Dear Ann Landers,
y wife hates housework and the place sure looks it. She says any idiot can clean a house, and she'd rather do something that requires brains. (Cooking is also for dummies, according to her.) Whenever you print something about a sloppy housekeeper or a bum cook, I ask my wife if she read Ann Landers today. It burns her up. Yesterday it

DEAR ANN,
I read with great inter-est and mounting blood pressure the letter from the person who employs a "dumbbell" to do her ironing, although she did say that she was a nice person. Wasn't that sweet of her? I have worked as a domestic in a household for several years, and if asked what qualifications you need to be able to do this type of work, I would say a degree in practically ev-erything from psychology to nursing. Also you should have your own teeth, because you will be grinding them a lot. You will be working for women and men who don't have one ounce of common sense but are authorities on happened again. She said, "I'll bet Ann Landers doesn't do one lick of cooking or cleaning." I said I'd ask. How about it? MR. X DEAR MR. X.: She's right. But I did for quite a few years. And my place always looked fairly presentable and nobody ever died from my cook-ing. Any more questions? absolutely everything. They consider themselves BPs (Beautiful People). But the abbreviation really stands for Bitchy Phonies because that's what most of them are. P.S. If you think this letter is rough, you should see the ones I tore up. ANOTHER DUMB-BELL DEAR FRIEND: Willie Washington is a wonderful woman who has done housework for me for 20 years. I read her your letter and asked for a com-ment. Willie said, "That woman is not going to like anybody she works for because she is mad at the whole world, including herself." 794 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA Interfaith Marriage The Catholic Position The position of the Roman Catholic Church on interfaith marriages is two-fold: It recognizes the positive aspects of such a marriage, but also is con-cerned about dangers of faith for both and the future marital stability of such a union. In a broad sense, the Catholic Church is keenly aware of the role of religion in home and family life and also of the powerful and pervasive social conditions which threaten to undermine human dignity and marriage in America. Consequently, the Catholic Church is eager to join with all religious communions to bring the religious teaching of our respective faiths to bear upon our society and to join with all men of good will to create a healthier social climate in which family life in America can flourish. In an interfaith marriage, permission is given primarily for the spiritual good of the couple. In the ecumenical climate following Vatican II Council, the bishops of the United States have taken action to promote among couples planning interfaith marriages better understanding and a respect for each other's faith. In a statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (January 1, 1971), the bishops emphasized some of the positive aspects of interfaith mar-riages, yet their concern for the faith of both parties and the inherent prob-lems the couple realistically faces. They stated: In order to aid these couples to come to this deep understanding of their mar-ried life together, when possible, the Catholic and other Christian pastors should jointly do all they can to prepare them for marriage and to support them and their families with all the aids their ministry can provide. They can, for exam-ple, enliven the couples' appreciation of the virtues of fidelity, mutual trust, for-giveness, honesty, openness, love and responsibility for their children. In this way the pastors of the different Christian communities can best bring the couple to a keen awareness of all that they have in common as Christians, as well as to THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 795 a proper appreciation of the gravity of the differences that yet remain between their churches, (p. 4) It is obvious, therefore, that in facing the prospect of interfaith marriage, preparation is paramount. Presently, the marriage of a Catholic and non-Catholic is normally cele-brated in the Catholic Church itself. However, for specific and valid reasons, permission is granted for the marriage to be celebrated in the church of the non-Catholic, especially if that person is the bride. Priests are permitted to participate in that marriage ceremony if invited to do so by their non- Catholic counterparts. Non-Catholic ministers also can participate with the priest in an interfaith marriage ceremony in the Catholic Church. The problem of the faith of the children in an interfaith marriage continues to be a delicate one. The Catholic person is obliged not only to respect the freedom of conscience of his/her intended spouse, and in no way to violate his/her right and duty to follow his/her religious conviction, but die Catholic is expected to do everything possible to see that the children are reared Cath-olic. There is evidence, but not yet totally conclusive, that this problem and others related to it contribute to the religious indifference and the falling- away from religious practice by one or both parties. One study indicates that 25 percent of such couples never attend church, and another 20 percent attend only occasionally. To the extent that the rate of desertion, separation or divorce is a criterion, the chance of failure has been found to be about three times greater in interfaith marriages than other-wise. Realistically, when both parties approach an interfaith marriage, wisdom suggests that there should be a complete and free discussion on all factors in-volved prior to the marriage. Reasonable happiness in an interfaith marriage can be expected only when both parties have mature personalities, close affectionate ties, agree on goals and both want children. CREDIT: Most Rev. John J. Paul, D.D., Auxiliary Bishop of La Crosse, La Crosse, Wisconsin. 