Clarification on my beliefs.

Post Reply New Topic

Good point, HopeGrows, if someone wants to be in a relationship, understanding the world from the viewpoint of the other gender helps a lot.

Relationships are not about what you get, but what you are willing to give. If anyone wants to doubt how much giving can be involved, you can read this recent thread http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt136092.html.

Until you are willing to say that you would stick it out and catch someone as their world crumbles around them and threatens to take you with it, you should question if you are willing to give enough to make a relationship work.

Not that any of us would willing walk into difficult situations, knowing how much pain it will hold, but life is going to throw them at you fast and furious no matter how well prepared you are. I was a newlywed when my SIL got terminally ill, and I spent my Chirstmas away from home and crying because pretty much none of the in-laws wanted me there, but I had to stick it out and put on a pretty face because my husband needed me to be there.

THAT is what relationships are about.

Knowing how hard it can get, of course people avoid known complications going in. They are going to avoid knowing they have to support you financially with no back up plan for their own failures and trials, and they are going to avoid being with someone who makes no effort to back them up emotionally or with daily life chores. You've got to show what you are offering in return, even if it's just the amazing ability to make them laugh while fires rage around. Show how you will make their life better, so that the exchange with all the ways their life could end up worse will seem worth it.

I do think it is all going to get more difficult for young men in the coming decade, because the education system is out of whack and more women are leaving it willing and able to get well paying jobs than men are (in many colleges, a key step to future financial success, 60% of the students are now women). That fault lies securely in the education system, it starts with some policies in very young ages that put boys at a disadvantage (I can point you to the book if you doubt me), and both men and women are going to pay the price, with equal relationships getting more difficult to form. It is HARD to be the one who is going to have spend more time holding up the other partner, and who makes that choice before realizing they are in love? No one. The natural filter is when you are deciding whom to date; you apply the filter to reduce the odds that you are going to carry the majority of burdens in the relationship. Anyone looking for a relationship needs to understand that, and that it isn't superficial, and it is entirely valid for the one simple reason: once you commit, you are supposed to stay through thick and thin.

^THIS. The whole post really, but this paragraph and particularly the bolded text is so key to understanding what it takes to attract a mate. Take your focus off the stereotypical answers and concepts, and take a look at yourself. So what if you don't fit into stereotypes? What is it that you can bring to a relationship? What else could you bring to a relationship if you were willing to make some changes?

I also agree with your thoughts on commitment. I'd like to add that commitment is a decision made by two people. When only one person is committed to staying through "thick and thin" - it's not commitment. It's very likely no more than a sucker's bet. (That's why I'm not a fan of living together. Cohabitation provides the appearance of commitment, without the actual decision from both parties....often becomes a very fertile environment for exploitation.)

Committing to staying with someone through "thick and thin" is going to require flexibility, and a willingness to do things for the sake of the relationship that are not pleasant or comfortable. It's hard work, and frankly, it's not for quitters. If you want a long-term, successful relationship, you really have to figure out constructive ways to manage stress and frustration. If you don't have those strategies in place, you'll fold when there's trouble - and no partner wants someone who can't be counted on when needed.

Well, I've avoided dragging my kids through failed relationships; I've avoided providing "father figures" who are there one minute and gone the next; I've avoided taking on someone else's debts and problems as though they were my own responsibilities when he wasn't willing to do the same for me. All in all, it's working out quite well for me, and for my child.

Is it possible that you've misread and/or misinterpreted my point? I'm all for living together after marriage, and against it before marriage. My opinion has no basis in religious belief, or sexual abstinence, or anything like that. Instead, it's based in the idea that cohabitation without marriage offers the illusion of a committed relationship, without the benefits. What benefit is missing? The one where both partners are committed to stay and work through the problems life presents them with. IMO, that makes cohabitation a sucker's bet.

Again, IMO, people live together because one person wants to be married - that is, legally, intellectually and emotionally committed - and one person doesn't want that. Living together isn't the same as marriage - there is no commitment. There is no decision to put the needs of your partner and the relationship ahead of your own needs. Instead, you often see one person who's willing to sacrifice everything to build a future, and one person who's willing to let them. Living together doesn't equal marriage, an no one should forget that.

Interesting points. Especially if you already have children. But they all apply to many marriages as well.

