Wow. That's a lot of digs and a lot of labels. My common-law wife/gem/partner/mate/life partner... - whatever label you prefer - and I have been together for about 12 years and haven't made an attempt to complicate the situation by slapping pop-culture scratch-and-sniff all over ourselves. Beyond The labels lies something deeper than certificates and bragging rights that's been with us for eons and that's where the treasure's to be found.

Patricia before you sling mud at Madonna dump the expectations and listen to some of her latest stuff. American Life is an album really worth a listen containing some wiser concepts.

Nice comments, chicken slinger. My friend and her boyfriend of 6 years just got married at English Bay (very informal, very nice, I took the photos :) and when I asked her the other day if it felt different to "be married"- offically- know what her answer was? "It's more the way others treat us that's different". Says a lot, doesn't it?

Recently my partner/boyfriend/non-commital lover/afraid to have kids/ lets see how it goes/ lets enjoy the moment/ unable to say I love you decided to end the relationship after four years of living together. I had four long term relationships with partners who just have such a rebellious attitude toward marriage that they can't even go to their friends weddings and rejoice. I am not attached to the notion of family especially the nuclear family but certainly value commitment. Relationships are difficult to maintain as we easily fall asleep and forget to maintain curiosity about ourselves and the other. It is easy to end though when the fire seems low but in the hope of having it lit up again by someone else we lose the opportunity to maintain and nourish our own fire. Marriage when entered consciously and sincerely can allow love to bloom pass the initial flame and the tribulations of life.

Like many here already know, I married young (in a time when if you wanted tail, that's what you did) and, before I figured out what "fucking" was really all about (in the age preceding "the pill"), we had a whole bunch of kids. (Hey, I was just groovin'!) At which point, it was all suddenly extremely "heavy". And me with a grade 8 education, and only knowing, and yet capable of "grunt" work. And getting a boner on. Another kind of "grunt" work.

At which point, of course, the search for meaning in my life suddenly became very real. The "meaning" of it all was suddenly decided for me, by the activity of my dink.

Did I rebel?

Frequently.

Nonetheless, the message of my father was, "You make your bed, boy, you better learn to lie in it." The other side of that was, if you didn't, nothing but grief.

And actually, over the ensuing years and tribulations, that's exactly what I did. I learned to lie in the bed, of the consequences of my own actions.

Now, how do I feel about that at this "other" end of my life?

Great! It turns out, my old man was right about that, and a whole bunch of other things. (When I had thought he was only full of shit.) And it carries its own particular kind of rewards. I actually have a genetic line, that continues to extend outward into the future, beyond my own time. And I developed a whole bunch of useful "survival" skill sets, that I never would have guessed I would have one day. I got smarter. And I have had and evolved a relationship with a women of long standing, that is outstanding. Such that I now understand, it was a privilege.

To marry or not to marry is a very individual thing, I know. But for me, without it, I doubt I would have come this far, without that "binding contract" tending to hold me to the committment. And it won't always and doesn't work for this or that particular individual. But for me, over time, it imposed a discipline and a sense of responsibility that helped make me a man. For which, at the end, I'm glad I made the choice I did. She's a beauty. So are they.

It was never fucking easy though.

Marriage may not be for everyone. I cop to some conventionality, I guess, by admitting that I wanted to have the wedding before commencing breeding. A big part of that was out of respect for my wife (then GF). Getting married hardly ensures successful partnership, but it adds a layer of legally binding contractual obligation which I thought, were our positions reversed, would seem pretty appealing before I agreed to have kids. It's kind of like buying rather than renting, to make a crass metaphor.

Legally you can marry or live common law for a while and have most of the same obligations. Most importantly, you have the same obligations if you have a child.

But actually marrying someone is, I hope, not driven by legalities. I think Coyote gets it about right.

One underlying theme of the author was an obvious need to fill a "sense of self: exogenously - i.e. her identity and contentment are obtained from something external - societal status and fitting a desirable "mold" - such as the "modern, progressive, independent woman" didn't need a formal marriage to establish her identity. She identified this "common-law wife" to be of the upper middle class and a frenzied consumer ever so conscious of "status". I wonder if this is at all accurate. Marriage is a committment between 2 people and is not ideally meant to help establish a type of categorical summation of the pair's "status" by such crude and general labels by strangers who know little about the people who they are judging. The example given in assessing the type of "wife category" are not only shallow but juvenile to some extent, and I unfortunately have to admit that it is more likely that another female would spend the mental energy to dissect the status quo as such. The now optional formalization of a committment between two people by marriage is likely more strongly related by the fact that the 2 people involved now fill very similar niches and circumstance in society - rather than complement 2 polar ends as they used to. Thus, the dependency each had of the other's specific "life/gender roles" which were born of necessity are no longer a factor requiring the establishment of a "formal" marriage recognized by the state and implying an economic as well as matrimonial union.

