Romantic commitments and marriages

[ruby sparks]

Personally, I'm not much in favour of giving people financial incentives to either get married or to have children, although my country, like most western developed countries does do both (and I have in fact benefitted from both, as a husband and a father).

That said, I do at least understand the given reasons, and child wellbeing is apparently the biggie.

Yeah. It is similar to how a country can give tax breaks and other incentives to people who defend the country by serving in the military. If a person comes along and wants to claim those breaks, but they have never served in the military, it makes no sense to give them those incentives. Defeats the purpose, in the first place. If somehow they did receive the incentives, but others said "Hey, that's not fair. You never earned them since you did not serve." they would be right. It is not that the person is being denied the right to those incentives, they just cannot claim them if they have not earned them.

A married person getting a tax break without having children is sort of more like someone getting a tax break for having served in the military but not actually done certain things which go along with that, such as for instance firing their gun (excuse accidental metaphor for male ejaculation). Because the idea at least is that just by marrying, people are 'serving their country'. That is the traditionally-held idea at least, and there is some evidence to suggest that it works (that societies are more stable if more people pair up formally and make commitments to each other) but I am not sure how strong the evidence is nowadays, given the erosion of the institution of monogamous marriage.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Personally, I'm not much in favour of giving people financial incentives to either get married or to have children, although my country, like most western developed countries does do both (and I have in fact benefitted from both, as a husband and a father).

That said, I do at least understand the given reasons, and child wellbeing is apparently the biggie.

Yeah. It is similar to how a country can give tax breaks and other incentives to people who defend the country by serving in the military. If a person comes along and wants to claim those breaks, but they have never served in the military, it makes no sense to give them those incentives. Defeats the purpose, in the first place. If somehow they did receive the incentives, but others said "Hey, that's not fair. You never earned them since you did not serve." they would be right. It is not that the person is being denied the right to those incentives, they just cannot claim them if they have not earned them.

A married person getting a tax break without having children is sort of more like someone getting a tax break for having served in the military but not actually done certain things which go along with that, such as for instance firing their gun (excuse accidental metaphor for male ejaculation). Because the idea at least is that just by marrying, people are 'serving your country'. That is the traditionally-held idea at least, and there is some evidence to suggest that it works (that societies are more stable if more people pair up formally and make commitments to each other) but I am not sure how strong the evidence is nowadays, given the erosion of the institution of monogamous marriage.

It's weird that tax breaks are given to married people and not to people who are boyfriend and girlfriend. There's no real difference.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's weird that tax breaks are given to married people and not to people who are boyfriend and girlfriend. There's no real difference.

I mostly agree. Though the idea at least is that 'actual, formal' marriage still, even today, generally, for most people, involves the making of a commitment which boyfriend/girlfriend generally does not, and it is that commitment which is seen as the potential stabilising feature. And governments (and societies) want and will try to encourage stable societies. To stretch the military analogy, it's as if the best way to defend your country is to join the recognised army, not just buy a gun.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's weird that tax breaks are given to married people and not to people who are boyfriend and girlfriend. There's no real difference.

I mostly agree. Though the idea at least is that 'actual, formal' marriage still, even today, generally, for most people, involves the making of a commitment which boyfriend/girlfriend generally does not, and it is that commitment which is seen as the potential stabilising feature. And governments (and societies) want and will try to encourage stable societies. To stretch the military analogy, it's as if the best way to defend your country is to join the recognised army, not just buy a gun.

But you're mixing metaphors. When we talk about social stability we're talking about stuff like the economy. Not peoples personal relationships. By encouraging people staying in marriages, or getting into marriages, we're just encouraging staying in relationships longer than they should. I think there's only losers in that kind of an arrangement. Nothing the government should be getting involved in. Personally, I think the focus should be on the children, not what couples people are in.

 

[Brian63]

The orderly and well established transfer of wealth and assets as well as the established norms for providing care for one’s spouse and assets when the spouse becomes too ill or injured or just too old to manage for ones’ self provides tremendous benefit to society as well as significant cost savings. Married people tend to be more stable and more productive—also a benefit to society.

