Jules NYC wrote:
Would be a pain in the ass, but sure.
I'd have to get rid of my cool Choppers jacket to start.

Why would you have to get rid of a jacket? I'm "assuming" you mean it's leather, so that included, why?

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

You can't just say things and HOPE someone knows what you meant when on the Internet.

I don't.

There is no inflection on the internet/text/email, etc.

There is always the idea of asking, "How come you don't date vegans?"

Then I can answer you to satisfy you supporting your belief that I'm stubborn.

kickfight wrote:

ROTFLMFFAO (No, what I mean is good luck with **that** one)!

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Why would you have to get rid of a jacket? I'm "assuming" you mean it's leather, so that included, why?

Yes, it would be frowned upon.

My mother gave me a mink coat and I'm not getting rid of it.
I gave up meat to date a guy, the vegan.

So um, being stubborn is really not 'me'.

Jules NYC wrote:
There is always the idea of asking, "How come you don't date vegans?"

There's always the idea of not saying things that will bring up irrelevant questions.

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.

But it may not be so easy throwing them out if things don't work out.  No one ever thinks about that. 

A lot of states give people who live together, even roommates, a lot of rights.  Even if YOU own the home.  A girlfriend of mine asked her roommate of 3 years to leave.  Just friends.  Nothing else.  She wouldn't.  No lease.  No agreement.  Just out of the kindness of her heart she let her "best friend" live in her home.  She barely paid any rent.  She was trying to help her get back on her feet.   Things went sour and she actually had to take her to court to evict her. 

Lesson learned.

If you do decide to move in together, and if one owns the home, get a fricken lease agreement.  Sounds romantic huh?  Pre nups are even needed for shaking up I'm afraid to say.

"We don't need that.  We love each other"  What a load of crap.  Be adults.  Be sure each one is protected legally so no one gets burned.  Because usually, it's the ones that are closest to you that will burn you the most.

Jules NYC wrote:

Yes, it would be frowned upon.

Who's making assumptions now?

Not all vegans are the same.

What Fun Productions wrote:
Why buy the cow when you can go to Dairy Queen?

...so it could get to the other side!

(that's probably not the correct punchline, but whatever)

kickfight wrote:

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Who's making assumptions now?

Not all vegans are the same.

I can believe that.
I don't like guns in my house but if I open up my closet and see a couple 45s, I won't be pleased.

and sure, everyone is different and not a stereotype, yet USUALLY if someone believes in something (anything!) strongly, they align with people of the same cloth.

Jules NYC wrote:
USUALLY if someone believes in something (anything!) strongly, they align with people of the same cloth.

USUALLY but not always.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

USUALLY but not always.

Yes

Mike Collins wrote:

But it may not be so easy throwing them out if things don't work out.  No one ever thinks about that. 

A lot of states give people who live together, even roommates, a lot of rights.  Even if YOU own the home.  A girlfriend of mine asked her roommate of 3 years to leave.  Just friends.  Nothing else.  She wouldn't.  No lease.  No agreement.  Just out of the kindness of her heart she let her "best friend" live in her home.  She barely paid any rent.  She was trying to help her get back on her feet.   Things went sour and she actually had to take her to court to evict her. 

Lesson learned.

If you do decide to move in together, and if one owns the home, get a fricken lease agreement.  Sounds romantic huh?  Pre nups are even needed for shaking up I'm afraid to say.

"We don't need that.  We love each other"  What a load of crap.  Be adults.  Be sure each one is protected legally so no one gets burned.  Because usually, it's the ones that are closest to you that will burn you the most.

I hear all of this!

Jules NYC wrote:
I gave up meat to date a guy, the vegan.

Now this I do not understand. Meat in many of Hue's favorite dishes, like Pho, is used sparingly (more of a garnish you might say). Many of her dishes contain no meat at all. Me, I love a nice rare T-bone. She eats what she likes, and I do the same. sometimes she cooks for me, sometimes I cook for her (to her precise specification). Point is, I would never presume to dictate her diet, nor would I ask her to change it. I will admit to trying to find interesting dishes that we both like (not an easy task because if it ain't traditional Vietnamese, just getting her to try it is like pulling teeth). Interestingly, Hue has a love affair with In an Out burgers (ewwww). She can down 4 of their big ones without batting an eyelid - go figure.

Jules NYC wrote:
I gave up meat to date a guy, the vegan.

Lohkee wrote:
Now this I do not understand.

Because it doesn't make any damn sense.

Alabaster Crowley wrote:

Jules NYC wrote:
I gave up meat to date a guy, the vegan.