Other than all the self-referential psycho-babble you people have just spilled out so earnestly, did this delicious and timely piece of satire make you laugh??? And does anybody know the difference between a status wife and a married-for-love wife? Lighten up, people!!!

"Lighten up, people!!!" chided Common.

Actually you're the one who really needs to lighten up, "common". I don't think there was very much of any depth in this piece at all. Though it tried. That's why we were all kind of talking around it. You know, kind of despite it.

It was just another shallow bit of sarcastic theatre, from the narcisstic "modernist" woman perspective. We've all met them. The "careerist", probably sneaking up on and slipping by her prime breeding years, waiting increasingly in vain for a Mr. Just Right, who actually wants to marry them-, meanwhile feigning, "It ain't so. Besides I don't care." The other side of that, "The best men are already taken or queer." coin. :-) And it's true.

It's also called, the left it too late while having a career instead of babies syndrome.

Lighten up, eh. See the forest in the trees. These women fill the downtown core of every major urban centre in the "modern" western world.

Love what you wrote, Coyote, and you ,too, Fiona. I got married at age 21, and I really thought "all" a couple needed was to treat each other with at least the kind of politeness and consideration we were all taught to give to the bus driver and garbage collector. Seventeen years and three kids later I divorced the father of my children. That's when I found out who he really was! No child support and no court willing to enforce the maintainance order. We lived in a "fixer upper" and he had an apartment with a sun lamp in the bathroom. We took a very inadequate municipal bus service, he bought a new car. We did not wind up on welfare, although there were times that would have been an improvement in our standard of living. I don't do reflexology or reikki or attend weekend consciousness raising workshops. I don't join do-good volunteer groups. I don't envy those with the toys and expensive clothes and I don't feel morally superior to them,either. What we get from life, or from marriage , is what we put into it. Discontent and second-guessing ourselves can't possibly lead to any kind of satisfaction , nor will it in any way improve the situation. Navel gazing doesn't do anybody very much good. I'm all for introspection and I think we could all spend more quiet time pondering the "what if" of life, but self indulgent maundering is just more of a waste of time in lives which have perhaps already wasted too much time. Being married or not isn't the least bit important. A piece of paper or a circle of metal isn't going to improve anything. The commitment two people make to each other is what is important and the truth of it is there are very few people fortunate enough to be able to find a lifetime partner. We all grow, and that growth very often changes who we are, who we thought we were, what we want in life. Too often that growth and those changes take us away from our partner. We are creeks who come together to make streams and at some point that stream may well divide again, become two creeks again, but in the end , they both wind up in the ocean. I enjoy the comments but I thought the article itself was drivel. Nobody else can fulfill us, and if we can't fulfill ourselves I guess we write articles blaming everyone else for our sad and boring condition.

So many questions... I'm at a point in life where I'm still in the midst of the debate 'to marry or not to marry?'. I'm with the man I will definitely spend the rest of my life with, but how we will make that committment to one another remains to be seen. Apparently, I'll be trendy no matter what I do: marry...or not marry...marry and call myself a wife...or not marry but not call myself a wife. Whatever. Labels. Everyone seems to want to fit a label. HAHA! Even choosing to defy all labels, I'll still be under a label: 'no label'. And like everything, marriage and committments are subject to interpretation. Is it fear that pushes us away from saying 'I do'? To most people these days, does the idea of marriage come hand-in-hand with the ideas of divorce and child support payments and pre-nups? Is it fear of failure that steers us away from such bonds? Or what about fear of conforming to tradition? I suppose traditionally, marriage was expected... just a step in life 99% of people took in stride. For women, I suppose it was implied you weren't a proper woman until you were fulfilling your marital obligations. Are we just finding another way to break out into our womanhood by defying the usual suspect? Is it that overpowering need to be independent and individual that pushes us away from having a partner to answer to when we fuck up? Why do we put so many pressures and expectations on our partners though we pretty much suspect to be disappointed anyway? What IS it about the title 'marriage' that has created our common-law society?

