Disposable marriage (guys, American, Latin, couples)

[srjth]

Originally Posted by augiedogie

As unhappy as most marriages are, I'm actually surprised that most marriages don't end sooner.

Originally Posted by timberline742

Me too. But, many people are terrified of being alone. I REALLY do not get that.

They are scared of change and think the changes are going to be soooooo much worse. Yes, there is change, but after the dust settles, it's often much better than before.

[jillabean]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I'm sorry. I guess my peers are just fortunate. One thing I noticed is that even when divorced they still live very close to each other, close enough for a short walk. Some feel handcuffed to their condos/houses because they can't (really don't) want to move away from their ex for their kids, and to preserve the normalcy of routine as much as they can.

Though, like you, most used a mediator for divorce and didn't want to spend all that money on lawyers... not sure why that isn't more the norm now.

Yeah, it would have been nice if my Ex stayed close--but I live in suburbia and he wanted to live in what he called "the swank city." But he's an adult and it's his choice. It stinks mainly for our child... I don't really care about him anymore (he's more like a business acquaintance to me. But she misses him... and because of the lack of contact, she's growing apart from him. But again, it's his choice and I can't control that.

Mediator is the way to go. It's cheaper and usually pretty fair (since you both have to agree on everything). Sometimes if one party is unreasonable, the mediator will step in and point out how it's unreasonable.

But even in the case of your friends, in some cases, there might be one parent who carries most of the big bills (like health insurance, child care, etc). That's were the child support payment would come in (if any). Or maybe they agreed to just split bills (frankly, I didn't want to go that way because, at the time of the divorce I didn't trust my Ex... for good reason. He *was* bilking me on a few joint expenses--like vet bills for the family dog, the cable bill, and most notably his half of the mortgage owed for our upside down house. That sort of thing.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Checkered24

Not sure if you said this right or not. A lot of parents retain joint custody. However, one parent tends to be the primary caregiver, and that is the parent who generally would be in receipt of the support payments, to assist in providing that "care."

Lets not pretend that the support issue does not go both ways. Generally women end up as the primary caregiver (for many reasons). However, I know father's who are the primary caregiver, and who receive child support payments from the mother as well.

BUT... maybe the biggest point here is that child support has nothing to do with marriage in and of itself.

If a man and a woman, who are not married, have a child together... they are still both responsible for that child and either could be ordered to pay support payments to the other payment for the support of the child.

Thank you for the clarification. I actually was the custodial parent of my son when my wife abandoned us when he was 9 months old. She did pay me a very small amount of child support until he was 18.

But I'd go farther to note that the cost of caring for a child is immense, and court-ordered child support rarely comes close to 50% of that cost. If the court-ordered child support actually forced the non-custodial parent to pay what is fair and necessary, there would be a lot more contraceptive use and a lot less serial polygamy.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by NilaJones

Women tend to learn more skills for solving interpersonal problems, growing up, so they tend to see such things as fixable and men tend to see them as unchangeable. And men are brought up with higher expectations of happiness and good treatment in home life.

Agreed on the first part, but I would have to argue towards the opposite on the second. Men have low expectations of how much satisfaction one ought to derive in domestic life. A desultory or even dysfunctional relationship is no particular cause for seeking improvement, either within the relationship, or by breaking it and seeking a new one. Women have higher expectations of what it means to be emotionally fulfilled. Identifying more of a problem, women take keener measures in aiming to fix it; failing that, they terminate the relationship.

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I'm surprised they assume that it's so easy to find someone compatible to start a new marriage with. It can take years, a decade, even, to find someone you get along with well enough to actually consider marrying. It's not like going to the store and buying a new widget.

This is why I would have expected to see fewer marriages end in divorce. Lots of disgruntled employees remain on the job, not because they're too lazy to leave, but because they don't regard alternatives as being superior. You don't like working for General Electric, so you switch to Siemens or United Technologies. But they're all alike. So you might as well stay with General Electric. At least, there your pension is accumulating. Employees think this way. Why don't marriage partners?

Originally Posted by CaliDude1

At what point does each person have a responsibility for his or her own personal happiness? Yes, mates can be the source of discord. But sometimes we are expecting others to cover up major personal issues we have never address individually. We just think falling in love will cover it all up. It doesn't. Love is no magic bullet.

