Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/debra-macl … 88489.html What do you all think of this article? Geez, I guess I think like a 'man' (well the stereotype the author penned); it's always the way I felt. Women typically see it as an almost inevitable step toward marriage, while men see it as a no-obligation "test drive." This is a pretty big value to me. I mean if one person in the relationship thinks it's a requirement and the other does not, seems like if both people want to get married down the road, the handwriting is on the wall.
Photographer
Schlake
Posts: 2935
Socorro, New Mexico, US
I think they definitely transposed the words man and woman when they wrote it. It's completely backwards.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Schlake wrote:
I think they definitely transposed the words man and woman when they wrote it. It's completely backwards. I think so too!!
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
One thing about living together is you save a lot of money.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Chuckarelei wrote:
One thing about living together is you save a lot of money. Isn't that what getting a roommate is for?
*not a lover/boyfriend
Photographer
Chuckarelei
Posts: 11271
Seattle, Washington, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Isn't that what getting a roommate is for?
*not a lover/boyfriend I may be weird, but I rather live/share with someone related or have ties than someone with no ties.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Chuckarelei wrote:
I may be weird, but I rather live/share with someone related or have ties than someone with no ties. 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
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
The article is riddled with stereotype-based generalities (OMG living together will make him "less motivated to marry" which IS THE ULTIMATE LADY-CATASTROPHE) so I don't see how anyone could take it seriously.
My personal experience proves the article to be 100% incorrect on all counts, but that's subjective and anecdotal... perhaps the situation is more complicated for those who want to get married ASAP so they can get started on building a family ASAP.
Photographer
Abbitt Photography
Posts: 13564
Washington, Utah, US
I think the gender-specifc things she states are not gender specific but true for both men and women. I think they are are also generalizations that are often not true. For many people, living with someone is not an adequate substitute for marriage.
Sure, by living with someone, one may discover they don't want to marry that person, but isn't it better to find that out before marriage than after?
Really bad article overall in my opinion.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
I stopped reading at "Living together results in regular, no-strings sex for a man"
Uh, a committed relationship is a "string."
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
kickfight wrote:
The article is riddled with stereotype-based generalities (OMG living together will make him "less motivated to marry" which IS THE ULTIMATE LADY-CATASTROPHE) so I don't see how anyone could take it seriously.
My personal experience proves the article to be 100% incorrect on all counts, but that's subjective and anecdotal... perhaps the situation is more complicated for those who want to get married ASAP so they can get started on building a family ASAP. Over the years I've talked to a lot of people that have wildly different adaptations of what works or doesn't. There are studies for and against it. Researchers can spin whatever suits them at the given time, ha ha
I just wonder for the people who are big fans of living together first is this:
What are you REALLY going to discover about a person beyond seeing them on a frequent basis that would make you reconsider if marriage is the end goal?
To me, it seems like a great waste of time. Two people intertwining their lives more and more with no common goal in sight.
... and people that buy houses/property/furniture/etc. with their partners are crazy!!!
Well, to me at least.
Seems like a case for Judge Judy
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I stopped reading at "Living together results in regular, no-strings sex for a man"
Uh, a committed relationship is a "string." No strings meaning no financial obligation to that person.
... and YES, one can have a committed relationship with another and share everything and anything. Marriage is such a big move because you are putting not just your heart but your livelihood on the line for another person to (hopefully) be shared forever.
I always thought it was completely odd if one is able to work, doesn't have children to expect money from a man who doesn't want to be in the relationship anymore. Same goes in a reverse scenario.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Over the years I've talked to a lot of people that have wildly different adaptations of what works or doesn't. There are studies for and against it. Researchers can spin whatever suits them at the given time, ha ha
I just wonder for the people who are big fans of living together first is this:
What are you REALLY going to discover about a person beyond seeing them on a frequent basis that would make you reconsider if marriage is the end goal?
To me, it seems like a great waste of time. Two people intertwining their lives more and more with no common goal in sight.
... and people that buy houses/property/furniture/etc. with their partners is crazy!!!
Well, to me at least.
Seems like a case for Judge Judy
Maybe you just haven't found the type of person that makes wanting to live together make sense...?