I'm reeling from Coyote's last comments. All of a sudden he's making huge generalizations about what he sees as a type of woman. I thought Patricia Robertson came across as a thinking, responsible, independent woman who is working to make the world a little bit better for everyone - not a so-called "narcissistic 'modernist' woman." After all, it's Coyote who boasts about having a genetic line. Doesn't that have a narcissistic bent? Meanwhile, Robertson is living her life according to her ideals, volunteering and so forth, whereas Coyote followed his dick and had to grow into "a sense of responsibility that helped make me a man." And why do I get the feeling Coyote would be less harsh if Robertson was a mother? While Coyote was growing he was probably causing his wife a lot of headaches and it was probably women like Robertson that she needed to support her. Robertson said she admits "to feeling left out of the cultural matrix," a feeling that Coyote may not understand as the irresponsible young husband/father who eventually evolves is represented and validated in pop culture. But Robertson would have a hard time finding reflections of herself – not a full-fledged wife, not a mother, not glamourous, not a sex pot. I think it's natural to seek representations of ourselves in popular culture. Finding them is validating of our ideals, choices and ways.

Crap like this does such a dis-service for women - common-law or married. Time to get off the poor repressive me bandwagon! The comment on marriage being an economical tie is just plain ole shit. You want to see an economical tie, I'll show you my mortgage documents that has my SO's signature on it. I assure you, there is no marriage certificate accompanying it - yet. I am getting married this fall after finding out I am the bearer of two bairns. My "partner" (God, doesn't that just scream "I'm a lesbian" or am I behind the times?) and I have been together for over 6.5 years now and finally are getting off our assess and tying the knot because a) we are tired of the non-gender confusing titles of boyfriend and girlfriend sticking us in some juvenile puppy love land b) I want his last name - no mommy being the odd last name out in my family Following that, I'll do whatever the hell I want as a man's wife. It'll be no different than it is now. If this is what I want to do, who are these militant feminist bitches to tell me I can't have my cake in whatever damn flavour I choose, and smear it all over my naked body in front of a bunch of hollering men too? To finish off my rant, do whatever the hell you want regarding marriage. Get married, don't get married, sit there and envy those who are what you aren't - who gives a shit. You're the one who has to live with it.

Actually, it's us damn militant feminist bitches who have been saying loudly for the past thirty years that you have the right to have your cake in any flavour you want. We also think you should have some ice cream on it if you want. Be a shame to smear it on your bod in front of those hollering men but hey, if that's the image of mom you want to put before your kids, well, they're your kids, it's your image, and I think we've established it's your cake in your flavour. One question..you make it sound as if you think there's something wrong with the choices lesbians have made...or is freedom only for you?

Well anne cameron, all the "feminists" I have come across have spent more time on complaining about repression than working towards empowerment. I'm sorry if I don't buy into the whole "no matter what you do, you're being repressed" sentiment. Maybe I've just been exposed to the bitter militant feminists? My comment about smearing cake was statement about freedom. I'll do it if I so choose because I can. Why stop at icecream? Is dancing naked while covered in cake too free? Oh and I never made a comment about choices lesbians have made, nor did I ever state freedom is only for myself. Using the term "partner" in the past has instantly resulted in people thinking I am a lesbian. When my husband has used it, he's been deemed homosexual as well. I can't help the connotations people attach to terminology. I just happen to like to avoid confusion. I, in no way, have a problem with homosexuals or their choices. But thank you for reaffirming a societial sensitivity towards all things gay and lesbian. Equalities in sexuality freedom can always use that extra push.

Oh stop complaining - Lusty one - it is apparently the one thing you and "repressed" feminsits have in common. Don't just smear the free cake - let them eat it too - if they don't have low carb bread to chew on with your freedom fries...

Well said lustiest one. Being in possession of a mortgage, a child and a partner(he being of the opposite gender). I understand were you are coming from and we too are planning to marry. I like what you said about mommy being the odd name out, I would like us all to have the same last name and I hate feeling like I have to hide or rationalize that fact. I'm not doing it to feel "complete" (or whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) I'm doing it because we are a family and (here we go back to labels) we want our name(read label) to reflect that fact to the world.

shirin - let he/she who has never complained cast the first cease and desist order. Charlotte, I am glad to know I am not the only one in this boat. Labels aren't always a bad thing when they reflect decided accuracy.