If that were the case and our goal was stability and productivity, then let's incentivize the stability and productivity specifically---not the marriage in general. That would be the more precise target. People who produce more output on their job or contribute more time/money to charitable causes would get government tax incentives for doing so, regardless of their marital and relationship status in their private, personal lives.

Siblings can go through separate established legal channels to name one another heir, power of attorney, etc. there are not likely to be so many such sibling pairs as to bog down the court and legal system.

I still do not understand why siblings would need to go through separate channels, rather than the same channels as non-siblings would. If a brother and sister who want to declare each other as power-of-attorney, they want to receive each other's pensions and benefits, they want to pay lower income taxes, etc. (all the while not being romantic at all), why should they need to use a different legal channel than 2 non-siblings (regardless of any romantic affection for each other) would who have the exact same financial goals in mind?

 

[Brian63]

It's weird that tax breaks are given to married people and not to people who are boyfriend and girlfriend. There's no real difference.

I mostly agree. Though the idea at least is that 'actual, formal' marriage still, even today, generally, for most people, involves the making of a commitment which boyfriend/girlfriend generally does not, and it is that commitment which is seen as the potential stabilising feature. And governments (and societies) want and will try to encourage stable societies. To stretch the military analogy, it's as if the best way to defend your country is to join the recognised army, not just buy a gun.

But you're mixing metaphors. When we talk about social stability we're talking about stuff like the economy. Not peoples personal relationships. By encouraging people staying in marriages, or getting into marriages, we're just encouraging staying in relationships longer than they should. I think there's only losers in that kind of an arrangement. Nothing the government should be getting involved in. Personally, I think the focus should be on the children, not what couples people are in.

Well DrZoidberg, we certainly have had our sparring matches elsewhere on this forum, but I will state that I largely agree with your take on this issue. Some common ground found? Whoa.

 

[ruby sparks]

The orderly and well established transfer of wealth and assets as well as the established norms for providing care for one’s spouse and assets when the spouse becomes too ill or injured or just too old to manage for ones’ self provides tremendous benefit to society as well as significant cost savings. Married people tend to be more stable and more productive—also a benefit to society.

If that were the case and our goal was stability and productivity, then let's incentivize the stability and productivity specifically---not the marriage in general. That would be the more precise target. People who produce more output on their job or contribute more time/money to charitable causes would get government tax incentives for doing so, regardless of their marital and relationship status in their private, personal lives.

Siblings can go through separate established legal channels to name one another heir, power of attorney, etc. there are not likely to be so many such sibling pairs as to bog down the court and legal system.

I still do not understand why siblings would need to go through separate channels, rather than the same channels as non-siblings would. If a brother and sister who want to declare each other as power-of-attorney, they want to receive each other's pensions and benefits, they want to pay lower income taxes, etc. (all the while not being romantic at all), why should they need to use a different legal channel than 2 non-siblings (regardless of any romantic affection for each other) would who have the exact same financial goals in mind?

There may be something informing or underlying this which has to do with culture and society and values. It is not that western europeans are less selfish than Americans (they aren't) but it may be that they are merely more used to living in a less individualistic societal paradigm, so they are slightly more ok with policies which may generally be beneficial, and even to some extent if this is perceived or believed to be the case rather than necessarily real and tangible, even if not beneficial to them personally or directly. I think it would be fair to say that the idea and the word 'society' still has more currency on this side of the Atlantic than on yours, even allowing for the 'Americanisation' that has taken place in for example Britain in particular during my lifetime, and in this (OP) case the erosion and decline of the institution of marriage that has affected 'western' countries generally.

 

[Brian63]

But I would like to suggest that there are personal emotional benefits to a long-term relationship, not just financial.

I think that, all else being equal, both the potential costs and potential benefits would be amplified. If a couple stayed in a 35-years marriage that was miserable for them, they have unfortunately lost a lot of opportunity that they could have had if they ended it sooner.

