My boyfriend and I have been
together eight months. We love each other, and I see us spending our
lives together. At least I did, until something he said a few days
ago.
Long story short, for the last five months
he’s brought up marriage. Then a few days ago he informed me that he
doesn’t want a wedding. When I offered a small ceremony for immediate
family and friends, he balked and said he’s not even interested in a
courthouse wedding. I asked if everything he’d said before was empty
talk, and he said yes. He won’t give me any better explanation. Oh, and
this was two days after we decided I’d be moving in with him, and he
still wants me to live with him even after dropping this bomb! Everyone
I’ve talked to, including my therapist, said the equivalent of
WTF?!?
Dan, can you decipher this male-ese for
me?
Lady In A Relationship
You were discussing marriage at three
months?
The fact that he would bring up marriage so
early, and the fact that you didn’t laugh in his face, disqualifies you
both from obtaining a marriage license. (Okay, it doesn’t—but it
should.) Three months—eight months, sixteen months—is way too soon to be discussing marriage. Sure, you can
allow yourself to be swept away by new love, you can crush out on each
other, you can sheepishly admit that you’ve allowed yourself to
daydream about marriage—so long as that admission is immediately
followed by this statement: “But I realize it’s way too soon to
even think about it seriously…” But you absolutely, positively should
NOT be making plans to marry, small ceremonies or large,
courthouse or St. Paul’s Cathedral, at eight fucking
months; nor should you attempt to hold him—or anyone
else—to a premature “commitment” to wed.
Your boyfriend doesn’t have a bad case of
“male-ese,” LIAR, he has a good case of came-to-his-senses-ese. If
you’re lucky, the strain is contagious, perhaps sexually transmitted,
and you’ll soon be showing symptoms yourself.
And a bit of bonus advice: Get a therapist
who doesn’t believe that cashing your checks obligates him to tell you
whatever idiot thing you want to hear.
In a recent column you wrote,
“If you’re not having sex with your boyfriend, or anyone else, and
there’s no sex in your foreseeable future, ANB, that’s not
monogamy—that’s celibacy.” I have been with my girlfriend for
nine years, living together for seven. We have never had sex. At the
beginning we fooled around a lot, but never went far. Now, like many
couples who have been together for a while, the frequency has
decreased. We go beyond kissing a few times a year, and never all that
far. I am mostly okay with this: I take care of myself as necessary. We
never talk about sex at all. We’ve moved back and forth across the
country together and are otherwise committed. Is it ridiculous to leave
sex out of the relationship?
Sexless And Seemingly Content
If you’re happy and your girlfriend’s happy,
SASC, then I’m happy. Two people in a bad relationship can have plenty
of great sex; two people in a great relationship can have little sex or
no sex. Sex is a metric for assessing the health of a
relationship, but it’s not the only one. When two people come together
who love each other and are compatible sexually—which can mean a
shared interest in sex or a shared disinterest in sex—the angels
sing, SASC. All that matters, again, is that you’re both happy.
But are you happy, SASC? You say that you
are, and I’ll take your word for it, but there’s a lot of wiggle room
in the “mostly” in this sentence: “I am mostly okay with this.”
You owe it to yourself to determine if you are really and truly okay
with living without sex—and if the girlfriend is too.
I’ll add this to the debate over the threat that gay people pose to marriage: A fag saved my
“opposite marriage.”
My wife and I had a huge argument about sex
after she rebuffed me one night. She was shouting that she couldn’t
stand the idea of me inside her because she felt like I was just
masturbating in her. I shouted that we could stop having vaginal
intercourse altogether for all I care because it was boring me, too,
and besides, there was lots of other stuff we could do. She screamed,
“Like what?!?” And I screamed, “Like oral! Masturbation! Role-playing!
Whatever kinky shit you want!” There was a pause, and we both started
laughing.
We took vaginal intercourse “off the menu”
that night. After three weeks of amazing, mind-blowing sex, she called
me at work and asked if I missed vaginal intercourse. I told her that I
did but that putting it back on the menu was entirely her call. She got
in the car and drove to my office, and we fucked in the stairwell.
Sometimes you help people you don’t even realize you’ve helped.