Exactly! Sometimes one's spouse is the direct cause of one's incapacity to improve one's life. That calls for some substantial revision, possibly leading as last-resort to divorce. But how often is the impediment one's own shiftlessness? How often is the spouse unfairly blamed?

I would argue that in many such cases, after divorce, the former spouse is suddenly forced to become self-sufficient and proactive. And behold, life improves! It's not because the marriage was bad or there's more freedom post-divorce. It's because divorce was the catalyst for the person changing his/her habits. The problem wasn't the marriage; it was the habits all along!

Originally Posted by Raptor76

Don't believe the hype that people get divorces like teenagers break up in high school. Many people actually stay in marriages MUCH longer than they should because they fear what will happen if a divorce occurs.

Implicitly we appreciate that some marriages are short and superficial, or only held together because of the kids. Divorce in such cases, while still fractious and traumatic, is perhaps not such a huge tragedy, because there was something artificial and stunningly flawed in the marriage to begin with. Yes, it seems to be idly flippant get married and then to divorce in 6 months, but even so, such divorce isn’t really an astonishing cause for grief.

What does cause both observers and participants so much grief is the collapse of long and fulfilling marriages. This is the marriage where there is in fact genuine love, and it lasts for years, maybe decades – until one day, something snaps. It’s not because the woman married the man for a green-card, or he cheated on her. It’s the prototypical parting of the ways. Speaking of my own experience, my then-wife diametrically changed her mind about motherhood, from being absolutely opposed to the idea as silly and foolish, to embracing it with incontrovertible devotion. I wonder how such marriages would have fared 30, 60, 100 years ago. Would they have continued, to the great sorrow and frustration of one of the spouses? Would it have been expected for the couple to remain together, regardless of strife within the marriage? It’s tempting to make a sweeping statement, such as before Year 19XX women had no alternatives and therefore had to abide miserable marriages, whereas now they have options. But that seems like a crass oversimplification.

I agree that much of our impression that marriages are everywhere collapsing, is due to the sensational reporting of the failures. There is no newspaper headline saying, “After 40 years of marriage, celebrity couple remains married!”. The reality isn’t as grim as the impression, because of overexposure of bad news. But I wish to point out that divorce used to carry stigma. It used to be dishonorable. That has changed, and the change, in my view, is for the worse. If it’s not dishonorable to end a marriage, there is less pressure to remain married, and I believe that the reduction of such pressure is a net negative for society. Consider an analogy: in bygone decades, there was comparatively little shame in dropping out of school. Lots of teens left high school to pursue jobs, to help with the family business or farm or whatnot. Now it is execrably disreputable to leave high school without a diploma. I would argue that this is progress. Society is better off, if we regard dropping out of school as shameful failure.

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I am so grateful to live in a no-fault divorce state (Texas). Why on earth should I have to PROVE or explain the intensely personal reasons for wanting a divorce to the STATE? I don't owe the damn government any sort of explanation as to why my marriage isn't working! It's not that "no one is at fault" - it's simply a matter of not having to PROVE fault to some government official, ...

I have to disagree. The state “blesses” a marriage. The state is effectively third-party signatory to the contract between husband and wife. The state has a compelling interest in maintaining the marriage, and asserts that interest through policies such as marital tax breaks. When a couple divorces, the state suffers. If my marriage ends in divorce, I have not only failed my former spouse (and my family, and hers…); I’ve also failed the state. It’s entirely reasonable that the state is owed an explanation!

Further, if there really is one party more at fault than the other, should not the guilty party be penalized in the divorce proceedings? If a husband cheats on his wife because after 20 years of marriage she’s no longer beautiful (to him), and he cavorts with some floozy while neglecting his domestic responsibilities, ought he not suffer financial penalty?

Originally Posted by LostMyself73

I'd never suggest anyone stay and be unhappy and live in a loveless marriage ...

That depends on what we mean by “loveless”. If by “loveless” we mean confrontational, dismissive and emotionally stultifying, then I agree. But I’d rather be bound in a marriage where I felt no physical attraction to my spouse, than to live alone.

Originally Posted by meh_whatever

I don't think that relationships have changed much except that we have more choices now, and people simply choose to get out of bad situations.

