Would you date/marry someone who doesn't like parks/roller coasters?

My first wife tolerated it, but she usually made a spectacle of herself when we went to the parks when ever she could. Eventually she started bitching that if it didn't have anything to do with the parks or railroading I wasn't interested in doing it. Which I replied "you knew that when you married me". Apparently she was one of those people who had the misguided idea that she could change me. I put up with the attitude for as long as I could (for my sons sake) but I eventually wound up divorcing her.

Wife number two (whom I have known on and off since the early 1970's) has much more in common with me than my first, including being a big park and coaster fan (she understands the railroad thing, having had railroaders in her family).

From my experience, the more similar interests between two persons, the more likely the relationship will survive long term.

I did make a big sacrifice for her recently. For her Christmas present, I got tickets to see George Strait in concert, which she really wanted to see. I am not a fan of his music. During the show, all I could think of was, "when is this going to be over?" But she enjoyed it and that's all that mattered. Of course, I did enjoy the female singers of Little Big Town, who opened for George! Really enjoyed those front-row seats! :)

A big sacrifice is putting a career on hiatus to raise children in the home while your partner pursues a life/career goal of his/her own.

Taking your wife to the concert of someone she loves whilst you wallow in emotional pain is simply not being an ass. ;)

It was country music. That's a big sacrifice in my book.

RCMAC said:

Theories:

1) Gay guys are a happy, happy lot and are naturally drawn toward the fun and excitement of the amusement park.

That's 'cause they don't have to deal with women in relationships and all the drama that surrounds that. Believe me, if I were gay instead of heterosexual, I would have a lot more money and a lot less drama.

Reading this forum reminds me how much I love being single.

All I'm learning from this thread is that the trend seems to be that Hetero enthusiasts suck at relationships.

If you're counting the sacrifices you make or putting silly crap ahead of your significant other or keeping score or whatever - you're doing it wrong.

Pete said:
Believe me, if I were gay instead of heterosexual, I would have a lot more money and a lot less drama.

I totally agree on the money part. For me its my kids rather than my wife (who is not a big spender -- other than on our kids).

Drama is more an issue of the choice of spouse, IMO. Sometimes my wife will tell me I am lucky because she isn't a big spender/rarely shops, doesn't make me do this, that or the other thing that someone else's wife does/makes her husband do, etc. My response is that if I had picked her name out of a hat, I would consider myself lucky. But I didn't.

I love marriage so much I did it twice!

Seriously though, I have to agree with Gonch. If you really see components of your relationship as sacrifice, I'm not sure you're doing it right. It's not like you have no idea what you're signing up for. Or maybe that's the problem.

I blame (for lack of a better term at the moment) - selfishness.

I think some people are just too selfish to be in a relationship. I don't mean that in a negative way as much as a matter-of-fact way.

If you worry about you and put your needs in front of others as a rule of thumb, then you're probably not cut out for the wife & kids path...and that's fine.

When I got married, "I" became "we" and when we had kids, "we" became "us" - my life doesn't revolve just around me and my needs anymore.

I think that's harder to adjust to the longer you wait. Which - given that we marry and have kids later than ever - is why I think we as a whole generally suck at this sort of thing more than we used to. The longer you only have you to worry about, the harder it gets to worry about others.

I'm of the belief that younger people make better parents. I also think younger people have better relationships (although, I suspect there's an argument for longevity or evolution changing things down the road...and I'm not sure how I feel about that).

I have no line to offer in summation of this post. Take it as a series of loosely related thoughts.

I disagree about age. My feeling is that the older you get, the better you understand what your partner has to be, and the better you are at understanding parenthood. I would have sucked at both when I was 25. It took a long time to learn that a warm body in bed with you wasn't enough to be someone you stayed with. Oh, lots of therapy helped, too.

To me the only thing that has changed is a culture that makes it ok to walk away from relationships, marriage, parent or otherwise.

Lord Gonchar said:

I think some people are just too selfish to be in a relationship. I don't mean that in a negative way as much as a matter-of-fact way.

I am a well adjusted 40-year old male who contributes more to society than he takes. When people find out I'm not married they always ask me why I'm still single and I have long answered "because I'm too selfish". I totally agree with this statement.

As far as the original question to this thread goes: when/if I do get married I don' think there would be any one interest that needed to be shared to make it successful for me. There'd obviously be a cutoff where I'd be like, "Ok, we don't have enough in common for this to work" but there wouldn't be one hobby that would be a deal breaker.

Lord Gonchar said:

I have no line to offer in summation of this post. Take it as a series of loosely related thoughts.

Gonch: This may become my signature in the near future... ;~P

Jeff said:

My feeling is that the older you get, the better you understand what your partner has to be...

I'll give you that. But I still think the longer you wait, the more likely the selfishness is to set in.

...and the better you are at understanding parenthood.

But I disagree with this entirely. Older parents think about it too much. The mindset of someone in their mid 20's is much more in tune with what a small child needs than the mindset of someone in their late 30's. And the mindset of someone in their early 40's much more in tune with what a teen needs. I've always felt that the growth curve is perfectly in sync.

I would be a much worse parent to a small child now than I was when my kids were little and I was in my 20's. And I suspect being a grandfather-aged parent to a teen isn't exactly the best situation either.

Raising kids is deceptively easy. I think older parents bring stuff to the table that complicates it.