I don't think that you can get to know someone in six months or a year. I would consider that the "infatuation" stage, where every little thing he/she does is magic.

Largely agreed. I was using exaggerated examples earlier to make the point clearer. Still I do think there is a similar "infatuation" with the idea of being married, and so people will likewise jump into marriage with a particular individual earlier than they should and before they realize the drastic consequences of that decision. We cannot know all the inner workings of any other person with 100% accuracy, as we cannot jump inside their mind (plus we are oblivious to our own inner workings to various degrees, plus we also all change over time too). So I do not see the rationale of making a commitment to marry another specific person and say you will never be romantically involved with any other person besides them for the remainder of your life, unless you would be in that "infatuation" stage of wanting to be married for the sake of being married. We can be in an extended relationship with them, without legally and psychologically binding ourselves to being in that relationship. As stated in the OP, on more romantic grounds, I would feel better about any relationship I was in and its purity if I knew she always had an easy route to leave, if she desired to. If she stayed then, it would more likely be because she simply did not desire to leave. She wanted to be with me, hence her being with me. It was not that the barriers to leaving were just too high.

 

[ruby sparks]

Anecdote: I myself dated my partner (now wife) for 7 years, most of that while living together, before we married, and we have now been married for 26 further years (and have two grown up children). I do not kid myself that either she is staying with me because she thinks I am anywhere near as wonderful as I seemed to be initially or that I am staying with her for that reason either. There are probably other people out there that would reinvigorate our love lives, partly because we wouldn't know them as well, and would not have gotten to know how annoying and selfish and so on they can be. So the glue that can hold people together is not necessarily romantic or loving glue. Sometimes it's just ordinary glue that has accumulated over time. Sometimes it's inertia glue. Sometimes it's fear of the unknown glue (would we be happier or not happier if we jumped ship now, after so long?). She's mostly not a bad old bat, although she's currently going through the wrong sort of menopause. And we've done couples counselling twice (two programs of it I mean) and needed to, and things still aren't hunky-dory. But for some inexplicable reason I would rather stick than twist. And if you asked me if I still loved her I'd say yes, definitely. They say there are no normal people, only people you don't know very well.

 

[rousseau]

Anecdote: I myself dated my partner (now wife) for 7 years, most of that while living together, before we married, and we have now been married for 26 further years (and have two grown up children). I do not kid myself that either she is staying with me because she thinks I am anywhere near as wonderful as I seemed to be initially or that I am staying with her for that reason either. There are probably other people out there that would reinvigorate our love lives, partly because we wouldn't know them as well, and would not have gotten to know how annoying and selfish and so on they can be. So the glue that can hold people together is not necessarily romantic or loving glue. Sometimes it's just ordinary glue that has accumulated over time. Sometimes it's inertia glue. Sometimes it's fear of the unknown glue (would we be happier or not happier if we jumped ship now, after so long?). She's mostly not a bad old bat, although she's currently going through the wrong sort of menopause. And we've done couples counselling twice (two programs of it I mean) and needed to, and things still aren't hunky-dory. But for some inexplicable reason I would rather stick than twist. And if you asked me if I still loved her I'd say yes, definitely. They say there are no normal people, only people you don't know very well.

"Relationships are like bank accounts, you can't take out more than you put in"

I'd assume you guys have some benefit together that can't be had otherwise?

 

[ruby sparks]

I'd assume you guys have some benefit together that can't be had otherwise?

