you,” he repeated.

“I still love you…” I said, slowly.

All at once, he was down on one knee! He held an open ring box and said, “I love you – will you marry me?”

Then I laughed.

Not at him! Just in general! I laugh when I’m nervous or happy and this was both! I laughed and then I quickly said, “Yes!”

JG put the ring on my finger and we both grinned from ear to ear. That “yes” didn’t make up for the laughing, though. I have never heard the end of it.

proposal, engagement, surprise

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed

I have never been a fan of the public proposal. I shake my head at guys bearing roses and a ring to talk show studios. I am puzzled when blimps pass by to profess an on-looker’s affections. Asking such a poignant question begs privacy, in my opinion, and using a public arena to pose it feels like a manifestation of insecurity. Are these guys afraid of a negative response?

I allow that some couples probably like the excitement and spectacle. It’s best to know your audience, right? Maybe a couple had their first date at a historic movie theater and it would seem romantic that the guy bought an ad before the movie started. I suppose a public proposal requires a great deal of foresight that can be impressive to the answerer. It’s admirable for someone to go to a lot of trouble to create a memorable occasion and I can appreciate the time spent in planning, not to mention the energy in execution.

What I don’t appreciate is mortifying embarrassment, as witnessed in this video featured on Dating with Children. Can you imagine? Just thinking about it makes me shudder.

couples, proposal, engaged

For more, subscribe to LR.com’s feed