From the vantage point of a 20-year marriage: it's always about compromising, about settling. My wife and I had, I suppose, one of those romantic, instant connections. She's from Sweden, my parents are from India and I grew up in the Bronx. We ran into each other at IBM Research, and we moved in together on our second date. Instant chemistry, very romantic.
But during the 20 years of marriage, the way we met didn't matter. Marriage is something else than about that initial burst of lust, or gushing romance or whatever. When you get woken up at 4 in the morning by your soulmate because the dog needs to go outside to pee and she certainly isn't about to leave the warm bed, believe me, romantic love is not what makes you jump out of bed.
I think we have unrealistic expectations about romance. Living together is freaking hard; giving up one's independence and having to be ready to compromise about every damned last thing in life (except maybe what you do in the potty) is hard. And once you compromise, if you're smart and want to stay happy, you have to be enthusiastic about the compromise, or you get bitter. Be happy, even when you didn't get what you want.
Still, despite all the compromises, all the things we had to work out, here I am 20 years later, and the love I had for her on that first day we met seems like a pale imitation to what I feel today. You have to work at it, and you end up with something a lot more. I don't know about settling, but instant love connection or not, making the marriage work is the hard part, and the real love in life comes from that work.
Congrats on the many years together. It sounds like you (and presumably your wife) have a great attitude. Reminds me of the dialogue from Good Will Hunting where Robbin Williams explains what he misses most about his wife (she died of cancer).
> and the love I had for her on that first day we met seems like a pale imitation to what I feel today
It's only people who realize that compromise, distance, and honesty are some of the ingredients required to bring two people together (happily) for life.
I suppose this is why I don't ever want to marry. I realize that I do not want to give up the independence I have; to have to compromise anything. I want to be like Richard Stallman with his iron stubbornness. I think some people are built for marriage, some are not.
Don't do a startup with other founders either then. Not all compromises mean that you lose something; often it is the only way to win. Insisting on independence can become rigidity. If you aren't ready to compromise, experience with other founders will simply be bitter and acrimonious.
I have done four startups now, and have been fortunate enough to have become independent (that was the goal, not to become rich). Each startup has been made immeasurably easier because I have a wife that has helped me, and she too has had to undoubtedly compromise. I have seen what my single co-founders or near founders have experience, and no way would I have gone through my experiences with as much fun as I have had without my wife's support. She has her own indie business now--and nicely profitable it is too--and I take some measure of pride in having helped her with it every day. Helping her has meant putting off or not doing something that I wanted to do.
How so? How could there be - marriage can be created by two people to their liking? OK, that is a presupposition, that the rules are not fixed. Is it wrong? If it fails, there is even the possibility of divorce.
Except that prison is almost exclusively bad and marriage doesn't have to be. For example, someone did a study a while back to prove that married men were happier then unmarried men because marriage made them happier. They didn't end up proving that but they did discover that on average married men have sex more often than unmarried men.
It might sound awful, but this is one of the reasons I avoid dating 28+ girls (I am 29 myself).
1. Too much pressure. (even if it is not explicit, given her standing, it is implicit)
2. I don't know if she likes me for me, or just because her clock is ticking.
On the flip side, girls it have really really easy on their early 20s. That might create an "suply is infinite" kind of thinking in girls, and maybe perhaps even a degree of narcisism sets in (I am demanded, I deserver x, and y, and of course z qualities on a bf/ideal partner). Some girls just fail to realise that past 26 (maybe 28 for asian girls), looks tend to fade. (fertility peak is 22).
So, absent a family presure, it is easy to get comfortable thinking this attention they get is normal, and will last for a long time.
Hence, they hit their late 20s/early 30s with extremely high expectations, yet their perceived value has diminished with time (at least looks wise).
Many girls realize this, and end up being in "settling mode", which honestly, if you are a guy sucks.
She will not love you for what you really are.
To be honest if I had a daughter, my advice would be find a good one between 25-28. That's where your should be wise enough to know what you want, but still have time to change your mind if you feel it is not the right thing.
I don't think your comment sounds awful, but in my opinion you are giving too much importance to age and looks.
I am 28 myself and when dating I am not trying to evaluate whether she already passed her prime time or if she still has a couple of good years cause she is Asian. Unless you are a teenager or in the early twenties, we are all going downhill. Shouldn't we try to find a partner who we like and share interests with, regardless of age (obviously, there are some boundaries).
