That harmless crush on your coworker, spinning instructor, or local barrista may actually be good for your marriage. Although we typically think that being attracted to someone other than our spouse is a sign of trouble, that isn't always the case. MSN asserts that there are a number of benefits a crush can provide a marriage. One expert quoted in the article explains:
When you have a crush on someone you are suddenly reminded of your own sensuality. You get that little tingly feeling you don't even want to do anything about. You know you don't actually want to be with this person for real. It's just great to know those feelings are there.
In a sense, having a crush will "turn up your pilot light," and since you aren't going to act on those feelings with your crush, you bring that energy home to your partner. Crushes provide fuel for a healthy fantasy life, remind you why you feel for your husband or wife, and adds something to your daily routine that makes you happy-- you smile more! Sex and relationship experts interviewed for MSN's article also say that the ego boost and window into your own sexuality can make you a better lover with your spouse. The spark you feel for the object of your crush transfers into the bedroom with your partner.
It is important, however, to distinguish between these "healthy little secrets" and a crush that signals a real problem in your marriage. A therapist outlines these guidelines for distinguishing between healthy and destructive crushes:
- Are you distracted from your squeeze by thoughts of your crush?
- Do you tell your crush things that you don't tell your husband?
- Are you with your crush -- even "just talking?" -- when you could be home?
If any of those are true it may be time to limit your interactions with your crush and explore the issues in your marriage driving you to seek attention elsewhere. As long as you're in the healthy end of the crush spectrum, embrace the rush and use it to help your relationship.






Alimony and Sex Change
By Wendy Jaffe
Law professors love to come up with crazy hypotheticals for their students--the wackier, the better. So I'm sure every family law professor in the country was excited to present the following real life "hypothetical" to their students.
Assume a man, who we will call Mr. Roach, agrees to pay spousal support to his former wife to terminate in the event of "death or re-marriage." Then assume that the former Mrs. Roach decides to have a sex change operation. Is Mr. Roach still obligated to pay support to his former wife?
One student raises are hand and argues that the only published case (from another state) on the topic held that the sex change does not relieve him of his obligation to pay support. Plus, she argues, their agreement is silent as to sex changes and clearly says that support will terminate on death or re-marriage.
Another student raises his hand and argues that he is not obligated to continue to pay support because the state of Florida does not provide for gay marriage or support between men who who previously had a relationship.
This is no hypothetical. It is a case that is currently before the courts in Florida.An AOL on-line poll of lay people so far says that 63% of people think that the sex change operation does change the support obligation.
I was in the minority on this one. At the time the couple was married, it was a legal marriage between a man and a woman. The fact that someone makes a major life change after marriage (e.g. becomes a monk, a drug addict, shaves her head, changes religions) should have no bearing on whether support should continue. Support is an obligation based on the couple's marriage; not on their divorce. (Of course, this begs the question about marriage to another terminating support, but that is an intellectual question for another day!)
Am I wrong?
March 28, 2007 at 04:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)