796 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA The Historical Background of Marriage Between Jew and Gentile There has never been and there is not now any Jewish religious law forbid-ding marriage between a Jew and one bom a non-Jew. There have always been and there are now various shadings of opinions with regard to the con-ditions under which such a marriage may be considered religiously valid. These conditions have been and are determined largely by the historical and social circumstances and prejudices of the Jewish individual or the group making the determination. From the earliest Bible times, the Jewish community has welcomed into its membership those who came voluntarily and sincerely, willing to accept its religious way of life. The only outsiders consistently denied such membership are polytheists (those who believe in many gods) and atheists. Many who know not whereof they speak maintain that Deuteronomy 7:1-5 and Chapter 9 of the Book of Ezra forbid all marriages between Jews and non-Jews. This is not so. Both these passages merely proscribe marriages between Jews and the members of certain idolatrous Canaanitish tribes. There is no mention, in the long list of biblical rituals, of any formal con-version rite beyond the circumcision required of all Jewish males. Like- minded non-Jews entered the biblical community, lived in it, worshipped with it, were accepted by it, married into it and became part of it. That was the truly spiritual, intelligent, efficient and practical way in which the biblical Jew handled the matter of intermarriage. It was only in the post-biblical period, well along in the second Christian century, that circumstances of history stirred up strong Jewish opposition to intermarriage. The bitter persecution of the Jews by the Romans engendered in the Jews a violent dislike for the unlike. Also, as time went on, Christians and Muslims forbade their followers to marry Jews. As was only natural, the Jews retaliated in kind. THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 797 From the twelfth century on, hostility between Jew and non-Jew began to diminish. By the end of the eighteenth century, Christian and Jew were willing to admit that they had much in common. Jewish writers declared re-peatedly in the later Middle Ages that Christianity and Islam are montheistic religions. Therefore, from the biblical point of view, there should have been no opposition to the marriage of Jews to Christians and Muslims. But there was and there continues to be such opposition. This opposition is more emo-tional than rational. It stems from the long record of Jewish maltreatment by Christians and Muslims, a sad saga of oppression, ghettoization, expulsion, pogroms, beating, robbing, murdering. Verily, "the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children's teeth have been set on edge." To the majority of Jews, the idea of a son or daughter marrying a non-Jew is unwelcome be-cause of a deeply embedded fear that even the best of non-Jews cannot be trusted to stand by the Jew when the chips are down. How much of a threat is intermarriage to Jewish survival? Despite the hue and cry of professional Jewish propagandists, the realistic answer is: Not very much, at least at the present time. In small communities with no synagogue and no rabbi, the Jew intermar-ries and disappears. In very large Jewish communities, with many synagogues and many rabbis, the Jewish intermarriage rate remains comparatively low. The most recent authentic study on Jewish intermarriages is that of Dr. Fred Massarik of the University of California at Los Angeles, completed in 1972 for the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds. For the years 1966-72, Massarik posited an intermarriage rate of 31.7 percent. At first sight, that figure would seem to be dangerously high, especially when one reads Dr. Massarik's finding that in 1920 it was only 2 percent. However, in-stead of becoming unduly alarmed by the 31.7 percent figure, the Jew should take just as seriously other statistics presented by Dr. Massarik, for example, that if the intermarrying Jew is a male, 63 percent of the children will be reared as Jews, and if the intermarrying Jew is a female, 98 percent of the children will be reared as Jews. There are other important factors to consider. As has been indicated, the intermarriage rate in Jewish communities of twenty-five families or less is often close to 100 percent. In the largest Jewish communities (and most American Jews live in such), the intermarriage rate is somewhere between 12 and 20 percent It is the very high proportion of intermarriages in the smaller communities that pulls the general average up to the 31.7 percent figure. To understand this matter in true perspective, a distinction must be made between the person who happens by accident of birth to be a Jew and the one who is actively identified with