We have more choices today than ever in the past, but is this genuinely an improvement? We have choices about employment, health care, residency, travel, you name it. But are we better off? Let’s set aside for the moment the subject of relationships, marriage, dating, sex, etc. I’m talking about overall life choices. As I get older, I become increasingly skeptical of departure from a regimented society where every cog has its place.

Originally Posted by meh_whatever

does anyone else's relationship REALLY have a bearing on yours? Quit looking at other people's relationships and keep an eye on your own.

Emulation of peers affects our own decisions. If many people in a couple’s social circle are divorcing, and the consequences of divorce in a substantial number of cases are positive or at least tolerable, would that not sway the decision to divorce, for a person who was vacillating?

Originally Posted by highlife2

At least in Russia everyone is broke, as long as you don't live in Moscow or st Petersburg you wont have to watch people driving by in escalades with their trophy wives while you make 100k but are paying out 60% of your income in slave payments.

Russia is a very stratified society; think Mexico, but with snow, and better universities. Those who bemoan the wealth inequality in the US would be stunned to see what’s in Russia. Even worse, there is no established set of property-rules. Those who think that US property taxes are “theft”, would be astonished to behold Russian property-confiscation and the “tax enforcement police”.

Originally Posted by srjth

They are scared of change and think the changes are going to be soooooo much worse. Yes, there is change, but after the dust settles, it's often much better than before.

Sometimes it is better, but often it is worse. Much worse. Is it genuinely worth the risk?

I'm going to introduce one more factor into the debate. How difficult was it to marry in the first place? Did one look far and wide, making great effort during dating and wooing, reorienting one's life to position oneself to become marriage-material? Or was dating easy and lighthearted. A person who works tenaciously and with dedication just to reach the stage of making a proposal, will have tremendous emotional capital invested in the marriage. A person who just fell into the marriage won't have as much invested. For the latter, divorce is more palatable, because a second marriage at some future time is an eminently reasonable proposition. But what about the first case? You can't paint the Mona Lisa twice. You can't write War and Peace twice. If your painting burns, if your manuscript burns, your life's work is ruined.

Consider the fellows posting on this forum, complaining that women don't appreciate them, that they're loveless and dateless. True, some are abject "losers", but not all. Some are going to improve. Some are going to invest in themselves and in their characters. Some will break out of their shells and will eventually find what they believe to be their life's love. So they get married. And for years, things proceed well - until one day, they don't. What then? Back to square-one?

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by ohio_peasant

Agreed on the first part, but I would have to argue towards the opposite on the second. Men have low expectations of how much satisfaction one ought to derive in domestic life. A desultory or even dysfunctional relationship is no particular cause for seeking improvement, either within the relationship, or by breaking it and seeking a new one. Women have higher expectations of what it means to be emotionally fulfilled. Identifying more of a problem, women take keener measures in aiming to fix it; failing that, they terminate the relationship.

I think the causes for divorce are SO varied and so unique to each marriage, that broad generalizations like this simply don't work.

This is why I would have expected to see fewer marriages end in divorce. Lots of disgruntled employees remain on the job, not because they're too lazy to leave, but because they don't regard alternatives as being superior. You don't like working for General Electric, so you switch to Siemens or United Technologies. But they're all alike. So you might as well stay with General Electric. At least, there your pension is accumulating. Employees think this way. Why don't marriage partners?

All companies are not the same, nor are all marriages. Like I have said, I had a miserable marriage and four kids. Divorce was hard, being single was hard, but NOTHING was as hard or heartbreaking as being in that first miserable marriage. I am happily remarried now (eight years and smooth sailing all the way). He is NOTHING like my former husband, and the dynamics are nothing like that other, miserable marriage. We bring out the best in each other, and our marriage doesn't even remotely resemble the marriages that we left (we were both divorced and single for awhile before we met each other - just to clarify).

Exactly! Sometimes one's spouse is the direct cause of one's incapacity to improve one's life. That calls for some substantial revision, possibly leading as last-resort to divorce. But how often is the impediment one's own shiftlessness? How often is the spouse unfairly blamed?

I'm sure it happens. In fact, in a sense it happened to me. I admit to gaining fifty pounds during that marriage. I was also very sick for about three years. Finally, and ironically in the last year of our marriage, insurance and my doctor agreed that surgery was the only remaining option. I had the surgery and over the course of about a year, I lost the fifty pounds and regained my health (I've kept that fifty pounds off for ten years now - the weight gain was directly related to my illness and once that was addressed the weight fell off naturally and has stayed off).