Married O And Newly Surging
You’re welcome, MOANS, and thanks for
sharing.
And speaking of marriage: Last week’s
decision by the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 was
expected but, in the wake of so many recent victories, still saddening,
and I’m getting mail from lots of unhappy people. I’m unhappy about it,
too. But we have to remember that this is a long game, folks, and
despite this setback, we are winning. We’ve heard a lot about
Prop 8 over the last week, and we’re going to hear a lot about the
fight to overturn it over the coming months, but let’s not forget about
Proposition 22.
In 2000, California voters approved a law
banning same-sex marriage. It was a ballot initiative, like Prop 8, but
just a law, not a constitutional amendment. And it was that law, Prop
22, that the California Supremes struck down in 2008, in their historic
ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. And voters in 2000 approved Prop
22 by a 22-point margin. Eight years later, the same voters
approved Prop 8 by just four points. That’s an 18-point shift in
favor of marriage equality in just eight years. That’s extraordinary
progress. A loss is still a loss, and a loss sucks, but the trend is so
strongly in our favor that we cannot lose hope. The anti-gay bigots
know that they’re losing this debate, and it’s why they’re so hot to
amend state constitutions now, while they still can, while they
can still count on the votes of the old, the bigoted, and the easily
manipulated.
But they are losing and they know
it.
Gay marriage will be back to the ballot box
in California in 2010 or 2012, and voters are going to repeal Prop 8.
Fundamental civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote, of
course, and the California Supremes had an opportunity to reaffirm that
ideal. They chose not to, they buckled, and so gays and lesbians,
unlike other minority groups, face the challenge of securing our rights
at the ballot box. That seems like a daunting prospect until you recall
Prop 22 and compare its margin of victory to that of Prop 8. Again, we
witnessed an 18-point shift in favor of gay marriage in California in
just eight years. We can gain another two points in two. We just have
to stay in the fight and constantly remind ourselves and each
other—and Maggie Gallagher—that we are winning.
no way! am I first?? Great column – as usual. I loved the “way to soon to talk marriage” advice. For some people, ANY age is too soon.
Dan: Please…please…don’t contribute to the further corruption of the language.
You wrote “When two people come together who love each other and are compatible sexually—which can mean a shared interest in sex or a shared disinterest in sex—the angels sing, SASC”
“Disinterest” is not the opposite of “interest”. It means “unbiased” or “impartial”. It is the opposite of “having a vested interest”. The opposite of “interested” is “uninterested.”
I don’t mean to sound like a grammar nazi (although I know that I do), but this one really bugs me. We already have a perfectly good word in “uninterest” and don’t need to steal a different word and change its meaning.
Sorry for the tangent.
uhh…’A fag saved my “opposite marriage.”‘? Is there a big part of the last story that got cut out or something? I don’t get it.
nvk, MOANS is referring to Dan. He’s the fag that saved his “opposite marriage.”
@C_in_VA
Here’s what dictionary.com says:
disinterest = absence of interest; indifference.
uninterest = lack of interest; indifference.
Leaving aside the fact that I can only find “uninterest” in online dictionaries, and that none of my spell-checkers recognize the word, “uninterest” is just plain weird sounding. And a good writer picks the word that flows over the one that doesn’t every time. Plus, a person who doesn’t care one way or the other about sex would seem rather impartial to me. Just saying…
@nvk
I take it that reading Dan’s column is what inspired MOANS to consider all that “kinky shit.” Otherwise, he would have been a vanilla hetero all his life.
The fag MOANS is referring to is Dan
Eight months probably *is* a bit soon to talk marriage, but that’s no excuse for LIAR’s boyfriend refusing to speak frankly about his change of heart.
Can’t believe I got here early enough to address this, but since someone is bound to: NVK, he’s talking about Dan saving his marriage.
@3
MOANS meant Dan saved his marriage. Dan’s always been a big supporter of All That Stuff That Isn’t Intercourse Is Still Sex, and a bigger supporter of indulging kinks. MOANS and his wife finally started taking his advice, and now have mind-blowing sex of all kinds.