Jewish religious life. Only about half the Jews 798 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA in the United States belong to synagogues. With all due respect, the only Jews who really count as far as American Jewish survival is concerned are those who are members of the Jewish religious community. Every Jewish commu-nity study made to date shows that the rate of intermarriage among synagogue-identified Jews is much lower than among the non-identified. If one considers only those intermarriages in which a synagogued Jew marries a non-Jew who does not convert, the over-all intermarriage percentile dips to no more than 10 percent If the study is narrowed even further to count only those Jews who are positively identified with the synagogue before marriage but who, after marriage, are lost to Jewish religious life because of the influence of the non-Jewish spouse, the loss to the American Jewish religious community is no more than 2 or 3 percent. Traditional Jewish law states that no conversion to Judaism is valid that is based on any self-seeking motive, professional, educational, social or matri-monial. Yet most rabbis will not officiate at a marriage between a Jew and a bom non-Jew unless the non-Jew converts prior to the marriage. In other words, the majority of rabbis deliberately choose to bypass the Jewish religious law in this area. They rationalize their conduct by saying they are choosing what they believe to be the lesser of two evils. About half the Reform rabbis of this country officiate at intermarriages without requiring the conversion of the non-Jew. Most of these Reform rabbis expect a commit-ment from the couple that its children will be reared in the Jewish faith. How do Jewish intermarriages work out? Jewish prophets of doom pro-claim ceaselessly in pulpit and press that all such marriages are ill-fated from the start. This is sheer nonsense. There is no firm proof that these marriages are much less stable than the average all-Jewish marriage. When a divorce does occur in a Jewish intermarriage, it is seldom based on grounds having to do with a difference in religions. The basic reasons are economic woes, sex-ual incompatibility, personality conflicts, etc., the same reasons that cause all- Jewish marriages to fail. It is also crystal clear that when the spouses-to-be arrive at a firm pre-marital determination regarding the religious rearing of their offspring, the possibility of religious difference causing friction in the marriage becomes almost nil. Having written all this, how would I answer the questions: Do I encourage marriages between Jews and non-Jews? Do I look with favor on Jewish inter-marriages? The answer to both questions would be: No. The most successful marriages are those in which husband and wife come from as similar back-grounds as possible, culturally, educationally, financially and religiously. Religious background is important but no more important than the other fac- THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 799 tors mentioned. But the marriage of a Jew to a non-Jew, when it occurs, must be viewed in the light of experience and common sense rather than in the shady recesses of prejudice and emotion. If a Jew who is ethnically oriented and synagogally affiliated marries a non-Jew, the odds are overwhelming that the non-Jew will be drawn into the Jewish orbit. If the Jew who marries the non-Jew is indifferent to his or her Jewish heritage both before and after the marriage, the Jewish community and religion have not lost much. credit: Rabbi David Max Eichom, Satellite Beach, Florida. Marriage Between Jew and Non-Jew Intermarriage is the marriage of a Jew to a person who was not Jewish at the time the couple first met, though conversion may follow before or soon after the marriage. Where there is no conversion, the marriage should be termed a mixed marriage. According to 1970-72 demographic study of the American Jewish com-munity by Fred Massarik covering a sample of seven thousand interviews, 13 percent of marriages involving Jews were intermarriages in 1960, 29.7 per-cent in 1961-65, and 48.1 percent in 1966-72. According to this survey, the combination of a Jewish husband and a non- Jewish wife is twice as common as the combination of a Jewish wife and a non-Jewish husband. One out of four non-Jewish brides converts to Judaism; less for non-Jewish husbands. According to the study, 98 percent of the children are reared as Jews if the mother is Jewish, and 63 percent if the father is Jewish. Less than 1 percent of intermarrying Jews convert to Christianity, while 26.7 percent of non-Jewish females and 2.5 percent of non-Jewish males convert to Judaism. Further, more than 40 percent of non-Jewish marriage partners prior to marriage subsequently identify themselves as Jewish, even without formal conversion. 