"labels aren't always a bad thing when they reflect decided accuracy." I guess it doesn't help being permamently mislabeled - as those "militant feminist bitches" are so erronously identified by someone who obviously has issues. I've never seen any of the canine species being particularly militant - that is a domain ruled by humans with all their ridiculous labels that they wear with honour and disgrace - either way, they wear their labels subjectively. I am husband, I am wife, I am a subordinate, I am only ordinate, I want independence, I want your name, I have no identity, I hate your identity - you are a bitch. Accuracy? depends on the crudity of your measuring stick. you can be a mother without being a stripper, a beggar, or a hooker. whether you want to is another question. don't sign the pre-nup.

Oh hell, let's call up some Sharia law to go with that traditional marriage.

i.e. "let's call up some Sharia law to go with that traditional marriage..." - I actually determined if he spoke in sarcasm or earnest. Before enlightenment had hit the british and their empire - apparently: "Sharia (Islamic) law states that after marriage, a woman keeps the money and property she owns. This was a startling concept when Islam introduced it 1400 years ago - until the 19th century, women could not even own property in the UK! It belonged either to her male relatives or to her husband." - I also learned that forced marriage was prohibited (as was common during the time the law was written up - and still practised in some parts of the indian subcontinent). It is, however, the husband's "duty" to provide for the family - with the wife's contribution being voluntary - and he has to provide her enough to live on in the event of a divorce. I got all this info from the BBC website when moved out of curiosity how bad compared to "traditional" marriage the sharia take could be. apparently, for some it could be a step up....

The word "feminist" can be used by anyone, I suppose. I've even heard guys call themselves "feminist men"....trendy labels seem to be worn on more than clothes. I'm a feminist. I'm a mom. I'm a grandma. I'm a great-grandma. I'm a dyke. I'm a writer. I'm a dog owner. I'm in environmental nut. I'm a socialist. I'm anti-corporate growth. I've got a ton of labels hanging off me. None of them tell "all" of who I am , who I want to be, or who I see myself as being. I really don't care what you do with your cake although I do think you should, as suggested, share it with those who will never have the chance otherwise to taste cake. My concern is for those hundreds and thousands of children, male and female (and some transgendered) who get no choice in this purported democracy, children who are beaten, raped, exploited and brainwashed into accepting standards and labels which can do nothing but restrict their lives and deny them choice. If you have issues with feminists well that's like your cake, it's your problem, not mine. I don't want to be "wife" because of the centuries of cultural connotation which hang off the term. I wouldn't want to be "husband" for the same reason. I think all partnerships should be as equal as possible. I think that both parents should contribute in every way including financial to the support and upbringing of their kids and i do NOT think divorce should mean the wife just automatically gets a lifetime of free money, no reason she can't go get a job and pay her own way. Of course that presupposes equal division of assets...and I know we are years and legislation and court judgements and public awareness away from that type of equality so as a feminist dyke etc., etc., I work for that. I don't think the male should be the sole wage earner. I do think SMALL children do better with an at-home full time mom but IF we had decent daycare, pre-school, etc., mom could go back to work and both partners could share the work........but I know it's going to take real work to get us there and I also know it is the feminists who will be in the front lines. Saying that doesn't mean I think we'll be out there all by ourselves. But we'll be there the way we were there (unrecognized until recently) building the union movement and gaining the choices young women today have (which were not choices available in the 50's). Hope you'll all be there with us.

Please note I never said I had an issue with feminists. I take issue with repressive feminism. I hope when building momemtum and gaining choices it's at least put out that sometimes making free choices aren't always the most popular choices (ie: the metaphorical smearing cake comment above), even when the underlying principle preached is fully embodied. People in general, maybe women a little moreso than some, need to realise the scope of choice. Wanting to be someone's wife, doesn't make me or anyone else, less free or empowered.

I don't care if you get married or not. I thought that had been established. I did object to the tone of your lesbian remark, it implied there is something less than acceptable about that choice. In my experience those who WHINE are not feminists, they're whiners. Sitting around snivelling about being "exploited" or "marginalized" or whatever other catch phrase doesn't make a person a "feminist", it makes them a sniveller. The feminists of my experience have been far too busy to whine or snivel, and have little time or use for those who do. We've been busy fighting to keep the unions from being busted, working for gender equity in all aspects of employment including promotion, working to get more women involved in the political process, working to get more women in decision making positions in TV. radio, and all other aspects of media, working for good affordable day care for those kids you plan on having, working to keep the schools a place where a kid can learn, working to stop the erosion of the social safety net, working to keep libraries free and open...we don't have time to complain about the whatzit of the whozit or the this of the that. In the fifties, when we started to stand up and say "no more" the choice you have enjoyed, to live common law, would have brought you nothing but grief. You could have lost your job. You could have been denied housing. The word "bastard" appeared on birth certificates...and it was us damned feminist bitches who got that changed and made your choice available and perceivable to you. We're not asking for gratitude, some people are too navel centered to be able to know or show gratitude. But just the occasional tad of respect for the incredible effort made by women who are proud to be feminists wouldn't be out of place. Feminism is not repressive. It is exactly the opposite of repressive. What IS repressive is the off-handed disrespect shown by too many who have cake they did not exactly win for themselves and who don't bother to find out how they got it or who helped them get it. And who do not always appear to be willing to share with those who do not even have bread.

