Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Cherrystone wrote:
The stats are true and have been constant for decades about the success of living together prior to marriage or not living together.
Living together is not all it's cracked up to be. Been married, and lived with people. I dunno if I'd live with someone again if I thought I had didn't have many notions to marry them.
Probably the best thing I had was a kinda live together. While we spent most nights together, she had her place & I had mine. Close enough to know if we wanted to go further, but not too close that if things went south, it could be a pain in the arse. I've found when people keep their own places and continue a relationship, each other's homes become temporary closets in the middle of getting back to their own 'life'.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I've posed the question clearly twice now.
I'm asking how do you know if you haven't met the "right" person, ie the person that would make you change your mind. No, this is the first time I understood your question.
I will reiterate what I am saying but specifically answer your question.
The 'right person' for anyone has basic values/ethics/morals the same as their own. Compromising on these GREAT values is tough because ONE person has to make the compromise. If so, does that make someone the 'right' person for them?
That is rhetorical.
One must concede.
Maybe two people are 'perfect' for each other but one person doesn't get what they wished for things to be.
To me it seems painful to feel on trial to be married.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
If we look at a common definition of "No strings attached," http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … 20attached
You see that being in a relationship is the opposite of that, thus, "it's a string." That's stretching the string, no pun intended.
Anyone who is living with someone can walk out the door today, tomorrow, or next day with no legal consequences, no messy divorce, no messy splitting up property, et. al.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Jules NYC wrote:
I've found when people keep their own places and continue a relationship, each other's homes become temporary closets in the middle of getting back to their own 'life'. ????
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Cherrystone wrote:
That's stretching the string, no pun intended.
Anyone who is living with someone can walk out the door today, tomorrow, or next day with no legal consequences, no messy divorce, no messy splitting up property, et. al. Okay, but that has nothing to do with what I said.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
No, this is the first time I understood your question.
I will reiterate what I am saying but specifically answer your question.
The 'right person' for anyone has basic values/ethics/morals the same as their own. Compromising on these GREAT values is tough because ONE person has to make the compromise. If so, does that make someone the 'right' person for them?
That is rhetorical.
One must concede.
Maybe two people are 'perfect' for each other but one person doesn't get what they wished for things to be.
To me it seems painful to feel on trial to be married. It wouldn't be compromising your values; it would be changing them because you feel that's right.
Photographer
Kincaid Blackwood
Posts: 23492
Los Angeles, California, US
What do I think of the article?
I think it's a crock of shit in which the author continues to perpetuate the ugly, archaic stereotype that women's happiness is tied to a man, that they are passive participants in their love lives, as well as many others. Wonderful little gems like outright stating that couples who live together without being married somehow bail on a relationship when hard times come, implying that for some reason, a couple that waits is going to stick it out because of... newness of marital bliss? In that statement she unwittingly implies that these couple are sticking it out (possibly taking them deep into unhappy marriages) instead of parting ways. Break-ups do happen, y'know.
The whole "why buy the cow..." bullshit... I can't even believe she posted that crap. Let me get this straight: not living together supposedly limits the amount of sex a couple has (it doesn't, but whatever) and that can be used as some sort of leverage? It perpetuates the particularly nasty notion that sex is something men enjoy and something women use as a coin in a transaction. Which, you know, is prostitution but it never even crossed the author's mind that she's making such a negative statement on the sexuality of women. How about plenty of women enjoy having sex with their partners whether they live with them or not?
She then goes on to allude to statistics about couples who live together are more likely to divorce than those who do not. Well, that might be in the data. Her way of interpreting that is that couples who don't live together work harder to stay together when troublesome times arrive.
An alternative explanation – one that she cannot rightly refute – would be that couples who are smart enough to live together first are also smart enough to recognize irreconcilable differences. The whole notion of her spiel is based on the notion that marriage should only ever be once and should always be permanent. Neither of which are necessarily true. If two people want to marry for a time and decide it's not working out then they really ought to call it quits.
What's the problem with that?