800 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA Statistics indicate that native-born Jews of the second generation tend to intermarry more than do the members of the immigrant generation. In the third generation the rate goes up even higher. College attendance doubles the intermarriage rate in the third generation. Children bom of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father are considered non-Jewish. And alternatively, children bom of a Jewish mother and a non- Jewish father are considered Jewish. The former category of children will require conversion in order to be accepted in the Jewish group, though no re-strictions are placed upon them once they have converted. Neither Conservative nor Orthodox rabbis will officiate at a marriage be-tween a Jew and an unconverted non-Jew, though both will officiate at the marriage of a Jew with one who has converted to Judaism prior to marriage. Neither Conservative nor Orthodox rabbis will co-officiate with a non- Jewish clergyman, nor participate in a civil ceremony where one of the part-ners is not Jewish. While Reform Judaism is on record as opposing the par-ticipation of rabbis in a civil marriage or in a marriage between a Jew and one who is not a Jew, individual rabbis are granted the right to deviate from this ruling. The majority of Reform rabbis refuse to perform mixed mar-riages. None of the three movements places any obstacle upon the marriage of a Jew to one who converts to Judaism prior to marriage. Rabbis who will not participate in a marriage between a Jew and a non- Jew give the following reasons for their opposition: Religion is too important to be taken lightly. Rabbis have no right to impose their procedures upon one who may prefer to maintain his or her Christian identity. A sincere Christian cannot in good conscience recite or acquiesce to the phrase which sanctifies Jewish marriage and which the groom is expected to recite with the acquiescence of the bride: "With this ring I betroth thee as my wife in accordance with the Laws of Moses and the customs of the faith of Israel." The rabbi cannot conscientiously give his blessings to a marriage in which children born of that union may be tom between two religions and two parents. The emotional welfare of the child depends upon the religious integ-rity of the home. Withholding of rabbinic participation may be kinder than submission to the will of the bride and groom, in that non-rabbinic participation may influence the bride and groom to face up to the implications of their religious difference before bringing children into the world. Children who are left free THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 801 to choose their religion may pit one parent against the other. Moreover, the preservation of the Jewish people depends upon households where both part-ners are committed to transmitting the faith of Judaism. credit: Stanley Rabinowitz, rabbi; President, the Rabbinical Assembly (interna�-� tional organization of Conservative rabbis); rabbi of the ADAS Israel Synagogue, Washington, D.C. The Presbyterian View on Interfaith Marriage On questions of marriage, Presbyterian churches throughout the country are guided for the most part by their statements of faith (generally called "Con-fessions") or by their denominational rules ("Forms of Government") or by the way they conduct their services and ceremonies ("Directories of Wor-ship"). We use the word "guided" advisedly, because in the last resort, the deci-sion about who can or should be married in a Presbyterian church is almost exclusively a decision arrived at by the local pastor. Sometimes this decision is made after consultation with the appropriate committee of the church's ses-sion-the official board of the church which locally controls all matters relat-ing to a particular congregation. Some Presbyterian ministers would make a distinction between an inter-faith marriage and one which is interdenominational in character. As an ex-ample of an interdenominational marriage, we have the union of a man and a woman in holy wedlock who may be members of the Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian churches, etc., or between members of the various Christian traditions, such as Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, Protestant All of these being "Christian" in their confessions and beliefs, it is generally assumed that there is no barrier on the Presbyterian side for uniting two peo-ple coming from these backgrounds. But supposing one or both is divorced? Obviously they can't get married in a Roman Catholic or an Episcopalian church without considerable difficulty. 802 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA While in Presbyterian churches great care is required on the minister's part when he or she consents to the remarriage of divorced people, the barriers are not formidable. If there is true recognition of human frailty, failure and sinfulness, and a desire to begin again in the light of God's forgiveness, Pres-byterians believe that this can happen with the blessing of the Church. Such blessing would not be withheld because people come from different Christian backgrounds, such as Protestant and Roman Catholic. The interfaith issue calls for even greater thought and delicacy of ap-proach. Here we are thinking, for instance, about the Christian faith and the Jewish faith, or the Moslem faith. It would be impossible to be dogmatic about a "Presbyterian position" on interfaith marriage in this sense, since Presbyterians are divided in their convictions on some important issues relat-ing to the union of a man and woman "in the holy bonds of matrimony." These divisions of opinion may arise from differences of theological belief, or conscience, or even from geographical location (north and south). We must not assume, however, that since it is impossible to be dogmatic about interfaith marriage, Presbyterians act in a vacuum. Presbyterians hold definite beliefs about what is sometimes called the "sanctification of mar-riage." In the marriage between two people