Because it doesn't make any damn sense.

I will break it down for you as you do not understand.

Giving up meat (including shellfish) was not a big deal for me at the time.
Giving up my value of waiting to get married to live with a man, IS a big deal to me.

It's amazing how everyone has values that are important to them.  It can be any issue.

Lohkee wrote:

Now this I do not understand. Meat in many of Hue's favorite dishes, like Pho, is used sparingly (more of a garnish you might say). Many of her dishes contain no meat at all. Me, I love a nice rare T-bone. She eats what she likes, and I do the same. sometimes she cooks for me, sometimes I cook for her (to her precise specification). Point is, I would never presume to dictate her diet, nor would I ask her to change it. I will admit to trying to find interesting dishes that we both like (not an easy task because if it ain't traditional Vietnamese, just getting her to try it is like pulling teeth). Interestingly, Hue has a love affair with In an Out burgers (ewwww). She can down 4 of their big ones without batting an eyelid - go figure.

There are things two people are willing to compromise on and other things not so much.

It's just the ebb and flow of how two people relate to each other.

Jules NYC wrote:

I will break it down for you as you do not understand.

Giving up meat (including shellfish) was not a big deal for me at the time.
Giving up my value of waiting to get married to live with a man, IS a big deal to me.

It's amazing how everyone has values that are important to them.  It can be any issue.

I do understand. There's nothing hard to understand about it. I just think it's silly.

Jules NYC wrote:

There are things two people are willing to compromise on and other things not so much.

It's just the ebb and flow of how two people relate to each other.

Fair enough.

Laura UnBound wrote:
Unless you OWN the home and everything in it, and the other party moved in with nothing, and you have nothing to worry about . . .

Absolutely false in the U.S. (depending on the state).

Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I do understand. There's nothing hard to understand about it. I just think it's silly.

I don't think it is silly to compromise on things that one is willing to compromise on and not to compromise on things that one is not willing to compromise on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRHJETIjlC4

Jules NYC wrote:
I don't think it is silly to compromise on things that one is willing to compromise on and not to compromise on things that one is not willing to compromise on.

I agree 100%, but grilled LOBSTER smothered in real butter?!?  I dunno about that one (even if she can make me wake up the neighbors when making love).

** runs and hides **

Lohkee wrote:

I agree 100%, but grilled LOBSTER smothered in real butter?!?  I dunno about that one.

** runs and hides **

I eat shellfish now.

Jules NYC wrote:

I eat shellfish now.

Just when I had started to loose all hope, a light appears at the end of the tunnel.

Lohkee wrote:

Just when I had started to loose all hope, a light appears at the end of the tunnel.

ha ha

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.

And how is this bad

it's the same as  getting married with a prenup pretty much but much more simple.

David Stone Imaging wrote:
About the article and the women not being able to find a nice, suitable man to marry....   I've heard that for real too many times to count...

In my experience, women who are looking for a "nice, suitable man to marry" don't live with anyone while dating them. They join (often) Christian networking activities, conservative social sites, and either live alone, with a female roommate - or in the case of my cousins, with their parents - while they engage in structured outings with assorted males who hold similar values. Eventually, they find one they share enough with intellectually/emotionally to get married. Then, they move in together, after vows are said and binding contracts signed.

Imo, if your sole focus is marriage, you probably shouldn't be living with someone at all. And one should never just *expect* their partner to eventually want to marry them, simply because they've lived together forever. Human emotions don't work that way.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? It's true.

The exception would be people who are already engaged, with a wedding date set, and in process of becoming a married couple.

That's ^^^ coming from someone who's had three live-in relationships, and was briefly married.

T Brown wrote:
1. Men and women have very different ideas about what living together means. Women typically see it as an almost inevitable step toward marriage, while men see it as a no-obligation "test drive." Couples who initiate a live-in relationship under the fog of such contradictory assumptions are already in trouble.

I see this as utter BS, maybe I'm just out of date or not alert to what might be going on, but in my mind moving in together is an important first step to marriage, not saying it always happens but I think most people enter into it with that thought in mind.



2. You've heard the old expression, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" It's an ugly phrase, but there's some truth to the message. Living together results in regular, no-strings sex for a man, thus removing the sexual motivation that is part of a marriage proposal. And don't worry about his proposing just to bed you -- there are too many sexually available women out there for a man to propose marriage just for sexual release.


No strings? WTF? I can't even get my head around this nonsense. Love and marriage shouldn't be viewed as a no-strings thing or thinking that there is always another available person out there. If that's the view then no wonder relationships fail.