Getting married to someone without living with them first sounds just crazy too to me.

while i agree with many of your other points, some of your ideas about cohabitation i completely disagree with.

commitment is not made with a piece of paper or words before a religious official. it is made when two people decide to make a life together and that does not require a marriage certificate. nor does marriage guarantee commitment. it makes separation messier, thats it. do not assume that just because there is a marriage certificate, the parties involved are committed. commitment, or lack thereof, is determined by the individual people involved. granted, there are many cohabitations undertaken by young dating couples without serious commitment, but there are also a whole lot of couples making lives and families together who do so willingly without marriage or because they cannot legally marry.

i have done both in my time. a marriage when we both wanted to get married that ended with infidelity after 2 years, and cohabitation where neither of us needs to be married that is still going after more than 11 years. we have talked about marriage on multiple occassions, even got a marriage license at one point on a whim. but neither of us feels that its something we NEED to do. the commitment i have from my cohabiting partner is much, much stronger than that i got from my previous husband.

there was an extensive cdc report that came out this past february about marriage and cohabitation. you can read it at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf
its interesting to note that a full half of cohabitations turn into marriage within 3 years.

i will admit to finding it insulting that someone would assume, simply based on the lack of a marriage certificate, that i am not able or willing to commit emotionally and intellectually to someone, or that i do not or cannot put the needs of my partner and family ahead of my own. in my experience, cohabitation can be equal to marriage, depending on the couple. and in some ways, cohabitation requires more of a commitment because of the negatives that can go along with the lack of marriage, such as lack of survivorship rights, lack of financial/medical decision rights, lack of insurance coverage, legal rights concerning children, and negative stereotyping from others.

Hey @BigK. I think your opinion (getting married to someone without living with them first sounds crazy) is shared by a lot of people. My perspective is that living together first doesn't really offer any guarantees that your marriage will be more successful. That said, it's not like I want to outlaw it or anything....it's just not a decision I would make (again). And I can't bring myself to risk my kid's happiness....I mean, she's only gonna have one childhood, I want it to be as good as it can be. My personal rule (totally personal) is that I won't introduce a man to my daughter until we've agreed to marry. That probably sounds crazy too, but little kids love with their whole hearts - they don't know how not to. I can stand a broken heart, but I'd never want to get her's broken.

Won't that depend on how old she is at the time?

Can't argue with putting children first.

Best of luck HopeGrows.

@Azurecrayon, you make a lot of valid points. First, I completely support same-sex marriage, so can we take that out of the discussion?

To be clear, I never said that all people who enter into marriage are committed. They're absolutely supposed to be committed - that is the point of marriage. But a lot of people who marry simply aren't committed. I've been surprised by the people I've met who didn't regard marriage as a lifetime commitment. (Ever listen to marriage vows? They're pretty specific about the agreement being entered into.)

I agree with your comment that commitment isn't about a "piece of paper" - in fact, I've posted (at length) on the idea that commitment is a decision people make. Also, I don't doubt that 50% of cohabitations turn into marriages within three years....so why do we still have a divorce rate of 50%? I don't think I've seen a study that shows that cohabitation prior to marriage results in marriages that are less likely to end in divorce - but I'd be willing to look at one if you've got it.

Again, I never said that people who live together cannot be committed emotionally and intellectually to each other....I said that marriage implies emotional, intellectual, and legal commitment - all three. But since you've volunteered some details about your life, can I ask a question? Why not marry your partner? Since marriage would be easier (in terms of all those benefits you listed), why not just go ahead and marry? I'd be really interested in your answer.

Look, these discussions often end with people who advocate living together saying what you did, that it can be the same as marriage. But it's not the same as marriage - that's why two different options exist. I'm not implying you can't be satisfied with your life if you live with someone rather than marrying that person. You have to do what's best for you. But there's a solid, empirical difference between marriage and cohabitation - I'm suggesting that keeping that difference in mind is in your best interest.

Yeah, I think the child's age is a factor, but my baby is still a little girl. Your smile in your avi always kinda reminds me of her.

...................

Last edited by Fixer_Girl on 27 Aug 2010, 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It can all stay, but the point wasn't to cause an argument, I just wanted to differentiate myself from fs (hopefully he is banned by now) because other than a generalization or two, that are just that, a generalization, I don't agree with him at all.

I do stand by what I said in my original post though. Attractive women in their 20s or women that aren't so attractive but feel they "deserve" someone in particular, tend to go for the muscular, man in uniform, or abuser type. I've spent many lonely nights pretending to be such a man (with fake pics and all) just as an experiment. The same women who rejected the "real me" (and I'm not ugly) were the same women loving the hunk...and not even caring that he was talking to them condescendingly.

While a lot of this could be "it's just online dating"...I see more well-balanced couples in their 30s and up, than I do in their 20s. Most women in my area, regardless of their attraction level, but especially anyone remotely cute, is with the big muscles, abuser type. Or if they're not with that type, they're with someone who doesn't fit that physical stereotype but is mistreating them.

This could be the byproduct of living in anytown, USA, and not living in a more gender-based well-balanced area...so men outnumber women here and they have their choice...but it still doesn't do any good for me. And dating an obese woman (when I'm fairly attractive) or dating some crazy old woman isn't an option to me.