of different faiths, such as Christian and Jewish, the Presbyterian minister is called upon to emphasize the privi-leges and obligations that would be assumed in a Christian marriage. This would involve a discussion of the meaning of baptism for the couple them-selves and for their families. It will be expected that at least one of the partners is a professing Chris-tian. Where such a background is lacking, the minister and the man and woman will be asked to face frankly the jeopardy in which this lack may place both their marriage and the Christian nurture of their children, and shall take all such steps as may be possible to provide against the hazard. In the light of these convictions, when "interfaith" means a marriage be-tween a Christian and a non-Christian (that is, one committed in belief to another faith altogether), there may be no insurmountable barriers so long as one is a member of the Church and the other is a believer in God as he or she understands Him. This the officiating minister must decide, and consid-erable sensitivity and care are expected in interpreting to such a couple the expectations and obligations which are placed upon them by the sacramental nature of marriage. A few specific examples may be helpful. Many Presbyterian ministers would officiate at the marriage of a member of their church to people of the THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 803 Jewish faith, whether Reformed or Orthodox, so long as both partners had considered the implications of the "sanctification of marriage" and both believed that it is God who "joins them together." The same would apply with equal validity to a non-practicing Roman Catholic and a Presbyterian member. Some variations may be used in the wording of the marriage serv-ice, but there could be no surrender on the Presbyterian minister's side of the centrality of God's action in this union, and the living presence of Christ. How the latter phrase is understood by the non-professing Christian would be a matter for his or her conscience. The issue of divorce of one or both partners in an interfaith marriage and their seeking remarriage in a Presbyterian church leads to many compli-cations which only the minister can unravel in consultation with the parties concerned. Greater care than ever is expected in the light of what Presbyterians be-lieve, how they govern their churches and how they conduct their services and ceremonies. It would be impossible to generalize about "what most" Presbyterian ministers would do, and it would be fruitless to try to abstract guidelines from their Confessions of Faith. Some ministers, for instance, would marry a twice-divorced Presbyterian and a Roman Catholic in good standing, or not such good standing, if there was evidence of sincerity in seeking God's Will in their lives. Others would be adamantly opposed to this, not because they believe such people to be "beyond the pale" religiously, but because they would find it impossible to reconcile their beliefs concerning the teaching of the Scriptures, the intent of the teaching of the Church, and the repeated dissolution of marriage unions. To sum up: The Presbyterian position tends to be inclusive rather than ex-clusive where there is a common belief in God, so long as one person in the marriage union is a committed Christian in terms of belief and practice. Where there is the possibility that religious differences would lead to in-creased tension and disharmony within the marriage relationship, extreme caution is urged on the minister (or session) in permitting such a service to be held in a Presbyterian church, or to receive the official blessing of the Church, whether the service were held in the chancel or in the minister's office. Further, where there is suspicion that there is failure on the part of one or both persons seeking marriage to understand the intent of lifelong union ("Till death do us part") in the Presbyterian marriage service, the cau-tion demanded of the officiating minister almost borders on total prohibition. credit: Elam Davies, pastor of the Fourth Presbyterian Church, Chicago, Illinois. 804 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA Interfaith Marriage Reform Jews and Gentiles I am old enough to remember when the parents considered a son or daughter who married out of the Jewish faith dead. The Kaddish (prayer for the dead) was said and the picture of "the lamb who strayed" was turned to face the wall. Reform rabbis today are permitted to marry couples "in accordance with their conscience." I always agree to marry couples, even though one may be non-Jewish. I realize they will be married, either by me or by someone else, so I try to work at keeping the family intact as best I can. When I see there is opposition from one set of parents or the other-as often there is-I make a special effort to get the Christian parents to accept the Jew and the Jewish parents to accept the Christian. These days, many couples want to write their own marriage ceremony. This does not sit well with most rabbis or ministers with whom I have spoken. But we are agreeable, to a point, permitting them to use some of their own words, along with biblical passages and, of course, that which is required in order to make it a valid marriage ceremony. Today more and more requests are made for a rabbi to officiate with a priest or minister. I had such a ceremony recently. The father of the young man was an Episcopal