It seems you don't want a girl to 'settle' with you, but there's a ton of reasons to do so independently of her age. Maybe she wants you only for your money, or your looks...
I think the OP's main point was that when you date a woman in her 30s, there's a lot of pressure to get married and have babies ASAP. Because while it's certainly possible for a woman to become pregnant in their 30s, the chances pretty much go into a freefall during that decade. So even though as a man, you stand a higher chance with women in that age range, you'll always have this lingering doubt of whether she's with you because she wants you or if she's with you because she's running out of time.
You're right though that there are plenty of other reasons a woman could be interested in you, but I think you might be underestimating just how loud that biological clock is ticking in a woman's brain when she hits 30.
Perspective changes as you get older. Besides, women live longer than men, and reach their prime later. There are a lot of reasons it makes sense for a female to date a male who is slightly younger than him.
So. . . I daresay that the comment does sound pretty awful. Awful is probably the wrong word. Delusional, megalomaniac, may be better words. Anybody who doesn't have a bell curve around the ages of people they're willing to date (yes, with his/her own age in the middle) is probably missing a few logic gates.
Given the gendercide and such, it's pretty certain that the world will never have shortage of creepy old men.
So. . . I daresay that the comment does sound pretty awful. Awful is probably the wrong word. Delusional, megalomaniac, may be better words. Anybody who doesn't have a bell curve around the ages of people they're willing to date (yes, with his/her own age in the middle) is probably missing a few logic gates.
I think that's a bit judgemental. It's okay for people to have preferences regarding who they date. If one of these preferences is for younger women, well, that's up to them. There are girls out there with preferences for richer men or taller men and we don't go around accusing them of "missing a few logic gates".
As an example, suppose you're an older guy (~45 yo) looking to get married and have kids. Your preferences are obviously going to tend towards younger women because you'll have a better chance of conceiving and healthier kids. This doesn't imply that you're crazy, or creepy. It simply implies that you have particular life plans and have a preference for getting together with someone who is compatible with these.
I'm really not sure why you're using "just dating" pejoratively. The GP might feel no desire to settle down or might enjoy repeating the initial rush through serial monogamy.
Alternatively, he may be open to the prospect of marriage but not be sufficiently dedicated to it to be marrying someone who feels that they're just settling for him.
That only works if you want to have kids immediately, or want to never have kids. If, like me, you're a guy who wants to have kids in 5-10 years, late-30s women are just out of the running, no matter what great qualities they may have otherwise. Due to biology, the marriageable age range for women doesn't really change as a guy gets older, unless he's done having kids or doesn't want them.
you're lucky if you only find 28+ girls who are dying to get married. Almost every girl I meet above 23 is looking to get hitched.
Around 25 they learn to pretend they don't want it but they keep pushing things in that direction.
By the same logic, no woman should ever come near you since she can't know if you like her for her or because you are driven by the genetic imperative to spread your semen around.
How is that relevant? I won't date a woman older than X because her clock is ticking and it might mean she doesn't like me for my sparkling personality. It is identically silly to 'I won't date any man because he might only be trying to get into my pants'. If you don't like dating women your age or older, more power to you. But rationalizing it away by some sort of ersatz pop-logic and sweeping generalization (is every 30-year-old woman a fading flower hell-bent on reproduction?) is disingenuous.
This article is long and makes me want to throw something at Lori Gottlieb. Not that I'm advocating violence or would commit it... it's just written in that sort of smug, grating style that makes me browse away after the first 10 paragraphs. All she has done is rebranded the concept of "compromise" (important in all sorts of relationships) as "settling." Nothing new or fascinating, there.
The deconstruction is hilarious. Thanks for posting it. I read all of it.
The civil contract idea is intriguing and creepy at the same time. Part of me thinks, "...or just don't get married in the first place?" That the government is involved with what is, effectively, a religious sacrament, boggles me a little. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
After 11.5 years (and yes, that .5 is important), I'm starting to feel like a veteran on marriage. Like Gottlieb, my perspective on what 'Mr Right' is has changed significantly. To wit, if I had advice to give to young women, it wouldn't be to "settle," but to find someone young, intelligent and not too hard to look at and train him.* By way of example, tptacek is currently in the kitchen making a chicken caesar salad.
* What this really means: grow together. It's difficult, but better than turning 40 and "settling."
I think your advice for young women is good. That is what my wife did 20 years ago. Of course as a result she has to put up with me. While I claim this is a good outcome, it is hardly a perfect one...