Last edited by foreveryoung on 27 Aug 2010, 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i've seen you mention this elsewhere and i've bitten my tongue. but... this is not a recent idea. there has been talk about the male/female disparity in education for at least a decade (it was bandied about when i was in university - studying education to become a primary teacher).

the fact is, the boys who were supposedly disadvantaged a decade ago are now earning higher salaries on average than their female cohorts. if you look at the stats by education level, men earn more. if you look at the stats simply by averaging the salaries by gender for an age cohort, the men still earn higher salaries.

these supposedly educationally disadvantaged boys are still earning more than women of their age and education have done. for instance, from wikipedia, which states that in the U.S. :


... however...

therefore, even amongst those who are educationally at a disadvantage, women are still less advantaged than men...

in general, primary and secondary schools in western/northern countries are by default trying to homogenize education in a one-size-fits all model, but please don't generalize that men are somehow at a disadvantage upon leaving school. the boys who are currently in school will not only survive, but they will thrive.

Ah, now THERE is a point worth hearing and listening to. I knew the theory on what it could lead to, but what DOES it lead to? Good question. That wasn't addressed by the book.

Although, being in the workforce, and being a mom, I do know that there is a very unmeasurable factor at work: women (at higher rates then men, though both can do it) regularly take themselves off the career track and make other choices that reduce their actual earnings for personal reasons, usually having to do with family. I am one. I still work, but part time and at a fraction of what I'm worth, but I make that choice because one of us in the couple needs to be able to spring up and say, sorry boss, kids come first (or PTA comes first, or whatever catches my fancy ). It's part of my verbal work agreement that I can say that anytime, any deadline, and the boss picks up the slack. In exchange, he gets me for a fraction of my technical worth, a deal we are both happy with. Something no one running all those numbers will ever be able to measure.

To the extent women who have not diverted their careers by their own choice are still underpaid, that is slimy. When I was full time and full career track, I was paid exactly the same as the comparable men. But, I can't speak for what other companies are doing.

My husband and his best man used to joke that they had both proposed to women who made more money than they did, but married women who made much less. Just how did that happen?

Women do, in practical result, seem to have choices many men don't, although that is slowly changing. Even if the education gap doesn't turn out to have real play on the incomes, it will have real play in society on some level, and is worth considering.

true! this may explain some of the supposed -'personality' differences between men and women. i mean, not just boyishness and girlishness, but the differences we may see between some men and women regarding cross-cultural tolerance, liberalism, and compassion, for instance. maybe educating boys better could lead to a better society for everyone... ?

y'know you also have a good point about women working part-time and removing themselves from the workforce. also, unskilled physical labour pays more than retail, for example.

I'm just thankful for my disability. I'm incapable of marriage even if I wanted it, which I don't.

check that cdc study i linked to previously. this data actually seems to show that there is a very slightly higher divorce rate among couples who cohabitated prior to marriage without engagement, but the rates were similar if they were engaged when cohabitating. personally, this isnt something ive ever looked into as i dont currently view cohabitation as a pre-marital stage.



actually the exact words i responded to were " married - that is, legally, intellectually and emotionally committed" and "Living together isn't the same as marriage - there is no commitment". i apologize if i misread what you intended to say, but i took those statements as presentation of the belief that marriage is legal, intellectual, emotional commitment and cohabitation is no commitment.

as for my own cohabitation, i think marriage was the end plan when we first began living together. we talked about it, neither of us was completely ready. me due to a previous messy ending marriage and him due to his beliefs that you only marry once. like i said, we did get a license once, but i was 8 months pregnant at the time and the same day ended up in the hospital with pre-eclampsia and emergency surgery. after our son spent 21 days in the nicu 100 miles away, and we got settled back in at home, the license was expired heh. then life happened.

i think now, for me at least, its partly a political/religious decision. as an atheist and liberal, i feel no need to - in fact i feel a desire NOT TO - have my decisions rubber stamped by the government after paying a fee or be approved of by some religious overseer. i feel the concepts of family and commitment are beyond the scope of government needed approval, and being atheist, religion has no place in my life anyway. i also do not plan to get married until my sister is accorded the same freedom, which means until same-sex marriage is legal for her.

the political issues partly came about where we previously lived. they passed a law allowing domestic partnerships, however we were not legally able to register as domestic partners since the rules were you had to be same sex or one of you had to be over 62 years of age, and the benefits were severely limited compared to those with marriage. i had ethical objections to the idea i was allowed to be married but not in a domestic partnership and the disparity between the two. since we moved out of state, they have expanded domestic partnerships to confer all rights automatically granted by marriage. however, you still must be same sex or one of you over 62. conversely, same sex couples are not allowed to be married, only domestic partners. to me, that is discriminatory for all.



coupled with your previous statement of "Living together doesn't equal marriage, an no one should forget that", it sounds as if you are saying cohabitation is inferior and not equal to marriage, and i am trying to figure out exactly in what way you think that is so. for the legal rights, yes, but for the commitment, no.

i do agree that cohabitant couples should be aware of their partners commitment and actively discuss it. but i dont agree with what i think i am hearing, and that is that married couples dont need the same degree of awareness because of some implied greater degree of commitment. depending on the study you read, up to 60% of married people admit to having affairs. that being the case, i'd say married couples too should be very questioning of their partners commitment and not assume anything.