The whole thing makes me feel very old-fashioned because I still believe in romance and lifelong commitment. Am I fooling myself? Haag suggests creating new definitions of marriage and finding new ways to fill in what might be missing in our relationships. Not getting enough/any sex? Take a lover. Feeling lonely. Make a connection online. Still love each other but can't live together? Take adjoining rooms or neighboring houses. Haag doesn't necessarily endorse these things but notes that marriage is changing.
We were talking last week about how sometimes having children takes the romance out of a marriage. If we don't have children, the strong connection to our spouses should last longer, right? Or do the feelings still fade with our other responsibilities, such as work, taking care of the home, and caring for aging parents?
Now here's a crazy thought: If your spouse can't or won't have children with you, would it be okay to find somebody else to make babies with? Think of it as an extension of taking a lover. We're taking a baby-making partner while staying married to our non-parenting spouse. What do you think? Is this totally nuts?
P.S. Legally I have to tell you that the publisher gave me a free copy of Marriage Confidential to review. Make of that what you will.