However as a married atheist I have to point out that marriage is a legal and social construct and not strictly a religious one. I have no trouble pointing to past societies where it was very religious, and ones where it was not religious at all. In short marriage has meaning, and it has meaning for non-religious people as well.
In fact, the divorce rate among atheists is lower than the general public. So one could make a case that marriage matters more to atheists than to the general public!
When I said religious, I didn't mean one of any organized religion that begins with a capital letter. I meant it in the sense of social construct. By my definition, atheism is a belief construct and falls into the subcategory under philosophy as a 'religion.' This is a pretty unpopular assertion, so I don't make it often, but it helps for clarification. To wit, legal constructs should be as abstracted from a single belief system as functionally possible, since beliefs vary so widely from one individual to the next. And because any legal system based on ideology is fraught with bugs. The description of a ship with no captain, in Plato's Republic, describes this in a way that is still disturbingly applicable to our modern political and social dynamic.
A more simple way of putting it would be, "if you believe marriage has meaning, then it has meaning." True for anything, right? Now if we could only agree on what is meaningful, and what is not...
Yeah, when I read the article it sounded like this passive mindset. Why leave it to chance when you can train someone hehe! That, to me, is the right attitude.
Lori Gottlieb, in The Atlantic, writes "Marry Him!", and describes a problem so pervasive and urgent it's hard to imagine Obama hasn't cleared his desk: what's an "independent," "feminist," "heterosexual" 40-something "woman" with a sperm-donor child to do when she can't find a man to marry her?
This is just an analysis of the author, in no point it addresses the issue that she mentions. The "psych" just calls her ideas "dangerous" in the end, and sticks to an ad-hominem.
I'd like to read someone who can actually find a counter-argument to her thesis and convince me that the best thing women can do is to hold on to their ideal all the way to the end.
I'm not sure that counterargument could really be made. Anyone holding out for an ideal person is going to be looking forever. Everyone has faults. The relationship depends on whether you can still be happy despite those faults.
That said, I think Lori is totally misguided. She feels she hasn't found a guy because her standards were too high, and that now she needs to lower them and "settle". Maybe she hasn't found a guy because she was too busy measuring guys by some predefined standards, and missed out on having fun. At the end of the day, standards and faults don't really matter if you enjoy being with the other person.
I completely agree with you. Thing is, I also think that Lori is not the exception, but may be very well part of the larger group. In that light, the article is something much more important and interesting.
Ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. Now, I don't know if this analysis of the author is necessarily accurate, but it smacks of plausibility to me because I've seen it before. As people, both men and women, remain single as they get older, they grow more and more accustomed to thinking almost entirely about their own concerns. This kind of self-focus makes it harder and harder to establish and maintain relationships. If you can't get your focus off yourself and off "the relationship" and onto the other person, you're going to have a hard time finding any lasting relationship at all.
Indeed: it's only a fallacy if you try to use it as proof of a claim.
As a probability indicator, it's fantastically useful: if person A is right 80% of the time when they make a claim, and person B is right only 20% of the time (assuming all else is equal), then you'd be a damn fool not to incorporate that information into your estimate as to whether something is true: person A is four times as likely to be right, so in a disagreement between the two you should always side with A.
I'm getting a little tired of people shouting "ad hominem" every time the credibility of the author is challenged. The fact that someone doesn't believe in evolution absolutely should make me take their thoughts on global warming less seriously; similarly, if someone has displayed an extremely immature, counterproductive, or selfish approach to relationships, you should probably take any relationship advice they give with a serious grain of salt.
First, "settling" is a highly offensive term. Anyone using that term is living in a fantasy world. I read the author as using it facetiously, though, since that is pretty much the point of the article.
Second, she soundly observes that marriage is basically a business partnership, except she considers it nonprofit (I do not). Assuming you aren't somehow committed to the single life, you should evaluate marriage opportunity based on your appetite for risk and a frank assessment of the opportunity at hand. Just as you shouldn't base decisions on sunk costs, you should ignore illusory opportunity costs. Physical capital decays, if you want a return on it you'll have to take a risk before it loses all of its production capacity. Of course, the older you get without taking a plunge, the easier it becomes to see the illusory nature of the opportunity cost you might have been using.
This all assumes you have a marriage opportunity that you can see having a profitable return (profit measured in happiness here). I would go so far as to say that it's impossible to judge marriage as an institution to be inherently profitable for you personally; it will always depend on the particulars. You might think marriage sounds like the place you want to be, but if you don't find a good partner for yourself in particular, marriage isn't for you.