Possibly. I mean, it feels like it, but I (we) don't really know. Long term relationships can develop a patina of familiarity. Splitting up has come up on the agenda more than once in recent years. Maybe it'll happen. Dunno. I don't tend to think there's 'more' out there. What there might be is a chance for a rerun of the va va voom early years. But I sorta doubt that if I'd been hitched to anyone for this length of time, that it'd be any better. So maybe one's expectations decline. Which imo is not necessarily a bad thing, since it's not necessarily good to expect too much from life, from yourself or from others. I don't know if that sounds wise or cynical and jaded. Lol. It's probably a mixture. I personally would not complain about my lot. I'm not ruling out a mild version of Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Brian63]

Would you consider the option of not splitting up and making that the terminal arrangement forever, but just instead taking a temporary break? Live separately for a year or so. When I was in the dating scene I found myself getting tired of either being in a relationship, or seeking to be in a relationship. At some point just decided to take a break from dating and try being single for awhile. Recollect myself and find out who I am, what I want, and where I wanted to go. Found out that I prefer being single over being in a relationship. Others can come to the same conclusion, but then later change their opinions and seek being in a relationship again. That has certainly happened to me plenty of times.

I am not recommending that, just to not feel obligated (aka committed) to being in a relationship out of a sense of entrenchment or feeling dependent on that specific partner for your happiness.

 

[rousseau]

I'd assume you guys have some benefit together that can't be had otherwise?

Possibly. I mean, it feels like it, but I (we) don't really know. Splitting up has come up on the agenda more than once in recent years. Maybe it'll happen. Dunno. I don't tend to think there's 'more' out there. What there might be is a chance for a rerun of the early years. But I sorta doubt that if I'd been hitched to anyone for this length of time, that it'd be any better. So maybe one's expectations decline. Which imo is not necessarily a bad thing, since it's not necessarily good to expect too much from life, from yourself or from others. I don't know if that sounds wise or cynical and jaded. Lol. It's probably a mixture. I personally would not complain about my lot.

After a while you may just get inertia behind a relationship. The status quo is better than the alternative.

I think the health of a relationship can also depend on some degree of emotional maturity too. For instance, I look at my parents and don't see a lot of love there, and what I think it comes down to is that my dad is selfish, and not aware that he's selfish. Overall the relationship is good for my mom, but in practice my dad is a net negative in terms of emotional support. He's supportive financially, but in no other arena. The relationship is there, but the love isn't.

That's something I've picked up on in my relationship. Love isn't something you say or feel, it's something you do. You need to inconvenience yourself for your partner, genuinely help them, genuinely listen, genuinely support them, and not just when it's convenient for you. If you don't do these things it becomes pretty apparent, pretty quickly that you don't actually give a shit, and intimacy falls apart.

 

[ruby sparks]

Would you consider the option of not splitting up and making that the terminal arrangement forever, but just instead taking a temporary break? Live separately for a year or so. When I was in the dating scene I found myself getting tired of either being in a relationship, or trying to be in a relationship. At some point just decided to take a break from dating and try being single for awhile. Recollect myself and find out where I want to go. Found out that I prefer being single over being in a relationship.

I am not recommending that, just to not feel obligated (aka committed) to being in a relationship out of a sense of entrenchment or not knowing how to live life without that specific partner.

We've discussed various options, including that one. In fact, if we had been able to sell the family home (it's far too big now that the kids have broadly-speaking left) last year, we'd probably be living in separate houses now. Though not necessarily having separate lives and not getting divorced, at least not until we see how we feel. That was one idea, and it may yet happen (if the house market improves next year if Brexit is more sorted). She pines for the seaside and a rural setting, and I want to go back to the city.

I'm probably the one who's been trying to hold on to the marriage more than her. Both couples' counselling outings were at my behest. Etc.

As to whether I'd be happier single, yes, it is a possibility, and part of my inclination to think otherwise might just be crooked thinking or pessimism. Same goes for my wife.

But, getting away from me personally necessarily, I do agree with you when you say that two people should be free to go if they want to. In fact nowadays being married doesn't add many obstacles to that option.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'd assume you guys have some benefit together that can't be had otherwise?

