I Do - For Seven Years
Last week, Adam Gilbert wrote a post on marriage that drew a veritable firestorm of comments. With a whopping 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce these days, one does begin to wonder what purpose the marriage contract serves realistically in today’s society. I thought it would be an interesting subject to discuss with the BF, considering his background in anthropology and his profession in law. He brought up an interesting concept – a seven-year marriage contract.The man is brilliant, but not that brilliant. This is a concept that has been around for a while. That famous image of Marilyn Monroe standing over the subway grate holding her dress down – that’s from the “Seven Year Itch,” a movie about the phenomenon of married couples growing bored at the seven-year mark. Last September, a German politician suggested that the government actually allow a seven-year civil union contract, which drew international feather-ruffling.
I was immediately intrigued. Think of all the problems this could solve, I thought. For one thing, with 50 percent of all marriages ending in prolonged divorces, it sure would make things a lot less painful for both parties. For those of us entering into the marriage state believing that this will last, however, that probably isn’t the reason you would choose the seven-year contract.
I liked that it would be a reaffirmation of your commitment to one another. Every seven years you would ask yourself, “Is this still the right person for me?” Imagine how incredibly powerful that affirmation would be for the continued growth and life of your marriage.
I would love to see what the statistics would look like on the treatment you receive from your significant other around the six-year mark as well. I would guess that you might see your spouse become more attentive to you, knowing that the contract is up for renegotiation soon. Indeed, it’s one of my fears about marriage that after X number of years, you fall into such a comfort zone that you don’t really try anymore. I’ve watched couples grow inattentive, selfish, even downright mean as the years stretch on in a marriage. Somehow there’s a mindset (not always, but in these cases) that now that you’re married, it doesn’t really matter how polite you are to your significant other. After all, they’re committed. Having a contract would eliminate this, or give the offended party an out if it didn’t.
I like the idea that neither party is obligated to remain in the relationship. I know the outcry from the happily married community will be, “It’s not an obligation when you love the person!” But my fear would be that either party would feel obligated to remain in the marriage. After all, you’ve made a vow in front of your family, friends, deity of your choice to remain married forever. That’s a lot of pressure. Some people can (and do) crack under the idea of ‘forever.’ It’s kind of like how I stay sober – one day at a time. You ask me to stay sober for the rest of my life – I’d be cracking a bottle of wine by noon. I could see myself saying yes to seven years. Then after seven years, re-upping for another go around, and so on and so on.
I see the flipside of that token – neither party is obligated. Some people have argued that if neither party is committed to remaining for better or for worse, then you never feel the security of marriage. You or both of you never really feel secure in the relationship. You live with constant competition from the outside, a feeling that nothing is set in stone, that the seven years you are investing could be all there is. Your spouse could hold it over you – “If you don’t stop/start doing X, Y or Z then I’m not going to renew our contract.”
Perhaps worse than the feeling of obligation would be the possibility of one or the other riding the contract out for the remaining years. Imagine figuring out three or four years into your marriage that it’s not what you wanted. You might think, I’ll just hang on for another three or four years and let it expire. Your spouse might be thinking that without you knowing. If both parties are in this mindset, they might treat each other even worse, knowing that they’re unhappily bound for X more years (not that you couldn’t divorce early, but you might choose not to due to the cost or stigma).
Finally, on the con side, some might enter into the marriage state more lightly with a seven-year stipulation. I could imagine a 22-year-old thinking, Hey, if it doesn’t work out, I’ll only be 29 and I’ll still be able to find someone. Or, it could be a way for gold diggers to catch a free ride for seven years before ditching the poor schmuck. Conversely, it could also be a way for those old horny geezers to protect their assets from said diggers, hedging their bets on whether or not they’ll survive the term.
It’s highly unlikely our government would ever allow such a contract since each state’s government is set up to protect and encourage the marriage state. However, I think you’ll have an interesting conversation with your significant other on the topic. As for me and my significant other, we agreed it would be nice to have some sort of informal agreement at the outset to reevaluate a marriage seven years into it, and either to amicably dissolve or to reaffirm the relationship. For me personally, the merits outweigh the cons. But hey, I’m not there yet.

12 Comments:
I heard of this concept too. I guess my reaction was, "Why seven?" Why not four? Or annually?