I guess I can only speak for myself but if I'm in a relationship that has progressed to that point, a serious relationship then going to the "next level" is what its about. I would expect it to grow and develop not just sit there.

3. Living together means that a man doesn't have to pursue his girlfriend any longer. And if something is too easily acquired, it just doesn't hold the same value as something that is more challenging to get. I have seen many men in my office who are apathetic about their partner, and I have noticed this to be more true with couples who are either co-habiting or who lived together before "sliding" into marriage. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a man say, "Well, we're not married so it doesn't really matter," or "I just married her because she wouldn't shut up about it," or "I only proposed because everyone expected me to." Their lack of enthusiasm and passion toward their partner is as depressing as it is discouraging.


This is utter BS too, finding ways to keep the relationship alive, healthy, and fun is greatest joy of being in a relationship, taking the time for each other, those little gestures, physical and non physical ways of expressing your love, desire, and happiness.


I was going to go on with the rest of the article but I think I would be repeating myself and there is just so much that I disagree with.

I guess it really comes down to what a person wants out of life and a relationship, but if you're going to treat each man/woman with by those standards (or lack of them) then I say you reap what you sow and I really wouldn't call it a relationship.

Love is meant to bring two people together, the wonder and the joy of discovery. Creating moments carved out of time that hopefully someday, some day very far in the future you can look back at all of those memories good, not so good, and some bad and know you made those together. That you took each day side by side hand in hand keeping the other in your heart and not giving up.

I've seen the lines that time has etched in couples faces and it seems to me the longer they were together the more their lines were the same.

Now please excuse me while I go and wash the bullshit from that article out of my brain.

Bravo sir! Bravo!

Lohkee wrote:
Seriously, Jules. We have disagreed of many things, and have fought like cats and dogs on others, but I do sincerely respect you're refusal to just "settle" as so many often do. I honestly hope that you stick to your guns and find "the one" to spend many happy years (the rest of your lives) together. Yeah, there will be good times, and there will be bad times. But at the end of the day when you lay down for the last time, you can say "we went the distance!" something you don't hear very often anymore. I honor that!

I truly appreciate what you've said here, really I do.
I have to say, even if we disagree, I respect & like you.

Lohkee wrote:

Absolutely false in the U.S. (depending on the state).

Im assuming you're relating this partial sentence to my mention of divorce, since I dont know in what other context you'd think what I said was false. It wasnt, and the whole sentence is pretty useful at determining that

Laura UnBound wrote:
Im assuming you're relating this partial sentence to my mention of divorce, since I dont know in what other context you'd think what I said was false. It wasnt, and the whole sentence is pretty useful at determining that

Well, no, it's not (useful). If you really think what I believe you meant, my advice would be to talk to a good divorce lawyer.

Disclaimer: MM has not only failed to send me my MM M.D. but has also failed to send me my MM J.D. Hello mods! What's the deal here?

In many states, our respective property before the marriage is just that. Ours. Once we tie the knot, things can change. Suppose, for example, I had 1K before the marriage. No question that this is my money. What happens if I invest that money (say a 401K) while we are married and it grows to 1M. Community property anyone?  Simply stated, assets accrued after the marriage are (generally) community property and treated as such by the courts. Been there, done that! Or, maybe I just had a really crappy lawyer. I certainly didn't have a pre-nup!

Perhaps a real lawyer will comment.

Lohkee wrote:

Well, no, it's not (useful). If you really think what I believe you meant, my advice would be to talk to a good divorce lawyer.

Disclaimer: MM has not only failed to send me my MM M.D. but has also failed to send me my MM J.D. Hello mods! What's the deal here?

In many states, our respective property before the marriage is just that. Ours. Once we tie the knot, things can change. Suppose, for example, I had 1K before the marriage. No question that this is my money. What happens if I invest that money (say a 401K) while we are married and it grows to 1M. Community property anyone?  Simply stated, assets accrued after the marriage are (generally) community property and treated as such by the courts. Been there, done that! Or, maybe I just had a really crappy lawyer. I certainly didn't have a pre-nup!

Perhaps a real lawyer will comment.

I dont know why you're talking about divorce and lawyers since the sentence of mine that you only partially quoted had nothing to do with divorce. Like I just said.

Laura UnBound wrote:
I dont know why you're talking about divorce and lawyers since the sentence of mine that you only partially quoted had nothing to do with divorce. Like I just said.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read your own post which said -

Divorce (when both parties agree) is paperwork.

and

Unless you OWN the home and everything in it, and the other party moved in with nothing, and you have nothing to worry about . . . .

Please elaborate on what I misunderstood here.