Possibly. I mean, it feels like it, but I (we) don't really know. Splitting up has come up on the agenda more than once in recent years. Maybe it'll happen. Dunno. I don't tend to think there's 'more' out there. What there might be is a chance for a rerun of the early years. But I sorta doubt that if I'd been hitched to anyone for this length of time, that it'd be any better. So maybe one's expectations decline. Which imo is not necessarily a bad thing, since it's not necessarily good to expect too much from life, from yourself or from others. I don't know if that sounds wise or cynical and jaded. Lol. It's probably a mixture. I personally would not complain about my lot.

After a while you may just get inertia behind a relationship. The status quo is better than the alternative.

I think the health of a relationship can also depend on some degree of emotional maturity too. For instance, I look at my parents and don't see a lot of love there, and what I think it comes down to is that my dad is selfish, and not aware that he's selfish. Overall the relationship is good for my mom, but in practice my dad is a net negative in terms of emotional support. He's supportive financially, but in no other arena. The relationship is there, but the love isn't.

That's something I've picked up on in my relationship. Love isn't something you say or feel, it's something you do. You need to inconvenience yourself for your partner, genuinely help them, genuinely listen, genuinely support them, and not just when it's convenient for you. If you don't do these things it becomes pretty apparent, pretty quickly that you don't actually give a shit, and intimacy falls apart.

That situation that you see (from your pov) in your parents' marriage is both really common and yet probably subtly individual to them.

Intimacy can fall apart for the reason you suggest, and for a lot of other reasons. On the long road there are many bumps and potholes than can throw the marriage carriage off, or cause it to separate into two. Sometimes, you don't realise that it's become two carriages, drifting in very subtly different directions, until long after the pothole.

Kids leaving home and the 'empty nest' predicament is a classic example of this. A lot of couples don't realise that the glue holding them together was offspring/parenting glue, until it's melted away.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'll tell you a weird thing. About a year and a half ago, we had agreed to split. Her decision. I reluctantly agreed (and was a bit devastated). But, we couldn't sell the house. Anyhows, not long after, she went ballistic when she found I had gone onto dating sites. Go figure. Lol.

 

[rousseau]

After a while you may just get inertia behind a relationship. The status quo is better than the alternative.

I think the health of a relationship can also depend on some degree of emotional maturity too. For instance, I look at my parents and don't see a lot of love there, and what I think it comes down to is that my dad is selfish, and not aware that he's selfish. Overall the relationship is good for my mom, but in practice my dad is a net negative in terms of emotional support. He's supportive financially, but in no other arena. The relationship is there, but the love isn't.

That's something I've picked up on in my relationship. Love isn't something you say or feel, it's something you do. You need to inconvenience yourself for your partner, genuinely help them, genuinely listen, genuinely support them, and not just when it's convenient for you. If you don't do these things it becomes pretty apparent, pretty quickly that you don't actually give a shit, and intimacy falls apart.

That situation that you see (from your pov) in your parents' marriage is both really common and yet probably subtly individual to them.

Intimacy can fall apart for the reason you suggest, and for a lot of other reasons. On the long road there are many bumps and potholes than can throw the marriage carriage off, or cause it to separate into two. Sometimes, you don't realise that it's become two carriages, drifting in very subtly different directions, until long after the pothole.

Kids leaving home and the 'empty nest' predicament is a classic example of this. A lot of couples don't realise that the glue holding them together was offspring/parenting glue, until it's melted away.

Yea I tend to think that supportive, truly happy relationships aren't really that common. Biology has no need for affection, just that offspring are raised into adulthood. People spend their twenties trying tirelessly to get laid, and eventually marriage/children just happen. Whatever happens after that is an insignificant detail.

Mostly, I think the problem comes down to self awareness and communication. If you don't understand the ways your partner quietly resents you, and they have no way to communicate it to you then.. ? So often you get two partners together, doing dumb shit they don't even realize they're doing, and once the relationship becomes too inconvenient it just falls apart.