@2
Merriam-Webster defines disinterest as “lack of interest : indifference” as well as the objective/impartial definition you mention. The Oxford dictionary similarly provides both “1 impartiality. 2 lack of interest.”
It seems Dan is well justified in using disinterest the way he did. Meanwhile, if you’re going to accuse others of corrupting the language (prescriptivist much?), you might want to check your sources first.
#5
YourDictionary.Com is closer to my understanding of the word:
1. lack of personal or selfish interest
2. lack of interest or concern; indifference
The classic example is “a disinterested 3rd party” such as a judge. A judge (and jury) should be both “interested” and “disinterested” in that they should pay attention and be interested in the proceedings, but also be unbiased.
Personally, I don’t think writers can redefine the language just because it sounds better, unless you’re James Joyce of course.
The real problem with losing the Prop 8 decision was not so much that gays didn’t get to marry (the symptom) but that politics trumped a fundamental right that the court had held up in it’s first decision, the right to equal treatment before the law regardless of sexual identity (the real fundamental problem). Since they upheld this position once, then reneged on it given a popular vote to change the constitution, we can determine that sexual orientation in California is equivalent to political choice, protected but not a fundamental right, thus gay people in California will always now be second class citizens unprotected from the mob. I’m glad I moved, California is no longer a progressive state.
@ C_in_VA
It always cracks me up when people talk about the corruption of a language, simply because languages are not static. If it were, we wouldn’t have complex languages at all, let alone modern English. About the only languages that can be “corrupted” are ones that are not in common use, such as Latin.
Great Article Dan. I always enjoy them even when I disagree!
dude, it doesn’t always take forever to know about the marriage thing. I knew I was going to marry my husband less than a month after I met him. Two weeks after I met him, my father had a stroke and the way he responded and helped me through that clinched the deal for me.
27 years later, I’ve rarely had doubts.
My spouse and I got married in the seventh month after our first date. We’re still married, and even then, I would say to anyone else, “Don’t get married after only 7 months, dumbass!!” 🙂
blah! If you cover something in your podcast, why do we have to beat it to death in the column too?
I love you to death, but I’m starting to skip the Sailor Moon Says section at the end 🙁
I guess what’s more puzzling here is why the hell would the GUY be the one bringing up the marriage thing so damn early?
I’d be a little weirded out if I was a girl in a new relationship and the guy started bringing up marriage talks after only a couple months.
Nice job.
love the article, been reading since middle school back in 2000. opened my eyes up sexually and love dan savage for it
The don’t jump into marriage advice is great. One of the biggest mistakes of my life was my first marriage. Met, fell in love, moved in immediately, married in a year, kids, miserable marriage for many years, shitty wife, shitty mother. I’m still suffering the after effects nearly 20 years after the divorce of poor decisions made during our dysfunctional 10 years together.
Take your time, before getting hitched. Once the love/lust ether wears off, you will see the person for what they really are, and if you will be compatible life partners.
Savage Love also appears on the AVClub, and there’s an interesting difference between the articles. LIAR’s letter in the AVClub reads “I asked if everything he’d said was empty *pillow* talk, and he said yes…”
So that might answer just a few questions, and shed some important light on LIAR’s bf. Post-orgasmic bliss cuddle conversations are not equal to kitchen-table what our future will look like conversations. Especially if those words function as foreplay for another go-round (which I strongly suspect they were.)
LIAR needs to stop blabbing what her bf tells her in bed to everyone under the sun. I fear the era of TMI has only just begun….
@C_in_VA
Interestingly enough, the real reason behind the distinction between disinterest and uninterest is likely due to slow changes (or for some here “corruption”) to the word interest.
In its earlier use in the 15th century, interest was all about legal, business, and fiscal rights and issues, which echoes in the sense of the example you use of “having a vested interest.” Over time it has also accrued the additional meaning of concern, or that which arouses attention (for fairly obvious reasons).
Since disinterest dates back to the 1600s and the early meaning of interest, that is likely the source of this idea behind a very distinct, singular view of the definition of disinterest you hold. When interest started to take on this secondary (really tertiary or lower) meaning is probably about the time people (reasonably) started to use the word disinterest to also mean the opposite of this other sense of the word interest.
