Does a perfect wife always dress to please her husband?

Just how far should a woman go to please her husband? In Monday’s Mail, a series of women confessed to ‘Perfect Wife Syndrome’ — that is, making a deliberate effort to cook fabulously, dress to kill and offer sex on demand, no matter how tired or stressed they might be themselves.

Even Tory MP Louise Mensch — fearsomely accomplished and successful — has got in on the act, crisply informing us that not only does she dress up for her husband but that to do so is nothing less than ‘an act of love’.

We can argue all we like that it’s our personality that really matters — but there are few men who, given the choice between a partner in greying undies, baggy jumper and comfortable jeans and one who’s made the effort to look groomed and sexy, wouldn’t opt for the latter.

Is it really an act of love to indulge them? As in all things to do with relationships, it’s a question of balance.

Mensch qualifies her dressing-up comments with the phrase ‘not in a Barbie doll way’ — a shrewd remark, as any man who urges you to wear short skirts and low-cut tops wants a trophy, not a partner. And the trouble with trophies is that the moment they lose their lustre they’re usually left to gather dust.

I am part of the first generation to have been reared on a diet of equality. Today we expect — demand — the same opportunities as men. So surely, you might think, we shouldn’t have to worry any more about how we dress?


But what we wear, and why, is fraught with complexity. We should dress to please ourselves, of course — but what most of us perhaps don’t like to admit is that we don’t please ourselves if no one else thinks we look good.

That doesn’t mean we should all be striving to dress in the height of fashion, whatever Vivienne Westwood may say. The designer sniffily dismissed the Duchess of Cambridge recently as a very ‘ordinary’ dresser who was definitely not a fashion icon, as a true fashion icon doesn’t follow trends, she sets them.

Well, why on earth would Kate want to be a fashion icon? The truth is that most women don’t want to stand out like a Belisha beacon, but to blend in. The rule for this is really very simple: dress appropriately for the situation.


On the school run, an outfit should be practical and comfortable, and its chief function is not to embarrass your child. In the office, it should be stylish but not sensational. And on an evening out with your husband, it should be sexy not sexual.

These are basic choices that most of us make every day, and have nothing to do with feminism. If you look good and are dressed appropriately, you’ll automatically feel more confident.

That’s not betraying the sisterhood; it’s merely common sense.

So have the Perfect Wives got it right when they say we should also whip up feasts for our men every night and provide sex on demand?

That, I’m afraid, is when my moderate-feminist hackles rise. For what keeps a marriage together is not subservience but love and respect — and who can respect someone who ignores our own needs?

If you choose to pander to your husband’s every whim, it will all end in tears. Being thoughtful is one thing. Subjugating your needs and personality to his is quite another, and the truly Perfect Wife needs to be much cleverer than that.

Yes, she should seduce him on occasion, just as she should dress up from time to time or produce an exquisite meal. But she should also demand that he make just as much effort to keep her impressed, entertained and amused.

Because the true enemy of marriage is complacency. And there’s nothing perfect about that.

Source: Sandra Parsons

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 2011 best marriage issue , marriage , MP Louise Mensch , perfect couple , perfect marriage , perfect wife , Peter Mensch , relationship

How Materialism Can Hurt Your Marriage

More money, more marital distress, says one study.

When you picture Bravo's "Real" Housewives, you likely think of expensive clothes, lavish and over-the-top parties, and a seemingly endless supply of financial backing from their hard-working husbands.

But you also picture drama: Not just conflicts between the ladies, but marital issues as well. Turns out, the relationship woes we see on these shows stem from the very thing that begot them in the first place: money.

While it can buy you lots of things — as the Beatles once sang — money can't buy you love. A new study of about 1,700 married couples found that couples who were not materialistic scored 10 to 15 percent higher in terms of relationship quality than their materialistic counterparts. To define whether a couple was materialistic or not, they were asked to rate the statement "Money and things have never been important to me" based on how much it applied to them. Those who disagreed with the statement tended to score lower on questions that tested emotional maturity and responsiveness to their partners.


Yes, those who love money have more arguments about it, even if they are well off financially. Think of that stereotypical Bravo housewife — she loves money, she has money and she enjoys spending that money. That money-obsession, in itself, is the recipe for a bad relationship. Now, if her husband is just as materialistic, the result is disaster. 4 Ways To Avoid Fighting About Money

Money-hungry couples, according to the study, had poor communication and conflict resolution skills. They were also less responsive to each other. The study's authors say that a heightened focus on possessions, rather than on the partnership, is to blame.

If you're a member of a materialistic and miserable pair, there is some hope. The key to combating materialism is gratitude, experts say. The first step is connecting — you must, experts say, be grateful for the circumstances that brought your wealth, and focus on the community that surrounds you. Finally, you can combat your marital woes by spending more meaningful time with your partner: talking, not swigging expensive champagne.

Source:Kait Smith

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 2011 relationship , conflict , divorce , fighting , financial , husband , marriage , money , money and love , Real Housewives , relationship , relationship challenges , wife

Why you shouldn't marry someone you've known less than a year

Last month, Kim Kardashian got engaged to her boyfriend, Kris Humphries. They'll supposedly wed in August, which is so fast it could make your head spin (while you're simultaneously contemplating whether or not she's possibly preggers). But the minuscule engagement time isn't what gets me. It's more the fact that these two barely know one another. They were dating for only six months before Kris popped the Q by spelling out "Will you marry me?" in rose petals (gag).

We all know Kim is in some kind of big damn rush to be a Mrs. (WHY, I don't know, given how "successful" other reality stars' marriages have been!) I just can't help but think that it's semi-delusional to tie the knot with someone you've known less than a year. Hey, people do it all the time. Even sis Khloe got hitched to hubs Lamar Odom just one month after they started dating. (Talk about delusional!)

More from The Stir: The Sexual Bucket List: 50 Things to Do Sexually Before You Die

All I know is this: My boyfriend and I went on vacation together in Mexico (for fun) and Canada (for my work) when we had only been dating three months. That at the time seemed like a big deal. At six months in, I think he was still refraining from farting in front of me. (Oh, those were the days!!!) At nine months was when we said "I love you," and we didn't officially move in together until we had been together a year and three months.

The case for living together before you get married is a whole different argument in itself, but let's just say I learned a lot more about my boyfriend once we shared a roof, moved together, split our rent, and learned to navigate one another's quirks and habits. 4.5 years later, I can finish his sentences and know his habits pretty well, and I'll admit I'm still learning about him. But I'm pretty sure I know what a life together would look like. At least I figure I have a far better idea now than I did six months in! Even a year or two in.

A relationship can evolve (or devolve) a lot over the course of a year ... two years ... three years. In fact, a recent study even found that three years in, people stop going out of their way to compliment their partners. We all know sex isn't the same after a year, and the study shows that's especially true after three. Not that you have to wait that long to make sure you want to get married, but it couldn't hurt to stay together a little longer to get a taste for what things will be like when they're not shiny and new.

More from The Stir: The Best & Worst Professions to Marry

And of course we have to grow and evolve with one another anyway, but marrying someone before you get to know them just seems like it would make that growing and evolving part even more difficult. You gotta have a solid foundation.

I'm sure there are probably some "love at first sight/first six month" fairy tales that result in a long and happy marriage. And yay for those few, brave souls! But for the rest of us -- I think we'd be crazy to follow in Kim Kardashian's rushed footsteps.

What do you consider the right amount of time to be with someone before getting married?

Source Maressa Brown
Image via CNDY/Flickr

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in commitment , dating , gay and lesbian marriage , kardashians , love , marriage , weddings