 

[southernhybrid]

While I fully realize and understand that there are people who aren't monogamous or who don't like long term relationships, I'm not one of those people. While my first marriage at age 20 turned out to be an unhappy one, there were a lot of reasons for that, including that I was too young and naive to understand that we weren't very compatible. So, since we had no wealth, it was very easy to divorce after nine years. We probably would have ended it sooner but we had a child who was only 8 when we parted ways.

My current marriage has lasted almost forty years and we are still madly in love with each other. While my husband was a fantastic step dad, we decided not to have any children ourselves. We still have a fantastic sex life, which not everyone does at our age. I think of it like two dance partners that have learned the right steps and with each passing year the performance gets better. But, I do know people in sexless marriages that seem happy. Friendship is the most important thing in a successful marriage. We are best friends as well as lovers, so we have a lot going for us. We are both atheists, both dog lovers, both home bodies who no longer enjoy travel, both liberals politically, both New York Times and Washington Post junkies who love to discuss politics all day long. Plus, while my ex wasn't at all affectionate, my current husband is very affectionate, which is something that I love. We have so much in common that I can't imagine finding someone more compatible. We can argue without holding a grudge. Now that we are both retired, we spend most of our time together and we're never bored.

As far as married people sometimes having financial advantages, I look at it this way. Women usually make less money than men do in the work place, and since men usually die before their wives, why shouldn't the wife be given the husband's SS, if it's higher that her SS? Women usually are the primary caretakers of the children, even in this day and age. Some women give up their careers to raise children, as do a small percentage of men. Not everything in life is fair.

There are often societal benefits to being partnered. When I worked as a home health nurse, there were countless times when one spouse was taking care of the other one. While this was usually a woman taking care of a man, one of my favorite memories is of a man taking care of his totally dependent wife, who suffered from late term dementia. He fed her, bathed her, and talked lovingly to her. He married her when they were teenagers and her father threw her out of the house and he rescued her. They were poor country folks, but he never complained. We provided an aide three times a week to give him help with the bathing. If it were not for the things that older partners do for each other, a lot more of them would end up in nursing homes, usually paid for by Medicaid. Loneliness is very common among older single adults. Being partnered usually prevents loneliness.

Married people don't usually use as many resources as single people who live alone. For example, my neighbor is in her 70s, and is divorced. Her home is almost as large as our home, but she's probably using almost as much electricity and gas heat for her home as we do. I'm only mentioning this because I got the impression that some of you think that married people get a lot of special benefits. I think it all averages out, when you consider all of the things that partners do for each other, that often helps lower the cost of caring for the elderly or the disabled, since a loving partner will do the care without any financial gain.

Statistically people in long term marriages tend to be healthier, happier and have longer life expectancies. There are many positives about being married, but of course no one should ever feel as if they must marry. I just think that people should be honest with anyone they become romantically or sexually involved with. If you like having several partners, then tell each new partner that. We are all different, but we should all be honest with each other.

The only disadvantage for people like me is dealing with the death of a long term partner, or the possibility of being unable to care for my spouse if he should become disabled. But, life is full of sadness and disappointments, as well as joy and happiness, so the loss of a partner is just one more thing that the survivor will have to eventually face. We know that when we commit to a partner. And, sometimes, death of a partner is both sad as well as a relief since it's common for one partner to become dependent or confused while the other is still active and healthy. Some amazing people, like the man I mentioned earlier, cope well with these difficult situations, while others simply fall apart. Such is life.

 

[Toni]

After a while you may just get inertia behind a relationship. The status quo is better than the alternative.

I think the health of a relationship can also depend on some degree of emotional maturity too. For instance, I look at my parents and don't see a lot of love there, and what I think it comes down to is that my dad is selfish, and not aware that he's selfish. Overall the relationship is good for my mom, but in practice my dad is a net negative in terms of emotional support. He's supportive financially, but in no other arena. The relationship is there, but the love isn't.

That's something I've picked up on in my relationship. Love isn't something you say or feel, it's something you do. You need to inconvenience yourself for your partner, genuinely help them, genuinely listen, genuinely support them, and not just when it's convenient for you. If you don't do these things it becomes pretty apparent, pretty quickly that you don't actually give a shit, and intimacy falls apart.