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
What are you REALLY going to discover about a person beyond seeing them on a frequent basis that would make you reconsider if marriage is the end goal? You really answered your own question here.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Maybe you just haven't found the type of person that makes wanting to live together make sense...? No, that's not it.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Lohkee wrote:
You really answered your own question here. If the OTHER person really believes in living together before marriage.
I don't.
Truth is, people court maybe for a few 'dates' (paid dinners?) before they get 'comfy', sleep over each other's places for a while, have a bunch of sex and then want the title of 'boyfriend/girlfriend'.
Monogamy is great but why all the fuss if it's not a real situation?
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
If the OTHER person really believes in living together before marriage.
I don't. You missed my point (or I am not understanding yours).
Model
JadeDRed
Posts: 5620
London, England, United Kingdom
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I stopped reading at "Living together results in regular, no-strings sex for a man"
Uh, a committed relationship is a "string." Living together is a goddamn rope.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
No, that's not it. Well, how would you know?
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Jules NYC wrote:
I just wonder for the people who are big fans of living together first is this:
What are you REALLY going to discover about a person beyond seeing them on a frequent basis that would make you reconsider if marriage is the end goal? Well, the most obvious one right off the bat is "it's much harder for them to hide who they REALLY are ---for better or worse--- if you're living with them 24/7".
Jules NYC wrote:
To me, it seems like a great waste of time. Two people intertwining their lives more and more with no common goal in sight. The common goal *is* the intertwining of two people's lives. Marriage just makes that intertwining all legal and stuff, but it's entirely optional.
Jules NYC wrote:
... and people that buy houses/property/furniture/etc. with their partners is crazy!!!
Well, to me at least.
Seems like a case for Judge Judy
Sure, there's always a risk that it's all gonna blow up in one's face and dreadful crappiness will follow. When we had our big break-up at Year Seven which lasted all of six months or so, the biggest single source of contention/resentment was dividing up the CD collection. Oh, man... that got nasty. 
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Lohkee wrote:
You missed my point (or I am not understanding yours). I get you now.
I know, I'm not going to see anything differently.
I thought it was REALLY weird for a guy to tell me, "I believe in living together 3/5 years before getting married."
I returned with, "Well, I don't believe in living together before marriage."
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
kickfight wrote:
Jules NYC wrote:
I just wonder for the people who are big fans of living together first is this:
What are you REALLY going to discover about a person beyond seeing them on a frequent basis that would make you reconsider if marriage is the end goal? Well, the most obvious one right off the bat is "it's much harder for them to hide who they REALLY are ---for better or worse--- if you're living with them 24/7".
Jules NYC wrote:
To me, it seems like a great waste of time. Two people intertwining their lives more and more with no common goal in sight. The common goal *is* the intertwining of two people's lives. Marriage just makes that intertwining all legal and stuff, but it's entirely optional.
Sure, there's always a risk that it's all gonna blow up in one's face and dreadful crappiness will follow. When we had our big break-up at Year Seven which lasted all of six months or so, the biggest single source of contention/resentment was dividing up the CD collection. Oh, man... that got nasty. I really think I roll much differently from most.
If something is over, it's OVER.
No, I don't want to be friends, no I don't want to see how you're doing.
Nothing.
I don't give a flying fuck about 'stuff' but I'd be damned if I bought a house and a failed relationship took it away from me.
F that.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
Well, how would you know? Well, I don't want to live with a man before marriage.
A man can want to live with me and that's all fine and good but it's not going to happen, me at his place or he at mine.
Period.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Jules NYC wrote:
I really think I roll much differently from most.
If something is over, it's OVER.
No, I don't want to be friends, no I don't want to see how you're doing.
Nothing.
I don't give a flying fuck about 'stuff' but I'd be damned if I bought a house and a failed relationship took it away from me.
F that. Fair enough. In our case, it was obviously meant to be, but we were too young and stubborn to realize it. Ego and drama got in the way. Fortunately true love put ego and drama on their collective ass and in their place. It was a humbling experience to face each other again and admit "OK, we fucked up. Let's put this back together." And it was hard fucking work, but it was all worth it. 