minister. How could I refuse? At this moment, I am the only rabbi in New Orleans who will officiate at such a service. One couple asked me to give the benediction in Hebrew which the Christian partner had prepared for me. He graciously left out any reference to his Savior. Naturally, I prefer to marry a couple when both are Jewish, but these times are so rife with change, what shall we do? Deny what is real and live in the past? I say no-we cannot talk of brotherhood and refuse to co-operate with people of other faiths. credit: Dr. Julian B. Feibelman, Rabbi Emeritus, Temple Sinai, New Orleans. THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 805 Is Your Marriage Worth Saving? The question "How do you find out whether your marriage is worth saving?" involves additional questions: "How long does it take when you are married to tell if it is worth it or not?" "Are these problems so serious that they would make the marriage impossible to save-or at least not worth the effort?" "What are the qualities that make a marriage worth saving?" "Under what circumstances are marriages likely to fail?" The answer to all these questions is that you never know for sure. The best you can do is make an educated guess. Your guess may shape a portion of your life. The questions asked above must be modified to: "What additional infor-mation or education can you give me so I can make a better informed guess, so the odds on being right will be better; the likelihood of being wrong will be less?" Having redefined the question, the problem of the questioner is often seen as a fear of making a decision, a lack of trust in one's own judgment. For ex-ample, frequently individuals know there is a lot "wrong" before they get married, but they think they will change the other person "later." This is a very common and serious mistake. Instead of getting out soon after the marriage, when it becomes clear that no change will take place, they may spend the rest of their lives trying to change the mate and continue to won-der if the marriage is worth saving. Another situation is one in which the woman is aware that the man was different from the other men she dated. He treated her "like a lady" during the courtship. He made no sexual advances. She interpreted this as a sign of "respect" and assumed that sex would come naturally after marriage. Or there is the man whose fiancee would not let him touch her before marriage and who attributed her rigidity to religious scruples. Then comes the mar-riage ceremony and the honeymoon. No sex takes place. The secret is out. The male continues with no sex or a very low sexual frequency. The decision must be made. Is sexual activity as important as other advantages offered by 806 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA a sexless mate? If so, the individual must be capable of acting on this value system. If other advantages offered by the sexless mate are more important than sexual activity, the individual must be capable of forgoing sex. Let us take another set of personal values to illustrate the principle of mak-ing choices. Suppose an individual believes marriage will offer an opportunity for development and fulfillment for both partners. After marriage, such a person may recognize that the marriage will be safe and stable but un- stimulating with no growth potential. A decision must be made: to hold to one's values and get a divorce or to give up one's expectations as unrealistic and settle for what one has. The decision may be a good one either way. The people who have problems are those who can't make a decision or who say, "Why can't my mate change so I can have this marriage and what I want for myself, too?" What the about-to-be-wed, or the newly wed, individual must realize is that there is little education or preparation for marriage. The two individuals in-volved do not know how to maximize their respective fulfillment, growth and development in a complex marital union. The marriage license requires less preparation, knowledge and money than are required for a driver's license. Another preconception about marriage is that it is expected to be the most intimate, happy and successful relationship people will ever experience. For the fortunate ones this is true, but the rising divorce rate in America indicates how often this is not true. Our current culture accentuates another myth about marriage-that if the union fails, it is somebody's fault-that one of the parties is stupid, stubborn, evil or pathological. The ideal of medicine is prevention. This is certainly true in the field of marriage. Pre-marital counseling should be a part of every pre-marital exami-nation along with a physical examination, laboratory testing and birth control information. The difficulty that sometimes occurs is that even when told that a marriage will have serious problems and probably not work without coun-seling, the couple often get married anyhow and wait until the predicted trou-bles become painful before seeking the required professional help. There are also important problems of genetic counseling that should be discussed in the pre-marital examination. Having responded to the question of how to find out if your marriage is worth saving by the establishment of general principles and describing the complexities of the problem, I can now answer the questions directly. How long does it take to tell if it is worth it or not? At either end of the bell-shaped curve, the