That situation that you see (from your pov) in your parents' marriage is both really common and yet probably subtly individual to them.

Intimacy can fall apart for the reason you suggest, and for a lot of other reasons. On the long road there are many bumps and potholes than can throw the marriage carriage off, or cause it to separate into two. Sometimes, you don't realise that it's become two carriages, drifting in very subtly different directions, until long after the pothole.

Kids leaving home and the 'empty nest' predicament is a classic example of this. A lot of couples don't realise that the glue holding them together was offspring/parenting glue, until it's melted away.

I think that's a stereotype that is given more weight than most people think.

Speaking for ourselves, on our first night at home with all of the kids officially out of the house (at least for that time being): we ate bad junk food and sat on the couch, watching tv while we ate, laughing at the indulgence of it--we would NEVER have allowed this when even our college aged kids were home for holidays.

Being on your own together for the first time in a couple of decades or more does mean a shift in the relationship. For us, it was more gradual as we had kids living locally with varying schedules so we never knew when someone would just pop in. So, spontaneous sex in the middle of the living room was not necessarily immediately on the menu. Although we were cognizant that if we DID just happen to be surprised by a newly minted adult stopping by to raid the fridge or say hello, we would very quickly no longer have to worry about what would happen if the kids caught us--we valued having the kids stop by unannounced so we practiced restraint.

Right now, our constraints are more centered around our elderly dog. Even stay at home hubby is talking about spontaneous trips when we are also canine free....

I will admit that we've adopted a bigger habit of having the tv on than I think we should, tho.

 

[Toni]

Would you consider the option of not splitting up and making that the terminal arrangement forever, but just instead taking a temporary break? Live separately for a year or so. When I was in the dating scene I found myself getting tired of either being in a relationship, or trying to be in a relationship. At some point just decided to take a break from dating and try being single for awhile. Recollect myself and find out where I want to go. Found out that I prefer being single over being in a relationship.

I am not recommending that, just to not feel obligated (aka committed) to being in a relationship out of a sense of entrenchment or not knowing how to live life without that specific partner.

We've discussed various options, including that one. In fact, if we had been able to sell the family home (it's far too big now that the kids have broadly-speaking left) last year, we'd probably be living in separate houses now. Though not necessarily having separate lives and not getting divorced, at least not until we see how we feel. That was one idea, and it may yet happen (if the house market improves next year if Brexit is more sorted). She pines for the seaside and a rural setting, and I want to go back to the city.

I'm probably the one who's been trying to hold on to the marriage more than her. Both couples' counselling outings were at my behest. Etc.

As to whether I'd be happier single, yes, it is a possibility, and part of my inclination to think otherwise might just be crooked thinking or pessimism. Same goes for my wife.

But, getting away from me personally necessarily, I do agree with you when you say that two people should be free to go if they want to. In fact nowadays being married doesn't add many obstacles to that option.

It is hard. If I had my way (and money enough to make it happen), I would definitely like a small lakeside home, with room to do a little gardening and no neighbors close by--but close enough to run for groceries or to stop for cups of coffee, etc. I like my alone time but I also need my social time. Hubby, on the other hand, would rather stay put or move into a more urban area. Just thinking about living in a city during warm weather months makes me feel so claustrophobic I can barely write about it. It's not the people: it's the concrete and the noise. I think the people are a bonus as long as I don't have to share a roadway with them. Should we ever strike it rich, though, I think that we could manage to have both: a city home and a lake home. I'm sure I'd spend more time at the lake than he would but that would work, as well. I like having him about but I am not afraid to be on my own for stretches of time, either.

What I am hoping to do is to be able to rent a place at the lake for longer term--at month, at least, summers. He can come when he wants, and go back home when he's done with country life. For myself: I love looking at the water, and I love the forested landscape and small towns as well.

Maybe something like that would be possible for you and your wife: splitting time between city and country?