For years I have known that my husband and I never should have married due to the unalterable fact that we are both first-borns in our families. Birth order studies confirm that this is the worst possible match-up. Why? First-borns are both used to being in charge of the younger siblings. So if they marry, the battle for control of the family unit will be perpetual
Good combos are first-born with last-born. Middle siblings can match up with first, last, or another middle. Two last-borns are not a good fit. (They’re both looking for someone to spoil them.)
But a couple weeks ago, I discovered that my husband and I are both superfirsts. More trouble. Being a superfirst in birth order is not as fabulous as being, say, Superman, or a superstar.
A superfirst is one who is the oldest in a large family. Yup. That one is really used to bossing everyone around. I’m the oldest of five and so is my husband. The problem is, we’ve already been married more than twenty years. So what do I do with this information now that I know we shouldn’t be married?
The only thing that saves me, if anything does, is that I have no desire to be the boss. I will make a decision when one is required, but if you beat me to it, thank you. I won’t stand around and dither. If the group needs a plan of action, and no one else steps forward, I will. I do have that perfectionist streak that says, as long as we’re going to do this – whatever this is – we might as well do it to the best of our abilities. And dh is exactly the same, for better or for worse.
And there’s the answer, for me, anyway. We got married for better or for worse. In our ignorance, we thought we could make it work. So the fact that now every psychologist we meet says, whoops, there must be lots of fireworks in your household - this comment doesn't bother us. We say yes, there are plenty of fireworks, but they are the right kind.
Does anyone else have good or bad combos?