In contrast, Merriam-Webster puts uninterest’s date at 1890, and it really doesn’t seem to have gained a great deal of traction over disinterest in the past 120 years to separate the two senses of “the opposite of interest”. My best guess is that it was taken up by academics interested in hyper-correctness and rigidity in the language. (I can sympathize; I’m an English teacher.) I’d have more informed musings if I still had access to OED to pin down when the other senses of the word interest developed.
Either way, looking at the etymological dates, it’s difficult to argue that use of disinterest to mean the opposite of interest(attraction) is a redefining of the word uninterest. If anything, uninterest was probably an attempt to redefine disinterest by parsing out that one specific sense of the root word and affixing the other “not” prefix (un- and dis- are essentially the same).
Regardless, most linguists will tell you that languages are living things and attempting to regulate them often fares poorly. Language is used by people, and whatever words and definitions are widely used and understood inevitably become part of that language as it evolves with the populations that use it. There’s really no stemming the tide. Just ask the L’Académie française how successful they’ve been keeping out loanwords like email or look up the word crunk in the most recent edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
UGH…I am going to write an I, anonymous about the grammar Nazi’s out there. C in VA, (and those who supplied your dictionary comments) you don’t come across as intellectually superior; you just sound like neurotic pain-in-the-ass people who (whom? No mama? No life? No friends? No significant other?)no one wants to be around.
I really don’t like to hear the slaughter of the English language, but your comments are worse. Nails on a chaulk board. Get a life. And if you can’t do that, write a grammar book.
16 months is too soon to get hitched? Depends on the age and maturity of the bride and groom to be, I’d say. For a 20 year old it’s too quick. But for a 30 year old? Maybe not.
C in VA,
Dan is right and you are wrong. I am also one of those who is careful in distinguishing between the adjectives “disinterestED” (impartial) and “uninterestED” (indifferent), but as a noun “disinterest” applies to both.
Those who cite the Webster’s are off-base, though, because Webster’s gave up its standards on this sort of thing long ago and started accepting popular errors as being, shall we say, “not incorrect.” (Wait long enough and an error may become correct, once there is no one left who remembers that it used to be wrong, but that’s a whole ‘nother helpline.)
Can someone please explain what the big thing about gay marriage is? Isn’t marriage fundamentally a religious institution? And doesn’t religion say “no way jose” to gayness?
Isn’t there a big contradiction in conforming to an institution that doesn’t want gay people?
Im an atheist by the by.
Can someone please explain what the big thing about gay marriage is? Isn’t marriage fundamentally a religious institution? And doesn’t religion say “no way jose” to gayness?
Isn’t there a big contradiction in conforming to an institution that doesn’t want gay people?
Im an atheist by the by.
Religion (I am assuming you mean Christian religion) doesn’t necessarily say ‘no way’ to homosexuality. Here is an interesting book:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_a…
I am a straight Christian who believes in gay marriage (a religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship) by the way.
Religion (I am assuming you mean Christian religion) doesn’t necessarily say ‘no way’ to homosexuality. Here is an interesting book:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_a…
I am a straight Christian who believes in gay marriage (a religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship) by the way.
Religion (I am assuming you mean Christian religion) doesn’t necessarily say ‘no way’ to homosexuality. Here is an interesting book:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_a…
I am a straight Christian who believes in gay marriage (a religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship) by the way.
Religion (I am assuming you mean Christian religion) doesn’t necessarily say ‘no way’ to homosexuality. Here is an interesting book:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_a…
I am a straight Christian who believes in gay marriage (a religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship) by the way.
@27–“Isn’t marriage fundamentally a religious institution?” Simply put, it isn’t. There are a whole host of legal rights and responsibilities that a modern civil marriage grants. Off the top of my head: Next of kin benefits, the right of the spouse to be the one to make the crucial medical decisions when one becomes incapacitated. Survivor benefits, when you die, most workplaces have to pay your spouse some bucks. No spouse, no $$. You can’t just unilaterally call it quits on your husband or wife and leave him or her out in the cold. When you marry, your spouse’s kids more or less automatically become your kids, you have a stake in how they’re raised.