As long as you don't have kids and both spouses have careers, getting out of the marriage is relatively easy. On the other hand, you only get one life, don't waste it avoiding risks whose most catastrophic downsides are not that bad.
I have assumed you aren't marrying a black widow or having kids with an affinity for patricide/matricide. But worrying about the latter is like worrying about being hit by lightning while not batting an eyelash over driving a car regularly. Avoiding the former is a matter of due diligence.
30 year old male here... I'm not really happy for feeling this way, but I treat relationships with women not unlike I treat my jobs/career.
With my career:
I get bored after 1 year, and have never stayed at a company for more than 18 months. Once I understand a company/team, it's hard to picture settling for this position and the realistic growth prospects forever. I'm always networking to find the next job/startup that is more promising than what I have now.
You can fill in the parallels with women, except these feelings creep in even faster.
The confusing bit is, doing this with a job is rewarded. My salary and reputation is much higher for moving around than staying one place.
It's not dissimilar with women. I've been dating more and more attractive women, and I have an easier time bagging them, then dumping them quickly or converting to a relationship depending on how I feel.
I'm a pretty humble person, but on good days I think I will continue to churn through new opportunities for 10 more years, and becoming a rich startup founder with a cool, hot wife isn't out of the question.
At least with respect to his career, how many HN readers don't think this way?
But more and more days now I feel weary. I don't want to work on tons side projects in case they take off, I don't want to hit on strangers at the bar. I want to work reasonable hours, and come home to a woman that is happy to see me.
But still that voice tells me not to settle... When will it, if ever?
I'm not sure if my situation is comparable since I'm a lot younger then you are and I haven't married yet.
but I can relate to the feelings you describe.
I settled when my ego bursted into shiny balls of flame and I really needed someone I could trust 100%.
shifting your ambition away from relationships and learning to compromise is the hardest part.
Oh, I dig the "trust 100%" part. When I act like a sociopath and dump a job or a woman, trust issues are always a big part of it.
I don't trust my boss/girlfriend enough to talk to him/her about what makes me uneasy, and/or do anything to improve things. So I just cut it off.
I am lucky enough right now to have a woman that I trust 99%. I'm still unsure about moving in and marriage, but you made me realize how important she is in my life. She is a friend and a teammate that I can bounce anything off of. I don't always love what she tells me but it feels better than keeping secrets.
I'm going to do my best to get that to 100%, and make sure she feels the same way about me.
it seems to me that you have the same thread manifesting in most aspects of your life.
the getting from 99% to 100% part is good. Perhaps you won't be able to get beyond 99% because of something in your past that makes you reluctant to do 100%. 99% is pretty fucking good if you ask me.
You presume wrongly. Communities begin with a "primary demographic"—people who are there for what it says on the tin. Over time, though, these communities start to lure in "secondary demographics" that are interested in both the community topic and other topics, but then those people in turn lure in "tertiary demographics," who aren't interested in the stated purpose of the community at all, only about the hybrid on-/off-topic stuff the secondary demographic posts. The tertiary demographic then posts stories like this one, which the secondary demographic upvotes, and the primary tolerates because they value the participation of the secondary demographic. Before you know it, the tertiary utterly dominates the community, and there is no more topic to be "on topic" about (especially in communities where "on topic" is small and static, but the community allows growth despite this.)
To me, "on topic" means an article that is a) not conventional/obvious, b) deep, in the sense that it provides greater analysis than most newspapers/magazines/blog posts, and c) makes me think of some process, idea, trend, method, or ideology in a new way (which ties back into a). All three of those could be further developed as points, but I think they nonetheless help describe what HN is about.
I think "Marry Him!" matches those criteria (since I submitted it): few if any sources covering mating markets and their incentives in as much depth; the stories match some of the data, as developed in books like Tim Harford's The Logic of Life; I hadn't realized the extent to which sexual politics change as one ages. Consequently, "Marry Him!" seems like it would be interesting to the HN crowd. So does the article on Haskell first impression, with its discussion of monads. To me, both belong.
I was trying to be general; sorry if it didn't make sense without examples:
A "demographic"—think TV viewers—isn't composed of what people like in general, but only why they're interacting with your community in particular. The original primary demographic of HN was "Hackers who are here to talk about Startups." That demographic is very small, so it was replaced by its own secondary demographic, "Hackers who are here to talk about Whatever Hackers Like Talking About."