During all that drama with illness and weight gain, my husband had several affairs. With strangers he would meet in gambling forums and hook up with at casinos! Now - I'm already sick, and a young woman struggling with illness and weight gain and all sorts of emotional issues with all that - so I admit I was not the young and beautiful woman he had married - but damn. I am not going to put up with infidelity and deceitfulness.

The really ironic thing is that the damage was done - and it was irrevokable. We went to counseling, but it really didn't work. And even as I lost the weight and regained my health, I found out that he continued to meet up with strange women. Finally, I just decided I had to divorce him. He was a bigger risk to my health than anything else I had been through!

So - my illness and weight gain hurt our marriage and that wasn't really his fault. But that doesn't excuse his behavior.

What does cause both observers and participants so much grief is the collapse of long and fulfilling marriages. This is the marriage where there is in fact genuine love, and it lasts for years, maybe decades – until one day, something snaps.

I don't generally believe that "suddenly something snaps." I mean, I guess if you were married to a person who was mentally ill that might be the case. But generally speaking, no - not in a relationship of "genuine love, and a long, fulfilling marriage." Now - could one spouse be genuinely unaware of the needs or frustrations of the other person? Yes. Could be their fault, maybe not, maybe bad communication from both people. But it's not sudden. It just seems that way to the one who was, for whatever reason, unaware of the problems.

It’s not because the woman married the man for a green-card, or he cheated on her. It’s the prototypical parting of the ways. Speaking of my own experience, my then-wife diametrically changed her mind about motherhood, from being absolutely opposed to the idea as silly and foolish, to embracing it with incontrovertible devotion.

So are you saying that before marriage, you and your wife agreed not to have children together, and then after the wedding, maybe even years later, she changed her mind? And then she wanted kids and you didn't? Just trying to get the facts straight. If you had an agreement beforehand to DEFINITELY NOT HAVE CHILDREN and then she changed her mind - yes, this would be a major issue. And get this - those "mommy hormones" had been racing through her body for years, maybe decades. Trust me when I tell you that she didn't go from "I don't ever want any kids ever ever ever" to "I want to be a mommy and I don't care if that decision ruins my fulfilling and love filled marriage!" overnight.

But I wish to point out that divorce used to carry stigma. It used to be dishonorable. That has changed, and the change, in my view, is for the worse. If it’s not dishonorable to end a marriage, there is less pressure to remain married, and I believe that the reduction of such pressure is a net negative for society.

In a way, I agree with you. But as a woman who was able to get a necessary divorce quickly and inexpensively, and to move forward and rebuild a very happy life, I am also grateful that divorce doesn't carry the stigma it used to.

I have to disagree. The state “blesses” a marriage. The state is effectively third-party signatory to the contract between husband and wife. The state has a compelling interest in maintaining the marriage, and asserts that interest through policies such as marital tax breaks. When a couple divorces, the state suffers.

I didn't ask for the state to be involved in my most personal of relationships, and I don't need the marital tax breaks. If I had my way, the state would be completely out of the equation. I certainly don't need a judge, who may or may not share my own personal beliefs regarding marriage or morality, to pass judgment on whether or not I should be ALLOWED to get a divorce. I don't want my personal history and most intensely personal issues paraded about in front of lawyers and a judge, kids, the public record, etc. I don't feel that I owe the state an explanation of why I can no longer be married to someone. I believe in civil unions, contractual agreements, sure - and I believe that such unions can be terminated, just as any business partnership or lease or whatever, with an equally clear legal process and contract.

If my marriage ends in divorce, I have not only failed my former spouse (and my family, and hers…); I’ve also failed the state. It’s entirely reasonable that the state is owed an explanation!

Wow. I'm sorry you feel that way. I certainly don't feel that I failed the state of Texas when I divorced my ex husband, nor do I feel that I owe the state of Texas any other explanation than "we choose not to remain married - we are dissolving this partnership. Peace out."

Further, if there really is one party more at fault than the other, should not the guilty party be penalized in the divorce proceedings? If a husband cheats on his wife because after 20 years of marriage she’s no longer beautiful (to him), and he cavorts with some floozy while neglecting his domestic responsibilities, ought he not suffer financial penalty?