If Adam's post taught me anything, it's that one's rationale for love or marriage might not make any logical sense to someone else, but does not have to.
I say, if someone wants to get married for seven years - have at it! Who am I to say what is good for them?
In fact, the "Lifelong Marriage" committment could be something of a status symbol, don't you think? The Cadillac of Committment? I can see it now...
I thought Adam's take was not that far fetched. I think this is something that a lot of young singles are grappling with now, esp. considering the VERY high cost of weddings these days. Even though I'm a working professional, I'm nowhere close to being able to afford a wedding, nor is my family.
The 7 year idea is a great idea too. You would probably save a lot of grief if the couple decided to split at the 7 year mark. Walk with no hard feelings. The big issue in Germany is that it clashes with their Christian values, plus it's a radical idea being talked about by a public figure. The 7 year idea would probably help the wedding industry, because every 7 years a couple could have a mini-ceremony to renew their vows or whatever.
I went to a wedding on Saturday. I thought it was beautiful and that emotional experience of the wedding and reception was terrific, but is it really worth the $$ and is it really necessary? If there was no wedding, would the couple be any less happy or would it change the true nature of their relationship? I would like to think not. I often think weddings are an excuse to allow two people to feel super special and get the VIP treatment. That's self indulgent and narcissistic. But, I actually like weddings because it's an excuse for family and friends to get together, there are hot chicks, and you get a lot of free drinks. All good things. So I'm conflicted there.
Would I ever get married? Yeah, I think I would.
@milena: I suppose seven years has to do with the "Seven Year Itch" phenomenon. Although, times are a-changing, and it appears that while the average lifespan of a marriage is 10 years, most that survive the 3-4 year mark usually last longer than 10 years. Also, this would only apply to civil unions. Those taking the "Till Death Do Us Part" vows would still be married in the traditional sense - or as you call it, the Cadillac of marriages. ;)
@Lance: I'm with you - I would much rather start my married life with savings rather than blowing $10K (and upwards!) on a wedding. I love a good wedding, too. But I think I'd rather elope and make that a private moment for only me and my beloved, have a great sexcation, and throw a little party when we got home.
Some proponents of this seven-year contract actually think it would hurt the wedding industry - a lesser commitment might be less to celebrate. Then again, with your idea of the mini-wedding, it might balance out.
And, I agree about the excuse for VIP treatment. I have seen too many women get married for the wedding...
Holly, love the post.
Lance, I don't know about your theory that weddings are for VIP treatment of the couple. People have weddings for lots of different reasons, and while I think some people have weddings for themselves, it's not the majority of people.
Growing up, I never pictured my dream wedding. When my actual wedding came around, my mom planned nearly all the details. I picked out some of the major things, like the church and the reception hall. But it was my parents and husband's parents who were adamant about our wedding... and they had more guests than us there!
I can't really complain because they paid for a good portion of it also. But weddings are so complicated, it's hard to say why people have them, why they get bigger than what they need to be, etc. It's partly because everyone wants their way and attaches sentimental value to things.
Personally if I ever have a renewal of vows it will be small. I didn't want the craziness of my wedding reception and I don't want to experience a day like that ever again. That's not to say I didn't enjoy my wedding day, but in the end all that mattered to me was the guy I was standing next to.
I think that this is an interesting concept. As I was reading your post, I immediately thought about the idea of a pre-nup.
A lot of people are critical of the idea because when you bring up the idea of signing this agreement, you are stating that if the marriage doesn't work, you will be covering your ass (in regards to money). Idealists (or romantics if you want to say so), would say that by doing this, you are ignoring the 'til death do us part' part and expecting the marriage to not work. And that's not love is supposed to be about.
Personally, I agree that marriage takes work and that renewing your vows or contract seems to be a smart move. In a way, whenever the contract is about to expire the two of you are forced to focus on your relationship and what issues yuo may be having - some of which you may both be ignoring. This way, if you really do love each other, you can focus on the problems and sort them out.
The problem with the 7 year contract is that you may hurt your partner when you bring it up. If they don't see eye-to-eye and if he or she believes that it should be a lifetime commitment with the goal of staying that way forever, the contract may be a big problem.