You ROCK Anne. (I just got back from a week on Vancouver Island, did the Cape Scott trek with my dog and a friend- sweet! Thought of you and if we'd had time would have swung through Tahsis- next time! So yeah anyway, I'm back...) Cheryl!! Nice to see you here!! Cheryl, Coyote used to send me pacing and stomping and talking out loud in my suite here, tea in hand, hands shaking in anger,... but you know what, that's just Coyote. He's a family man. For him to understand women like us (hardly "careerist" and materialistic, aye? haha) who have NO desire to have children (but love hanging out with our friends' babies- sweet Caio!)...is not going to happen, I'm afraid. So now I read his comments and smile. I just turned 34, Coyote, and like Anne, am a writer, dog-lover, ardent environmentalist and nature lover, teacher, straight, childless, feminist, and I LIKE it that way. I'm not freaking out cause the "bio clock is ticking",.. please understand. That's just me.

Avicenna- my last name is hyphenated because of that very reason you state- women in pre-19 century UK not being able to own land. Everyone thinks my last name is a joining of my mum's and dad's. The name was hyphenated way back on my dad's side because there were no sons in one line and when the daughters married they would have lost the land (Irish landowners) and the property would have gone to male cousins. Instead it went under their husbands' name. Of course now there is no bloody land left....lucky me :)

There is a forum of us here apparently - steeling from FiMaxwell and Anne's loathsome labels: I am a writer, cat-lover, ardent environmentalist and nature lover, biker, reseacher, philosopher, straight, childless, feminist, and I LOVE it that way. And if the occassion ever arises that I want to share half my identity with another of equal measure - I may go the sharia way and simply say "I thee wed" thrice (divorce apparently is as simple) ;). But I will refrain from passing judgement as some have a tendency to do - and crudely belittle their beliefs based on my bias - or call them derogatory names in the pretext of trying to make a senseless point - since it obviously negates any validity to the perspective that needs to attack another to be made. As far as I know, bitches can breed but can do little else that is acknowledged in our society.

The pre-Christian Celtic goddess Ceridwen is accompanied by a swarm of red-eyed black hound bitches who move out across the land at night sniffing out those who need Ceridwen's powers...to be called a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch" was a compliment, an acknowledgement that you followed the old religion and resisted the forcable incursion of the Roman army and their pantheon of mediteranean gods...the Romans turned the terms into insults...after them the Christians continued to denigrate those who followed the pagan religion. Now the words have become something which has nothing at all to do with very much of anything. Similarly the word "man". The Isle of Man was where the women learned self-defence and martial arts...and "to fight like a Man" or to "die like a Man" was a compliment given by the Romans to the women who were often the officers who led the British resistance to invasion..."man" might well be one of the first terms women lost when it was co-opted and became what the males were called..instead of being called "wyr" (as in werewolf)... yes, Fiona, avicenna, and many others, we are bitches. And our sons are usually sons of bitches.

Anne... your knowledge is encyclopedic... far beyond the average bitch - you are the epitome of a bitch goddess, if I've ever seen one (which I haven't - upto this point, that is).

Here's some Sharia -- as it's practiced:

http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2004/07/10/carme n/

Who's calling names?

Oh right, missed the mud-fight.

It's so ingrained in me that the longing for a traditional marriage comes out of insecurity in the partner that it's really hard for me to shake it off and see it as something else. Traditional French Canadian families make such a big deal out of weddings -- agriplex events. I don't even go to them anymore. Too much melodrama. I see a lot of young people using their marriages as a means of retreating from the world into a zone of comfort and safety. I think having a partner should always expand me beyond my-small-self, but I think most partnerships fall apart when that moment, that real expansion of the self comes forward. Does anyone know what I'm babbling on about? The morning you wake up and not recognize the person you have been living with anymore? Here 'we' have grown up together and never noticed the changes happening. That's when the real marriage begins. Just my thought...