Perhaps - but that's what mediation is all about. For instance, though my divorce was technically a "no fault divorce" - I came out ahead financially in the deal. I drove a hard bargain.

We have more choices today than ever in the past, but is this genuinely an improvement? We have choices about employment, health care, residency, travel, you name it. But are we better off? Let’s set aside for the moment the subject of relationships, marriage, dating, sex, etc. I’m talking about overall life choices. As I get older, I become increasingly skeptical of departure from a regimented society where every cog has its place.

My husband and i are in our fifties. We are financially comfortable, and yes, the available choices can sometimes be staggering in their plentitude and variety. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I certainly would not wish to return to "the good ol' days" - those days of high mother and infant mortality rates, legal discrimination based on gender, race, etc, no voting rights for women, etc.

At the risk of over generalizing, I think you may find that more men than women might long for a return to the "good ol' days." As my grandmother used to say, "I lived in the good ol' days - trust me - they weren't all that good."

Emulation of peers affects our own decisions. If many people in a couple’s social circle are divorcing, and the consequences of divorce in a substantial number of cases are positive or at least tolerable, would that not sway the decision to divorce, for a person who was vacillating?

You're leaving out part of the equation - what is CAUSING the divorces. Divorce doesn't cause divorce. If a person is seriously contemplating divorce, it's not because some of their friends got divorced and it seems like a fun or fashionable thing to do. Anyone who thinks divorce is an easy route to take is a damn fool.

I'm going to introduce one more factor into the debate. How difficult was it to marry in the first place? Did one look far and wide, making great effort during dating and wooing, reorienting one's life to position oneself to become marriage-material? Or was dating easy and lighthearted. A person who works tenaciously and with dedication just to reach the stage of making a proposal, will have tremendous emotional capital invested in the marriage. A person who just fell into the marriage won't have as much invested. For the latter, divorce is more palatable, because a second marriage at some future time is an eminently reasonable proposition. But what about the first case? You can't paint the Mona Lisa twice. You can't write War and Peace twice. If your painting burns, if your manuscript burns, your life's work is ruined.

Now I do agree with this to some extent. If you have no skin in the game, it's easier to be cavalier.

Consider the fellows posting on this forum, complaining that women don't appreciate them, that they're loveless and dateless. True, some are abject "losers", but not all. Some are going to improve. Some are going to invest in themselves and in their characters. Some will break out of their shells and will eventually find what they believe to be their life's love. So they get married. And for years, things proceed well - until one day, they don't. What then? Back to square-one?

Unfortunately, life isn't fair. But like I said before, marriages don't fail in just one day - they tend to die a long, slow death.

When I found out my ex husband had been cheating on me, it hit me right between the eyes. I was SHOCKED. After all, we got along very well, and he was genuinely kind to me when I was sick, and having to have the operation, etc. He and I enjoyed each other's company and were always laughing together.

However, in retrospect, I could see the signs - hindsight is 20/20. I was too involved in my own personal drama to really pay attention to how all this was affecting him. By the time I saw the whole picture, it was too late. Even with counseling, he couldn't break what had become an addiction to sexual prowess and hooking up with strangers, something that was definitely not present in the early, happier, healthier years of our marriage.

Though I really don't blame myself for the illness or subsequent weight gain, I do blame myself for not being more aware of HIS needs during this time - not just sexual but also emotional. If I had been more attuned to thinking of his needs, I would have at least been aware earlier. Maybe we could have saved our marriage. Maybe not. Who knows? There is no such thing as "what might have been." There is only "what is." But my point is - it didn't die overnight or suddenly, even though it felt like that to me at first.

[LostMyself73]

Originally Posted by jillabean

And I know I've said it before, but the reason we are divorced is that he's gay.
It's really nothing we can control or "not quit" on.
My only beef was it is that I think he had an idea he was gay when we married (I had no clue). He put me though pain and hell discovering himself. But it's all for the best now. I am no longer tortured wondering why I am not a "good enough" wife... and he no longer has to live a lie.

I'm sorry for your pain and please don't think that I'm judging you I completely understand that you've tried with your marriage. I'm not against divorcing it just seems like some people can make it through if they would put in the effort, marriage isn't always roses and vacations it's a roller coaster and work.