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Cherrystone wrote:
???? It's easy to sleep over someone's house, have sex, eat together, etc. It's 'almost living together' but you have your own respective places. Soon, you get a toothbrush, then a drawer...
Then you're sleeping overnight and leaving in the morning to go to work, etc.
Going home (your OWN place) becomes a closest or their place is a closet... bouncing between two homes without having ONE.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
It's easy to sleep over someone's house, have sex, eat together, etc. It's 'almost living together' but you have your own respective places. Soon, you get a toothbrush, then a drawer...
Then you're sleeping overnight and leaving in the morning to go to work, etc.
Going home (your OWN place) becomes a closest or their place is a closet... bouncing between two homes without having ONE. So, you don't believe in moving in together, but you're presenting the problems of keeping your own, separate houses. What DO you want?
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
It wouldn't be compromising your values; it would be changing them because you feel that's right. I can understand that.
It's not being stubborn though, my values are what make me, 'ME', the person I am, what I stand for... what I WISH for.
Otherwise I probably would have compromised a long time ago on many things and my life would have been a LOT easier.
Needs/wants
"You can't always get what you want" the Stones said.
I don't believe this statement.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
I can understand that.
It's not being stubborn though, my values are what make me, 'ME', the person I am, what I stand for... what I WISH for.
Otherwise I probably would have compromised a long time ago on many things and my life would have been a LOT easier.
Needs/wants
"You can't always get what you want" the Stones said.
I don't believe this statement. Sounds pretty stubborn.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
So, you don't believe in moving in together, but you're presenting the problems of keeping your own, separate houses. What DO you want? Monogamy with a person no longer than a couple years. I wouldn't date someone 3/5 years to see if it would lead to marriage.
I spent a lifetime figuring out what I want and it wouldn't take 3/5 years to figure it out.
It's not about being married per se, I just don't want to waste time.
The choices I make now have greater weight than figuring out who I wanted to bring to the prom and get wasted with the next day.
... and just for the record, this question is loaded. I'm in no rush to get married or have a boyfriend.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Sounds pretty stubborn. Not at all.
Values are values.
Easy to call me or people that uphold their beliefs as 'stubborn'.
Ask a vegan if they'd wear a fur jacket.
But... I am PERFECT for you!
Photographer
Outoffocus
Posts: 631
Worcester, England, United Kingdom
Are there any women who don't spend half their lives finding ways to manipulate men?
What does this article boil down to other than make him want you badly enough to marry you?
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Monogamy with a person no longer than a couple years. I wouldn't date someone 3/5 years to see if it would lead to marriage.
I spent a lifetime figuring out what I want and it wouldn't take 3/5 years to figure it out.
It's not about being married per se, I just don't want to waste time.
The choices I make now have greater weight than figuring out who I wanted to bring to the prom and get wasted with the next day. So all that matters in the end is that you get married?
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Not at all.
Values are values.
Easy to call me or people that uphold their beliefs as 'stubborn'.
Ask a vegan if they'd wear a fur jacket.
But... I am PERFECT for you!
That analogy makes no sense, sorry.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
TMG wrote:
Are there any women who don't spend half their lives finding ways to manipulate men? 
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
That analogy makes no sense, sorry. Yes it does, sorry.
You think I am stubborn for a deep-rooted belief I uphold and am proud of.
You may disagree and that is fine.
I respect people who stand up for their beliefs.
VERY MUCH
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
So all that matters in the end is that you get married? No.
I don't have a need to be married in life or have the same partner in life forever.
I would like to though, with someone with the same ethical beliefs/value system.
Not that difficult to understand.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Yes it does, sorry.
You think I am stubborn for a deep-rooted belief I uphold and am proud of.
You may disagree and that is fine.
I respect people who stand up for their beliefs.
VERY MUCH It would make sense if the fur jacket was "the right one," in the way a person can be, I guess. You tried.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
It would make sense if the fur jacket was "the right one," in the way a person can be, I guess. You tried. No you are incorrect.
and I don't date vegans
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
TMG wrote:
Are there any women who don't spend half their lives finding ways to manipulate men?