I think the struggle with "modern" society and "traditional" marriage is the gap between what the original pact solidified historically - and what it means today. Men and women actually needed one another because their roles were complimentary - one was the domestic diva and the other was the "bread winner". Often this arrangement of life partners was arranged as a matter of convenience - and marriage in itself signified that the 2 people were now viewed as one identity - usually she gave up hers to become a part of his "property" because it was the financial contribution of each that determined who was the owner and who was the owned. The fact that "she" often came with a dowry further establishes the fact it was a financial and practical arrangement. The attraction part helped when it came to bearing children - and the marriage contract further cemented the obligation of the father to his family. Today men and women compete for the same roles in life - they are both equally competent in the money-earning domain and the sharing of one identity between two very strong and individual personalities becomes a very difficult compromise that many end up determining is not worth making. Marriages are very symbolic as Ragamuffing mentioned - but the question of whether what is symbolized is held as an ideal anymore is a more tenacious topic.

Tenacious for some. Perhaps the movement away from marriages in any form is more an external reflection of internal fragmentation. I've never thought of partnerships in terms of money-earnings or roles -- in my generation (X), that stuff had been blown wide apart. The concepts of fidelity and loyalty and cherishing another (man, woman -- whatever appeals to one's essential nature) have a wholesomeness and kindness that I find very attractive. Marriage exists as something to which one gives. Who considers going into a marriage just to 'take'? Maybe that's part of the old model.

Ragamuffing is right on the mark and represents a new Romantic belief where marriage, thank God, is finally freed from economics and you marry as a committment to what you feel in your heart, quite beautifully expressed by Ragamuffing, I might add. Romanticism in it's rebellion and rejection of the order, calm and control of classicism was all about individuality , spontaneity, imagination, vision and the transcendental. Ironically, Robertson's defense of common-law living becomes a classic and traditionally conservative position of her own making as she seems hell-bent on externally labelling herself and by these constant comparisons she winds up, in the end, not very happy with her lot in life. Being honest enough to do what is true to yourself and forgetting what others think would be a more radical and, yes, romantic step.

I just think that most of our culture - literature, movies etc. end at the "falling in love" stage, which is great in itself, but is far from the real story. And it misses the really interesting part. Whether between man and woman, between two women, between two men or between two friends, the tricky part is loving someone through time, and where time takes our lives. But worth the try, I think.

Both Lynn and the Ruff romantic highlight why it is difficult for couples today to stay together in the long-run (I believe the latest stats on a lasting for the long-haul is at 50% or below). My previous comment about the economic and familial ties that held 2 people together out of necessity in the bygone era of "ever-after" (happy or not) are simply not a large a factor in keeping two together through sickness and in health. Love (before and after the romantic stage) has to be enduring for the marriages (or coupledom) to last the lifetime - and since we have become the cultural embodiment of fickleness - marriages are essentially a short-term situation until differing life goals separate the duo. I am a gen-x-er too - and also value committment, fidelity, loyalty - and unconditional acceptance - but I'm cynical enough to see that I may be waiting a while before such characteristics make themselves available in a kindred spirit, as Anne of green gables would say.

avicenna, you're one up on me with the unconditional acceptance thing. Watching our neighbours to the south crater under the greed, folly and callous disregard for life of their business leaders, I've been asking myself a lot lately exactly where I would draw the line. It sure isn't unconditional.

Robertson clearly thinks very little of the trophy wife. She's using words like 'cheesy' and 'obnoxious' to describe something cultural that I hadn't even noticed (and have a hard time rousing any interest about). In fact, it sounds like she's lumped the bunch in with the Bush fanatic-christian-rightwing-nutjob shebang -- and calls them whores to boot, which come to think of it, they are in a state-sanctioned sort of fashion. But lynn, I've always sympathized with the romantics.

Right now, I'm more concerned about the prospect of civil war Stateside if Bush gets back in.

Avicenna, "commitment, loyalty, unconditional acceptance"? You need a dog :)

Fi - I'm a cat person - that's why ain't married ;)

Wow. I haven't been Tyeeing lately (too busy being one of those independent modern "new" women, I guess). Great to see such interesting and insightful commentary by all the avid readers (whose names I know and mostly hold in high regard, hiya girls!)

Is this a female forum? Only coyote has commented from a male perspective. My wife and I just had our 58th Anny. Back then you married for life and common law was unheard of. No it hasn't been all roses, but you learn to live with the odd thorn. A few granchildren (no greats yet)really make it worthwhile.