[jillabean]

Originally Posted by LostMyself73

I'm sorry for your pain and please don't think that I'm judging you I completely understand that you've tried with your marriage. I'm not against divorcing it just seems like some people can make it through if they would put in the effort, marriage isn't always roses and vacations it's a roller coaster and work.

No need to apologize--at least, I don't feel judged. In a lot of ways, I agree with you. People do give up too early for selfish reasons. A few months after we married he told me he was bi and had a lover... to make a long story not so long, I stuck with him another 13 years and tried to make it work because bi would mean he likes women too. But then it turned out he was really gay. Divorced, both he and I are happier. He's finally "free" to live an openly gay lifestyle and I am free of the stress wondering what was wrong with me that I wasn't a "good enough" wife. Sometimes, it just won't work, no matter how hard you try--but all too often people give up way too soon.

[highlife2]

[quote=ohio_peasant;32687295]Agreed on the first part, but I would have to argue towards the opposite on the second. Men have low expectations of how much satisfaction one ought to derive in domestic life. A desultory or even dysfunctional relationship is no particular cause for seeking improvement, either within the relationship, or by breaking it and seeking a new one. Women have higher expectations of what it means to be emotionally fulfilled. Identifying more of a problem, women take keener measures in aiming to fix it; failing that, they terminate the relationship.


Russia is a very stratified society; think Mexico, but with snow, and better universities. Those who bemoan the wealth inequality in the US would be stunned to see what’s in Russia. Even worse, there is no established set of property-rules. Those who think that US property taxes are “theft”, would be astonished to behold Russian property-confiscation and the “tax enforcement police”.

But the difference is everyone is broke just the same, and the real key is how easily as a guy can you find another mate. In the USA when there is a break up often times the women has men lined up where as the guy struggles PLUS has all the payments.

If your going to be broke no matter what you might as well be broke somewhere you can have another woman lined up. I have been talking to some people in Russia and as long as you can stay off the booze and have some kind of job then you will have a woman. In the USA women dont want baby momma drama, you have to be a certian height, certian income, certian look, the list goes on and on and on. In the USA the men need that extra money to increase their odds of lining up another woman. Alot of women in the USA are very demanding, if you played Xbox too long your a "jerk", women cant afford to behave like that in Russia or they will be alone.

[ohio_peasant]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

So are you saying that before marriage, you and your wife agreed not to have children together, and then after the wedding, maybe even years later, she changed her mind? And then she wanted kids and you didn't?

Yes. During dating: "Honey, I'm so thrilled that I've finally met a man without the slightest interest in having kids". 7 years into the marriage: "Honey, I'm so thrilled that thanks to your initiative, I don't ever have to worry about getting pregnant". 8.5 years into the marriage: "Honey, you're going to be devastated by this, but I decided that I won't be fulfilled unless I become a mother, and my window is rapidly closing. We'll have to divorce".

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I didn't ask for the state to be involved in my most personal of relationships, and I don't need the marital tax breaks. If I had my way, the state would be completely out of the equation.

There is much to commend this view. Unfortunately our society remains wedded (pun intended) to marriage as an exalted institution, as something that nearly all reasonable adults should strive to pursue. Much of our justice system, immigration system, health care system and the like are so arranged, as to divide people into two categories: married and unmarried. I quite support a complete transformation from the “good old days”, so that marriage becomes merely a cultural/religious institution, like Confirmation or Bar Mitzvah. For civic purposes, we would all pay taxes, buy health care, bequeath inheritances, obtain immigration/citizenship rights and so forth, strictly as individuals. But we are a society in transition, which has “modernized” marriage but retained much of its traditional legal accouterments.

Of course, even if we abolish the civic definition of marriage, breaking up with one’s longstanding partner will still be traumatic. But at least it will solve the financial qualms of divorce.

KathrynAragon - your experiences give much food for thought. Hopefully your screen-name does not allude to your ex-husband resembling Henry VIII.

[riaelise]

10 years in, what do we do to keep it alive and growing? We just be ourselves. We are best friends as well as lovers. We make time for each other, even with two kids. We laugh at all of the little things...Robot Chicken Star Wars is a fav with us. We share a hobby. We listen to each other when we're going thru tough times at work. We laugh and play with the kids. We still have that passionate spark. Most of all, and simply put, we really do fit very well together.