answer is: For some, they know immediately that it won't work, for others, they know immediately that this is THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 807 what they want for a lifetime. These are not thought-out, intellectualized re-sponses. They are gut responses that represent the basic feelings of the indi-vidual. In between these extremes marital strife and disruption take their toll. Certain symptoms can occur soon after the marriage (even on the honey-moon), or they may develop through the years. They vary from mild or mod-erate phobias, depressions, anxiety attacks, psychosomatic illnesses, to the serious life-threatening stress-type illnesses, physical abuse, suicides and homicides. These would seem obvious clues as to whether the marriage is worth it or not Yet many marital partners, even under these conditions, ask if it is worth it or how long they should wait before deciding. How do you know if your marriage is worth saving? You are the only one who can tell, by getting in touch with your feelings. No one else knows how you feel. No one else can feel exactly the way you do. And no one else will take the consequences of your decision for you. So-get all the help you can to become knowledgeable about all aspects of the decision. Then make the decision. In my experience there are only a few factors that would make a marriage impossible to save. One is the absence in both mates of the ability to feel sympathy for the other. This is usually accompanied by a deep and unchang-ing hatred. Another is the presence in one mate of a problem such as homo-sexuality or transsexualism. Even here if sympathetic understanding is pres-ent, free of destructive hostilities, such marriages are not impossible to save and for some individuals are worth trying to save. Marriages that provoke se-rious thoughts of suicide or homicide are not worth saving. When we come to the question of what are the qualities that make a mar-riage worth saving, we come to the subjects of respect and love. Where there is the capacity within the marital partners of respect for another human being, we have a working basis of a marriage that is worth saving. Such an ability for sympathy and empathy for other individuals makes for successful solving of interpersonal problems. This is not identical with love but is re-lated to the capacity for love of other people. The capacity for love of the other person relates to the capacity to place the welfare of the mate on an equal (if not higher) level with one's own wel-fare. When this quality is present in one of the mates, the marriage is cer-tainly worth saving. Marriages which are most likely to fail are those where both mates are of the dependent, clinging type, each expecting the other to create an atmos-phere in which he or she will be catered to and taken care of. 808 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA Up to this point, I have responded to the questions on the basis of a mar-riage without children for the purpose of simplification. However, these ques-tions are often asked because the children are the complicating factor. Is the marriage worth saving for the sake of the children? Should a parent sacri-fice personal values, goals and ambitions for the good of the children? Certainly children are traumatized by separation and divorce, but they also are traumatized by the atmosphere of hostility and destructiveness of parents living together when they hate each other. Often the destructive effects of the divorce upon the children are the result of the manner in which the parents get the divorce and carry on their hostili-ties after the divorce. Marital and divorce counseling can be used to defuse the relationship between the parents so that the damage to the children is minimized. Children of divorce comprise a relatively high proportion of the child psychiatric population. Divorce is experienced differently by children at different developmental levels. Mates who are tradition- and future-generation-minded will tend to em-phasize maintaining the marriage more than those who are self-growth- oriented, and who may even feel that the divorce will be better for the future growth of their children. The desirable role of the family is to provide a support system and growth center for each person within the family. Parents and children must be capa-ble of recognizing their own deep needs for independence and growth. If this can be achieved, no matter how much work it takes, the marriage is worth saving. If this cannot be achieved, how much are you willing to sacrifice be-fore you say, "Enough is enough. I've had it." Many marital counselors are coming to believe that the goal is not to main-tain, preserve or even increase the number of happy marriages, but rather to encourage couples to stay together only if marriage means maximizing the development of both partners, in which case it will surely benefit the children. Regardless of the length of time a relationship has existed, symptoms of conflict are fairly clear. Usually when the warmth and closeness of a rela-tionship begin to fade the overriding feeling is one of irritation, annoyance or disappointment at seeing or interacting with your partner. The husband resists going home after work. The wife, if she works, finds it harder to get home and await her husband's arrival. She visits friends more than she used to and goes to more meetings. If she stays home, she no longer cooks with