Now, the secondary demographic is "non-hackers who like talking about some of the same stuff hackers talk about," and the tertiary demographic is "non-hackers who only care about the stuff that the other non-hackers talk about, and don't care about anything that hackers care about."
This article isn't about sex, or even relationships per se, it's about evaluating the riskiness of a particular kind of venture, and how women evidently miscalculate the opportunity cost of finding "Mr Right".
Nonsense. It is very much about relationships. Read the title. Now, you can argue that it's metaphorically about or related to other things but the problem with that kind of mush-headed reasoning is then everything is about everything and everything is appropriate for any forum. It's the sort of dilution and loss of focus that that makes forums grow useless. When you fired up your browser and brought up HN today, were you really looking forward to reading one woman's soulsearching article about finding a mate? And some then some dude's bizarre rationalizations (see top comment on thread) why he won't date women older than 26 (28 if they're Asian!). This is plainly not 'Hacker News' unless you define 'Hacker News' so broadly that it includes what I had for lunch today.
You are confusing the pragmatics of the decision to take the plunge into marriage with the underlying relationship. I'm interested in entrepreneurial risk-taking, and the kinds of considerations and miscalculations discussed in the article are entirely relevant. There's nothing metaphoric about it, though you may find some of the obscuring detail extraneous or expressed in an insufficiently detached manner.
I'm confusing something? You just called an article about relationships an article not about relationships. And the risk taking described in the article is not 'entrepreneurial' except metaphorically. The article is about finding a husband. Sure, you can find some kind of business-related lesson in there but again, if you can do that you can find a business-related lesson in almost anything.
Couldn't there be a third way: make demands less strict in society? I remember reading that women in Iceland are among the happiest on the planet, because they are not under so much strain to sustain a relationship forever. It is not frowned upon to break up. Women just move back with families and date again.
Since > 50% of marriages seem to break anyway (if I remember correctly), maybe it would be better to approach things in a more relaxed way to begin with. Maybe then men also wouldn't be so afraid to settle - for a while.
Well, out of 4 siblings in my family there are two divorces. Except that only one sibling has been divorced : twice.
Divorce statistics are very much a case of lies, damn lies and statistics and are of no use in assessing the likelihood of a successful marriage.
For the record, the 'love' concept of marriage is very much a modern day invention. For most of human history it's been a partly arranged affair to provide a solid foundation with which to bring up children. It's still mostly that (about bringing up children) though the wedding industry likes to convince you it's all about finding the right person and having a romantic time.
Someone in the marriage breakup industry told me that 75% of all second marriages fail.
That's the kind of statement to rigorously fact-check before believing it. Most estimates of divorce rates (in terms of percentages of all marriages that will end in divorce) are overestimates.
That wouldn't work so great for men / women who elect to become househusbands / housewives upon marriage. While the other partner spends those 10 years building their career, they toil away at home cleaning, preparing meals, and raising the kids, only to be left high and dry when their partner declines to renew. Now what are they to do? They have little job experience to build upon.
Unless your solution comes with alimony / child support, I don't see how it would work. And if it did, what's so different about it than getting a divorce?
About 30% of first marriages and 40% of second marriages fail within the first ten years (and, as the parent noted over 50% of first marriages fail-- see table 41 and the appendix table II of http://cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf ). About 20% of each fail within the first five years.
Ten years is not enough time for children to be conceived and raised to maturity in a two-parent home (a situation that significantly improves probable education and life outcomes for a child). Ten-year term contracts are too short to secure the primary purpose of marriage--forming families to raise children--and too long to make a large dent on the divorce rate.
I agree. There is too much emphasis on marriage in our society. At this point in my life, I'd rather have great friends than an okay romantic relationship.
You should look at http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol45_no2/node2.html which derives that the best strategy is to use the first 1/e of your potential dating life to set a baseline, and then choose the best partner that exceeds it.
Very interesting. The example for a young man that wants to get married between 20-39 is to date until 27 and then marry the best partner that exceeds it.
In the case of a woman is different. Assuming her prime is between 20-33; her strategy should be to date until 24 and then marry the best man that exceeds it. right?
edit: grammar
Women are people too - they are not just bags of meat that must have babies to be happy.
Don't ever settle, because doing that is always a certain path to endless misery and longing for what you could have had. Yes, life is short, but that's all the more reason to stick to your ideals, and make sure that you choose your ideals carefully (so that you're successful!)