And there’re a lot more purely legalistic reasons why denying gays the right to marry is fundamentally legally discriminatory, and therefore in clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. It’s not about religion, it’s about justice. Liberty and justice for all.
Furthermore, “religion” itself doesn’t unite with one voice to say anything about gay people. Yes, a lot of, perhaps most, discrete Christian sects are well behind the curve in their approach to gay rights, but not all. Unitarians are fully accepting of gays. Some Lutherans and Methodists are getting on board the big gay love bus. My own Episcopal church is busily tearing itself apart over the issue.
And by the by, blessed are the atheists, for they also have their own covenant with God.
There’s nothing particularly religious about marriage. Marriage is about social control, and religion is also about social control. Protestantism does not recognize marriage as a sacrament, precisely because it is universal and secular, rather than being specifically related to the faith.
In ages past, religion was the highest legal authority.
In any case, I don’t intend to get married with my partner, who is also an atheist and feels the same, that we should stay together for positive reasons, rather than that we have to and are forced to. So religious authority is redundant to us from that point of view.
Being a capitalist myself I don’t believe anyone owes you anything that you don’t provide for yourself, so all the social rights issues seem like protection for dead weight. So legal authority in relationship matters is redundant to me as well.
I think people should really rethink why the hell they need religious or legal recognition… For me it seems like let the sheep zealots go and waste their time in whatever way they like…
@ bukboy
Marriage wasn’t always a religious institution, people have gotten married for many reasons throughout history and the church was not always involved.
In the USA (and many other countries) married people enjoy rights and privileges that unmarried people do not. The “big thing” about gay marriage is a question of inequality. There is no logical excuse for excluding specific members of society from the benefits of marriage. (‘Because the bible says so’ or ’cause it’s icky’ doesn’t count as logic.)
Some “religions” have said in the past that it would be an abomination for a black man to marry a white woman, but I can’t imagine you suggestion that the outlawing of that shouldn’t be considered a “big thing”.
And even if you were to accept that marriage were purely a religious institution, what business would the state have regulating it? If it’s just a church thing, we shouldn’t be voting on it in the first place, right?
I don’t often disagree with Dan, but I don’t think that SASC has a healthy relationship. The reason I say this is because he said that he was mostly ok with it, not that he was actually ok with it and just wanted to know if it was normal. He says he’s “mostly ok with it” because he is minimizing the pain of being sexually rejected by the woman he loves. That must be humiliating for him on some level. Trust me, he is anything but ok with it. He wants very much to have sex, yet masturbates alone whenever he has needs. That is just sad.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with choosing a sexless relationship if both people involved are truly happy with it. If they’ve discussed it and both want to be celibate, then more power to them. We know he isn’t truly interested in celibacy, because he said he masturbates. I think he’s sacrificing his sexual needs so that he won’t lose his girlfriend. What I’m hearing is that he is settling for way less than he really wants.
I think the real question is why isn’t this guy getting the sex he clearly needs and wants? He’s masturbating all alone, when at the very least his girlfriend could jerk him off, even if she doesn’t want to have sex with him. He shouldn’t be encouraged to give up his own needs, because in the long run it will make him resent his girlfriend. In which case, they will break up anyway.
I think a sex therapist would be a great idea for this couple. They need to at least work out a situation that is not so pathetic. This poor guy probably has years worth of repressed sexual fantasies that will eventually explode if not expressed.
As for the Prop 8 decision, while it is incredibly saddening that California voters are so bigoted, the hands of the Supreme Court were tied. Were this a law, it could have been overturned, but as an amendment, it is a bit beyond the power of the court. The role of the court is to access constitutionality, not morality, and any amendment, no matter how wrong-headed, must be respected. It is the check we place on the Supreme Court. So while I am upset by the amendment, I understand why the court ruled the way it did.
Why is SASC reading Savage Love? I’m surprised that Dan didn’t point out this issue, he has in the past.
The first LW should not move in with that boyfriend. If he talked marriage to get her in bed and moved in, but didn’t mean it, then he’s guilty of bait and switch and not to be trusted. If she likes him a lot, then it may be worth staying and working on rebuilding trust, otherwise she should leave now.