If anyone reads fluffy romance novels, Jayne Ann Krentz (writing under the pseudonym Jayne Castle) has a series of books that are set on a different futuristic world where they have one-year "Marriages of Convenience" (or MCs) and lifetime "Covenant Marriages". MCs can be renewed as many times as the couple wants but Covenant Marriages are almost impossible to get out of. However, if a couple in an MC has kids, everyone expects them to sign a Covenant. There doesn't seem to be any real stigma associated with MCs, they are celebrated with big parties (at least the first time) but of course, the protagonists in the books always find their soulmate and end up in a Covenant Marriage. I just remember that my first thought was that our current society could really use this type of distinction!
@Monica: Yeah, I certainly don't think that the majority of marrieds get married because they want to have their special day, but I've certainly heard this sentiment on the list of reasons from a couple of my divorced friends. Small sample size, but kind of insidious.
I like the idea of the 7 year contract more and more because as you grow as an individual (say from age 23 to 30), you can plan to make adjustments to your "contract" when it's time to renew. I talk about sex a lot, so I'm just gonna throw this out there, but say you turn 30 and your sex life sucks. (I've got plenty of married friends with this problem.) You decide to spice it up with some swinging or a once-per-year visit to a professional. Add that to the contract.
For something a bit less shocking, maybe write in the new contract that the partners are allowed to take a 4 month break and travel solo around the world and do some inner growth. Who knows, but the contract re-up becomes both a functional and spiritual renewal and updating of the original pact.
Hi Holly,
I had heard about this coming up in Germany and the post, but I really like your take on it. In fact, I even forwarded the article to my girlfriend, possibly to my detriment. I think that a lot of people our age are questioning the institution of marriage; personally, I know I agree with the commitment, but I dislike the stigma. I feel like people think they HAVE to dislike their spouse, just based on media and how married people speak of the aspects of marriage you describe (disrespect, boredom, etc). Anyway, great post, and I'll be back to read more of your blog soon!
~Chris
I think the best thing you can do to prevent divorce is wait. Statistics show that people with advanced degrees and people over the age of 30 have a MUCH lower rate of divorce than others.
I'm not sure it has to do with intelligence, but rather that people who are determined enough to seek and complete such degrees, and who are independent enough not to rush into relationships but rather define their lives through themselves and their accomplishments, make better partners.
By the time we can afford to get married, the BF and I will fit both criteria. Woot!
It is an interesting concept but it doesn't address the complexities of having children. Surely having a child with someone you thoughtfully chose to marry would affect the way you view life, especially while that child is still dependent. How difficult it would be for a child to have a new parent every 7 years, your parent(s) redefined by their new partner(s).
And if you were on a 7-yr contract, would the psychological effects allow you to really want a child? How would something like this affect future generations?
Hmm this is really interesting and i can see the pro's and con's for each side
Like i can imagine having a conversation with a girlfriend which says "Well he is married at the moment, but his contract expires in like a month ..."
When you see that it just looks ridiculous.
N then there is the issue of kids. Like usually a marriage of seven years there are bound to be some kids involved ... what happens to them? Will it then become a social norm to have multiple dads, biological and by law?
N then comes the issue of people wanting to bail out as soon as they hit a rough patch ... or having this mentality of "waiting it out" for the contract to finish.
I think that it does defeat the purpose of marriage which is about commitment and growing with the person .. going through all this crap together.
At the same time ... its like .. i totally see the benefits as well.
Because i think in relationship sometimes u end up outgrowing someone. Or you find that u married for the wrong reasons.
This means it gives you more life chances to meet a different range of people.
But then why get married in the first place?
Hot Alpha Female
www.hotalphafemale.blogspot.com
As a female married for 7 1/2 years, any marriage, relationship or friendship breaks down without work, respect, compromise and communication whether the commitment is legal, religious or by choice.
My sister just got divorced after a 7 year relationship, 5 married. Is it the 7 year itch? No, it was the fact that all the above were MIA.
Love isn't enough. In my marriage, we both often wonder why does he/she stay with me if yada, yada, yada? It's the choice we make everyday. A relationships with another person is a huge personal choice, just like sobriety. It doesn't work unless you work it at 1,2,3,7,10,20 years - you get the idea.
If both people are committed, it can and will work as the 7th year comes and goes...although we do have plans to "renew" our vows at 10 years,hee-hee! Ironic!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home