If we hadn't had a life together to destroy and rebuild, it probably would have been much easier to just let ego and drama lead us away from each other.
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
I know, I'm not going to see anything differently. And therein lays my point. Anyone can play a role, some better than others. But, sooner or later, when they feel secure and confidant (you're on the hook as it were), as sure as the sun rises, they **will** revert to who they truly are. That's the person you are really making a lifelong commitment to.
You must have one hell of a crystal ball.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Well, I don't want to live with a man before marriage.
A man can want to live with me and that's all fine and good but it's not going to happen, me at his place or he at mine.
Period. I'm asking how would you know if you haven't met the right man yet.
Photographer
A-M-P
Posts: 18465
Orlando, Florida, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Isn't that what getting a roommate is for?
*not a lover/boyfriend my lover/boyfriend is my best friend so why would I go ask a stranger to move in when my best friend can live with me.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Lohkee wrote:
And therein lays my point. Anyone can play a role, some better than others. But, sooner or later, when they feel secure and confidant (you're on the hook as it were), as sure as the sun rises, they **will** revert to who they truly are. That's the person you are really making a lifelong commitment to.
You must have one hell of a crystal ball. ha ha
I think if you spend enough time with a person, it's pretty easy to 'see' who they are.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I'm asking how would you know if you haven't met the right man yet. You are assuming I haven't met the right man.
Who is to say a stranger on the internet knows that more than if I do.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I stopped reading at "Living together results in regular, no-strings sex for a man"
Uh, a committed relationship is a "string." Please explain how living together is a string?
Ok, yeah let's call it a string. A thin piece of string that wraps a bakery box, and can easily be snipped and walk away from.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
A-M-P wrote:
my lover/boyfriend is my best friend so why would I go ask a stranger to move in when my best friend can live with me. That is great and I hear you.
I just don't see why you wouldn't want to marry your best friend.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Cherrystone wrote:
Please explain how living together is a string?
Ok, yeah let's call it a string. A thin piece of string that wraps a bakery box, and can easily be snipped and walk away from. I have to agree with you here Cherry
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
You are assuming I haven't met the right man.
Who is to say a stranger on the internet knows that more than if I do. I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking a question which you've repeatedly failed to answer.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Cherrystone wrote:
Please explain how living together is a string?
Ok, yeah let's call it a string. A thin piece of string that wraps a bakery box, and can easily be snipped and walk away from. 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."
Photographer
Lohkee
Posts: 14028
Maricopa, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
ha ha
I think if you spend enough time with a person, it's pretty easy to 'see' who they are. And I agree with you up to a point. The problem is that people on dates are on their best behavior (unless they are real losers). The stresses of running a household and dealing with bullshit that life throws at you, is a whole different ballgame. It's easy when she's dressed to the nines and you know you're going to get laid. Sleeping on a hospital floor for a month, trying to keep your job, and make sure routine business is taken care of, well, not so much (been there, done that).
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Alabaster Crowley wrote:
I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking a question which you've repeatedly failed to answer. Then pose the question with greater clarity?
How would I know *what* exactly?
If living together would be a good thing?
These are established values/ethics I have.
They may not be yours but they're mine.
Photographer
Cherrystone
Posts: 37171
Columbus, Ohio, US
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.
Model
Jules NYC
Posts: 21617
New York, New York, US
Lohkee wrote:
And I agree with you up to a point. The problem is that people on dates are on their best behavior (unless they are real losers). The stresses of running a household and dealing with bullshit that life throws at you, is a whole different ballgame. It's easy when she's dressed to the nines and you know you're going to get laid. Sleeping on a hospital floor for a month, trying to keep your job, and make sure routine business is taken care of, well, not so much (been there, done that). I agree with you big time.
Usually typical scenarios don't allow for two people to be with each other every day. If one is spending every day with the other person, sleeping over, sharing a great amount of time together, it's wildly different from isolated dates here and there... on weekends, etc.
Model
Alabaster Crowley
Posts: 8283
Tucson, Arizona, US
Jules NYC wrote:
Then pose the question with greater clarity?
How would I know *what* exactly?
If living together would be a good thing?
These are established values/ethics I have.
They may not be yours but they're mine. 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.
|