LIAR shouldn’t move in with this boyfriend. He’s just talked marriage to get her in bed and moved in, now he’s switched goals. If she really likes him a lot otherwise, she should stay in the relationship and monitor his trustworthiness carefully; otherwise she should dump him now.
I agree with E that the age and maturity of the marriage-seekers have a lot to do with the waiting period. A couple of 30-40 year olds are going to have a much better idea of what they’re looking for and will have a better sense of the risks of committing too soon.
What bugs me the most about LIAR’s story is that the guy won’t go into more detail about his desire to have a marriage without a ceremony. Seems like a good opportunity to share a unique philosophy, unless he just REALLY wants the marriage and REALLY doesn’t want anyone to know about it. Does the guy need a green card?
Another thing to consider regarding SASC is that they “never talk about sex at all.” If the relationship was healthy there would be discussion about whether the continued celibacy was still working for both of them.
IMO, sex is not just about getting off, but also about intimacy and connection which may be missing on some level in their relationship.
I can’t believe it took until comment 39 (after several boring interest vs disinterest posts) for someone to say DONT MOVE IN WITH THIS GUY!!! Seriously. Have you ever heard the saying ‘why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free’ ?? Sure, its misogynistic, dumb and probably wrong most of the time, but this guy wants a live in girlfriend seemingly forever. DO NOT move in with him thinking you will ‘eventually change his mind’ because that is a sure way to be newly single at 35 wondering what happened.
I understand where people like @14 is coming from, but basically, a good rule of thumb is to wait. You don’t lose much by NOT marrying, so why rush it?
I’m the child of a fucked-up marriage between two people who waited a few years after they started dating before they even talked about marriage, and they still screwed up, so I have no reason to say this except that I’ve seen it to be true: Every now and then, 8 months isn’t too soon. I think 3 months always is. You’re still in the new-relationship high at that point, but after about 6, a lot of people really start dating their partners, not just dating the idea of them. It’s almost always still too early at that point, as the number of fucked up marriages shows, but the number that work start going up at that point. It sounds like it’s still too early here, but sometimes around 8 months is when it might begin to be ok.
Also, “gays and lesbians, unlike” SOME “other minority groups, face the challenge of securing our rights at the ballot box.” And don’t get me started on nominal rights vs. actual ones.
I agree with #36, SASC is not happy with his situation.
People who are 100% happy with their situations don’t need to write letters to Dan Savage asking if their situations are really OK.
Think about it this way, bukboy: a religious official often says, “By the power vested in me BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK, I now pronounce you man and wife.” The state gives a religious official the power to marry people out of recognition of the historical role of religion in marriage, but the power still rests fundamentally in the state. A judge who is marrying two people never says, “By the power vested in me by the Christian God.” He is an arm of the state, doing state business.
The state also doesn’t recognize baptisms or bar mitzvahs. There are no special tax codes for those, no accounting for them in censuses, no privileges for them in court, no social security benefits for them… all because they ARE fundamentally religious institutions. That’s how marriage would look if it were “fundamentally a religious institution.”
SASC says that he and his girlfriend “never talk about sex at all.” I would be more likely to agree that they have a healthy relationship if they occasionnally talked about whether the lack of sex was still working for both of them.
While I agree that waiting to ACTUALLY marry at least two years is a good idea, I don’t think three months is too soon to know you WANT to marry someone. I was 28, had been through a few crappy relationships, and when I met my husband, I knew after just a few months that we were right for each other. We didn’t get engage until 18 months into the relationship, and didn’t get married for another year after that, but we KNEW. Nine years and one kid later, we are very happy together.
I think one important part that was missed to the girl moving in with her boyfriend was that he changed his tune right after they agreed to move in together. He probably did mean all the things he originally said when talking about marriage, but that next big step of moving in together freaked him out. He back peddled as a way to distance himself and remain somewhat non-commital. They need to back off the marriage talk for a while and just enjoy being together. He will cool out and be ready for marriage someday, if it is meant to be. No need to rush things. Guys get freaked out too easily.