pride. She does not look as attractive as she could and she watches the clock matter-of-factly at bedtime rather than with a sense of ex- THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 809 citement Obviously in such a relationship, romance no longer exists, but the couple is not meeting one another's needs. Conflicts tend to crystallize. The couple find it difficult to converse. There is a block in communication. Sensitive issues come up frequently and with al-most no provocation: When will the bills get paid and who will pay them? How will the money be divided and to whom does it really belong? How much time should we spend with relatives? Sharing and allocating of respon-sibilities around the house become a problem. All external daily matters, which perhaps were not issues in better times, suddenly become major sore spots about which both partners may express irritation without focusing on the real problems of the relationship. Both partners realize at some level that they are pessimistic about their fu-ture together, yet they cannot identify the core of their discomfort. Thus, each one looks to the other to account for their troubles. Yet there is the un-derlying feeling that something is wrong, that something must be changed to restore the excitement and sense of togetherness that the relationship pre-viously held. This seems to be happening all the time. Half the young people getting married are divorced or separated. There are multiple reasons. Large among them are changing economic conditions in society and changing expectations from within. Many men used to marry because they needed a woman to cook for them, to clean for them, to mend their socks and to have sex with. Romance, if it existed, was the frosting on the cake. Nowadays it's no trouble to cook for yourself. You buy ready-to-eat food in the supermarket or go to a fast food counter. No one mends any more. Who wears mended socks? Sex is readily available. So men don't need to get married and neither do women, except for one factor-loneliness. Women needed men to support them, while they kept house. Now they can have careers. Housekeeping is so simplified they can cook and clean for themselves even with a nine-to-five job. When people needed each other they tended to stay together. Today they marry because they want each other. And when they stop wanting, there is no real reason to stay together, espe-cially because when you stop wanting one person it's usually because you've started to want another. If there are children, the parents don't care what harm comes to the chil-dren. Values have changed. The self is now more important than the child's welfare. As your growing sense of dissatisfaction continues, interaction be-tween partners becomes worse. You may feel alone in this monumental deci-sion which is to shape your future. External forces urge you to remain in 810 THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA your relationship and insinuate that if you cannot be happy there is some-thing wrong with you. You feel unsure and doubtful, wonder whether you should pull out or settle for what you have. It's not very good but it's better than nothing. This is a trying period. Guilt racks you. Confidence in yourself is lost. You feel hurt and angry at yourself for being where you are. You can't believe you could have made such a mistake in choosing a mate. Feeling guilty and uncertain comes from not having your needs gratified. You are not sure you had a right to expect to be fulfilled. You feel guilty for the expectations you've built up. However, feeling this new surge of emotion and experiencing the sense that you need and want more in a relationship is a healthy step. It is the first step toward affirmation of who you are-the first step toward realization of your full capacity to love and to be loved and valued for yourself. It is the first step toward realization in reality of yourself as an important and meaningful entity. You finally see yourself as a person with needs and rights-one who expects fulfillment and gratification in life. Confronting your situation in all its stark reality is the only way to learn about yourself and your needs. When you are no longer willing to perpetuate ungratifying patterns, it means you are no longer willing to accept a position of weakness-a position which prevented you from having your needs met and enjoying your life to the full. Part of the difficulty which you now face stems from your insecurity in standing firm and in fighting for what you feel you deserve. Remember, lack of success in marriage does not mean a deficiency in either person. To admit failure may mean to acknowledge faith in the future. One cannot close the door on a relationship unless one has enough of a sense of self to expect to find a better relationship. One cannot leave a relationship or risk changing it if one imagines being alone to be excruciatingly painful. In changing or leaving a relationship one feels optimistic about the future. You expect to be responded to as a valuable, worthwhile human being. The key to the problem is the capacity for hope. Hope gives us the power to act in the present. The future is now. credit: Peter A. Martin, M.D., Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, University of Michigan and Wayne State University Medical Schools, author of A Marital Ther-apy Manual, New York: Brunner/ Mazel, 1976. THE ANN LANDERS ENCYCLOPEDIA 811 A SEXUAL SCORECARD