I just meant that it is important to have relationship where you can be open and honest. And your right that marriage has served other functions historically, but that during those times people used other venues, such as these unique kinds of friendships to confide in. The Boston marriages I referred to were quite unusual. They were more affectionate than traditional friendships with the parties often sharing beds and writing to one another in often romantic ways. I guess what I was trying to explain was that some of these relationships fulfilled the emotional component that we traditionally think of marriages as having. So my point was that I think it can be very helpful to have a loving relationship where you feel comfortable enough to confide in another person. I don't think that it has to be a spouse (although I think the level of emotional investment, or expectation should be equitable in that relationship), but I think its better when people have someone in their life who fulfills that need. I guess I was just concerned that you might not want to have that kind of emotional relationship with anyone. But I do think it messed up to think that kind of emotional confide ought to, and can only happen with a spouse.

I'm sorry but I really do have to disagree with you about the way people think of therapy in general. I think that assuming that therapy is a place where you can take your stuff and fix it so that no one else has to deal with it is a messed up idea that leads to a larger break down in emotional connection. To me one of the goals of therapy is to learn how to connect better so that I can build a support system. Therapy may be a part of that support system, but I hope very much that it is not the only part (eventually).