What does this article boil down to other than make him want you badly enough to marry you? I think if a man or woman has to try so hard to 'make' the other person want them, the relationship is doomed.
Oh and P.S., this has never been my experience.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
No you are incorrect.
and I don't date vegans
You seem to really love limiting yourself from finding happiness. Interesting.
Photographer
Schlake
Posts: 2935
Socorro, New Mexico, US
Jules NYC wrote:
No you are incorrect.
and I don't date vegans
Vegans are perfect though. After the apocalypse comes, they are perfect for eating because of how healthy they are.
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54196
Buena Park, California, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Then why not just get married if you're willing to share your private space/bills/food/life?
*Related meaning married already, I'd safely believe two are living together Because they want to leave with more than half their stuff. 
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Schlake wrote:
Vegans are perfect though. After the apocalypse comes, they are perfect for eating because of how healthy they are. One vegan changed my relationship with food dramatically and that was a very good thing.
I still respect him, incredibly so to this day.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Christopher Hartman wrote:
Because they want to leave with more than half their stuff. Yes!
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Jules NYC wrote:
It's easy to sleep over someone's house, have sex, eat together, etc. It's 'almost living together' but you have your own respective places. Soon, you get a toothbrush, then a drawer...
Then you're sleeping overnight and leaving in the morning to go to work, etc.
Going home (your OWN place) becomes a closest or their place is a closet... bouncing between two homes without having ONE. It's what you just said on the previous page, you'd always have home to come back to, unless you're married. What's the conversation here?
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
I always viewed living with someone as just a way to share a closer type of life, and is practical/economical for a lot of people. It does not necessarily have anything to do with marriage, or whether or not you will marry eventually.
The only "step" you are taking is applying to real life, the understanding that your mate isn't going to drive you crazy if you live in the same house.
It is what it is, and a binding legal document is most definitely what it is not.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Cherrystone wrote:
It's what you just said on the previous page, you'd always have home to come back to, unless you're married. What's the conversation here? That is why marriage is a big deal.
Sure, one can live with anyone and be 'committed' but there is no consequence under ten years financially that is.
Plus if you're living together, it's pretty easy to say "later"!
Moving van
No Divorce
Done deal
Having two places is a way not to have total commitment. It's true.
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
I got yelled at for reading that article so I can't comment any further *shrug*
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
I got yelled at for reading that article so I can't comment any further *shrug* Wow.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
I got yelled at for reading that article so I can't comment any further *shrug* I'm sorry
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
You seem to really love limiting yourself from finding happiness. Interesting. You have a way assuming many things.
I was involved with a vegan.
Having standards is a good thing, not being stubborn. If I looked at everyone as a prospective partner and had to alter the person I am to be with them, that's insane.
There are things I don't naturally do 'alone' that I would do for another if it made them happy but not bow down to a value that is important to me.
We disagree and that is certainly ok.
Model
D A N I
Posts: 4627
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Jules NYC wrote:
I'm sorry
It's ok, I set his Xbox on fire the other day so we're sort of even
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
You have a way assuming many things.
I was involved with a vegan. So, you do or you do not date vegans?
If you say "I don't date vegans," I think it's only fair that I assume that you don't date vegans.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Danielle Reid wrote:
It's ok, I set his Xbox on fire the other day so we're sort of even Don't piss off Danielle
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
So, you do or you do not date vegans?
If you say "I don't date vegans," I think it's only fair that I assume that you don't date vegans. Oh Good Lord, I said it tongue in cheek.
I don't meet many vegans but sure.
Would be a pain in the ass, but sure.
I'd have to get rid of my cool Choppers jacket to start.
Maybe these days, I don't want to.
There are certain things I am willing to compromise on and other things I am not.
When two people have wildly different ideas about life/love/etc., it's becomes complicated. Love shouldn't be.
Things should be easy.
I can be me, they can be them and we have fun together.
Period.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Oh Good Lord, I said it tongue in cheek. You can't just say things and HOPE someone knows what you meant when on the Internet.
|