I would have sucked at both when I was 25.

And I excelled at both at 25...which I suspect colors both of our individual opinions.

My unscientific observation is that kids suck more and people suck at relationships more because we're waiting too long to have both.

Lord Gonchar said:
And the mindset of someone in their early 40's much more in tune with what a teen needs.

You know I'm 40 and have a 4-year-old, right? Do you think I don't understand what he needs? If you don't think that, am I some sort of outlying exception to your rule?

I just can't accept that waiting to engage in serious relationships and/or procreation makes you less prepared. Almost anything in life you can do better when you have more data to draw from. Wanting to do right by your kid is not a symptom of over-thinking stuff, nor is it harder. I can say without question that I would likely crack under the pressure 15 years ago, but today I'm equipped to roll with it, even in the face of (fortunately mild) ASD.

Isn't it you who always makes the case that life experience is good to have when making arguments about education (or lack of)? I think the same applies to interpersonal skills.

Jeff said:

You know I'm 40 and have a 4-year-old, right?

Yes. Which is why I often try to tread delicately on the subject when discussion comes up.

And to just get it out of the way, I'm not saying you (or anyone in your situation) is a bad parent. Just that I feel like younger folks make better parents.

Do you think I don't understand what he needs?

Well, that's not exactly what I was saying. Obviously, someone who is 40 knows what a small child needs.

But I think where one is at life in their mid-20's is more aligned with things that are more beneficial to small children. Lack of the same commitments you have later in life, still having a sense of that innocence of youth, feeling like the future is less set and more wide open - almost like that lack of experience works to the advantage of the situation. I don't think the most important things we can offer a small child are the knowledge one has at 40 or the security in life one has amassed by age 40.

I just can't accept that waiting to engage in serious relationships and/or procreation makes you less prepared.

Again, not quite what I was saying.

Almost anything in life you can do better when you have more data to draw from.

So then the ideal parent is the oldest one? The one that has collected the most data? Let's watch a decrepit 100 year old chase a toddler around all day and see how that works out. There's wisdom and knowledge in those years, but the good-parent window has long since closed.

Isn't it you who always makes the case that life experience is good to have when making arguments about education (or lack of)? I think the same applies to interpersonal skills.

If anything, after years of discussion, you should know my stance is that sometimes the gut knows better than all of the data in the world. That formal training never beats good instinct. Add that to intengibles (like my 100 year old example) and it goes well beyond working with data. The situation just isn't that simple - "I know/have more so I'm better equipped."

It's not that easy.

And I do think it applies to interpersonal skills as well.

Another advantage of being a parent at a younger age is that you'll be that much younger when the kids are out of the house.

I think there is something of a goldilocks age for getting married and having kids. Too young and you may not have figured out who you are, where you are going, what you want out of life, etc. but will have commited yourself to people who may place limits on those decisions. Too old and you may find yourself too settled in your single ways or lacking the energy it takes to raise young kids.

That magic age though depends on the people. I have friends who got married/had kids at pretty much every age level and some succeeded at both and others totally failed at both.

As a general matter, I think there is a tendency to view what you did as the best approach. Even though there typically are no test cases (at least not when it comes to raising kids).

Lord Gonchar said:
Lack of the same commitments you have later in life, still having a sense of that innocence of youth, feeling like the future is less set and more wide open - almost like that lack of experience works to the advantage of the situation. I don't think the most important things we can offer a small child are the knowledge one has at 40 or the security in life one has amassed by age 40.

No, but nor do they go away with age. I think you must have had very different 20's than I did. Most 20-somethings I know, and indeed me at that age, were pretty sure we had everything figured out. We knew exactly what we were going to do when we grew up, and had it all planned. If age brought anything, it was the understanding that nothing ever goes as planned, change is inevitable, and we don't have all of the answers.

GoBucks89 said:
That magic age though depends on the people. I have friends who got married/had kids at pretty much every age level and some succeeded at both and others totally failed at both.

This. I see no correlation between parental success and age. Even siblings of the same parents can have radically different outcomes. My brother is an addict who lives with my mom. I'm not.

A wise old woman once told me that young people have babies when they do, whether it's the "best" idea or not, because they make the best parents. I questioned her about that, or what would be the difference, and she said that youngsters have the most energy, the strength, the stamina, and the mentality to deal with babies. She added that when it happens at an early age, parents and their kids kind of grow up together and they're closer in their respective time lines and that's not a bad thing. I think that kind of speaks to Gonch's opinion.

I also agree with Jeff, and recognize that wonderful parents exist at any age. As I approach 60 I realize that I've seen it all, with friends having kids in high school, college, young adulthood and middle age. The middle agers may be getting a second chance, or maybe just a late start, or maybe have an "oops". But they're no less thrilled and eager to raise their children than anyone else. A pitfall that I've observed might come later in the child's life as the generation gap, to use an old fashioned term, is pretty wide and seems to only get wider. Some older new parents that I've known seem to have what's 'right' already set in their mind and tend to be less flexible, not only in what they think their child should be doing, but in how others should interact with their child as well.

When I was in my 40's I was in a step-parent situation and helped raise 3 girls. I surprised myself with certain parenting skills, but at the same time had to occasionally stop myself from getting all impatient with the girls for not already knowing something, or not already doing things the way I did. Young parents, with less life experience and a more relaxed attitude may have a hidden advantage as far as that goes.