Just think about how settling would ruin your honesty. Imagine what it would be like if you were to see your spouse and think, "I thought I could do better than you, but I gave up trying to find someone decent. You're okay, I guess." Settling requires you to take these thoughts and "set them aside" - evade them - constantly. Doing this does not result in love, or a happy life for anyone (including the children of divorced parents).
I hate being a 20-something women. Everybody on the planet, from doctors to HN, feels the need to comment on the apparently glaring biological clock ticking over my head, and make assumptions about A) my happiness and B) my nefarious ulterior dating motives.
I will posit that there exist women who don't base their self-worth and happiness entirely on the approval and acceptance of a man. I will further posit that there are women who aren't married by 30 because they haven't met someone they want to marry yet and are totally OK with that.
Later first marriages are more likely to last anyway.
(And do men really want to be settled for? Like "sure I'll marry you; you're not totally horrible"?)
I'm a female entrepreneur aged 32, happily unmarried. Yes, there are women out there 'who aren't married by 30 because they haven't met someone they want to marry yet and are totally OK with that.' - I'm one of them.
But this kind of article is the reason why it's sometimes hard - because no-one will ever believe you if you claim that you are not set on getting married and you're not keen on having kids. I've even heard the theory that I founded two startups because I didn't find the right guy to marry and have kids with.
>heard the theory that I founded two startups because I didn't find the right guy to marry and have kids with.
I generally flinch in the presence of feminist rhetoric (not saying that you were engaging in rhetoric, demonstrating my leaning), but that is crass and offensive. Why can't people just do what works for them?
"aren't married by 30 because they haven't met someone they want to marry yet"
It seems to become more difficult with age, though. Easy for you to be annoyed, if you are still in your twenties. What if you are 40? A lot of things will look different by then, I think so much is safe to assume.
Western social marriage patterns confuse the hell out of me. It appears to me that the vast majority of men are literally looking to marry a supermodel, beyond that very little beside if she'll laugh at his jokes and be nice appears to matter.
Women on the other hand appear to have all manner of weird neuroses about what constitutes "Mr Right.", so vast is the span of options it is not possible to really outline them all, they even conflict in many cases "Works hard, financially secure, can take the kids to soccer practice and let me focus on my career".
At any rate, I don't understand why from a man's perspective marrying a woman from abroad isn't the obvious option. They tend not to have the lifestyle that contributes to what is fundamentally the definition of "average human appearance" being skewed wildly with weight or the long term effects of cosmetics on skin quality etc etc etc.
For what it's worth for me personally, I think all you humans are crazy and I'm perfectly happy to not be codependent, but whatever blows your hair back.
Don't you think the lesson could be applied to startups? Do you try to work with the co-founders you have, or do you search incessantly for the perfect one (ie. Bill Gates, or Wozniak)? Do you wait for the perfect, home-run idea, or do you pick one you have and make it work?
I've heard so many people in real jobs moan about how they would do a startup if only they had the right idea. Or that they didn't think they and their potential partners could learn enough about business to make it. They're waiting for the perfect opportunity and circumstances, as if such things fall out of the sky magically, instead of being built and molded by hard work.
In the long run marriage should be a last resort. The vector from mama's vagina to the pine box may not be straight but it IS very short. Heaven is a fantasy so do your best to live peacefully and passionately.
Marriage contains a bit of wonder surrounded by pitfalls aplenty. It is best engaged in by the simplistic and rigid.
But during the 20 years of marriage, the way we met didn't matter. Marriage is something else than about that initial burst of lust, or gushing romance or whatever. When you get woken up at 4 in the morning by your soulmate because the dog needs to go outside to pee and she certainly isn't about to leave the warm bed, believe me, romantic love is not what makes you jump out of bed.
I think we have unrealistic expectations about romance. Living together is freaking hard; giving up one's independence and having to be ready to compromise about every damned last thing in life (except maybe what you do in the potty) is hard. And once you compromise, if you're smart and want to stay happy, you have to be enthusiastic about the compromise, or you get bitter. Be happy, even when you didn't get what you want.
Still, despite all the compromises, all the things we had to work out, here I am 20 years later, and the love I had for her on that first day we met seems like a pale imitation to what I feel today. You have to work at it, and you end up with something a lot more. I don't know about settling, but instant love connection or not, making the marriage work is the hard part, and the real love in life comes from that work.