|
|
|
|
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 5:29:05 PM |
post#25--Why just stick to one person then if you don't plan on living with them? There's no point. You might as well just keep dating.
So, your answer to the OT is that "yes", it must be 24/7 to be a committed relationship? In essence, in your pov it's either living together, or else it's just casual dating? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 8:17:18 PM | | Living together or casual dating around? And nothing in between? Gotta say I disagree with the poster who posited that thought. Absolutely, two people can have a very committed relationship w/o living together--or dating around, either. It's because they love/care for each other but for reasons only known to them (because all this stuff is intensely personal) simply keep their relationship going without benefit of living under the same roof. You know, people have a right to mutually decide the things that are right for them, and we're in no position to judge a consensual relationship because it's outside of our own comfort zone and not something we would ourselves do in the same way. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 8:32:42 PM | ^^^^I think she meant that if you aren't thinking about eventually living with them, you might as well look for somebody else.
So why does cohabiting seem to be the "holy grail" for so many?
Because they are lonely.
I've had an LTR that was live apart and an LTR that was live together, and I have to say that I preferred the live apart. With the right guy, I would definitely consider living in again, but truthfully, if we ever get to that point, we might as well get married. Because it will be after spending enormous amounts of time with him as IF we lived together.
Truth is, I'm not in a place in my life TO live with anyone - I've got an aging 16 year old cat who "owns me" that I've had since before he was born, and I cannot ask anyone else to put up with the cat hair and the hair balls. Not to mention the jealousy issues and that he likes to sleep with his big huge head on my toes. He's in perfect health. It could be a LONG time before I could even consider living with anyone.
Emotionally mature couples in the right time/right relationship find ways to turn "issues" into something that promotes the common good of a loving relationship. Each action to promote harmony is done with love This is what I want. It's the only way to deal with the changes we are all experiencing as we grow older. Nice post. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 8:48:53 PM | Ren, this statement; "that if you've been sleeping together for 6 months, and aren't living together, that it's not "really" a committed relationship in the eyes of many."
Is alot different than the question you posed in the OT.
This is just my thoughts, but people who put time frames on things like when/how long, before it's OK to say "I love you", "have sex", "cohabitate" simply aren't being realistic! Peoples minds do not process information all at the same speed.
Then I'd whole heartily agree with you! 6 months is to soon, at least for me, and I'd also agree it could be a recipe for disaster. I'm sure its worked for some, but as far as the majority, I doubt it! At least in the 45 plus range.
Ren, as far as message 25, maybe you have a different defintion of what a committed relationship is? Of course part of mine is a LTR, which may or maynot include marriage.
But isn't part of a committed relationship trying to set mutual goals, including finances? If you agree that's part of it, wouldn't two people have a much better chance of attaining that particular goal by cohabitating? I'm sure you'll agree with that.
So I think what she meant in #25 has some validity. If you don't have mutual goals what's the purpose? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 9:35:14 PM | 4 All Seasons, Msg 22
24/7 may not be the goal, but 7/24 is a very fine test of the potential for a collaborative relationship!! You reminded me of a one week (7/24) canoe camping trip (200 km) I took with a female friend many moons ago. The one "mutiny" at the 100 km mark lasted only 40 minutes while I continued to paddle "solo". After the air was cleared we were hydroplaning over the whitecaps and covered 40 km in one day.
I agree, taking a whitewater canoe trip is one of the surest ways to test compatibility and tolerance between the partners. When in a middle of a powerful current or approaching thunderous falls, there is no time for diplomatic talks or pussyfooting. And to get out of the predicament, both partners have to pull in the same direction.
Many relationships were shattered on such outings. I personally knew some couples, who after a few heated arguments sold their tandem boat and got two solo canoes instead.
But once you get over the initial hump, problems seem trivial. Many marriages were cemented by battling the elements together and sharing the joys of wilderness travel.
| |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 4:34:51 AM |
lonesomerick----people who put time frames on things like when/how long, before it's OK to say "I love you", "have sex", "cohabitate" simply aren't being realistic! Peoples minds do not process information all at the same speed.
Then I'd whole heartily agree with you! 6 months is to soon, at least for me, and I'd also agree it could be a recipe for disaster.
Rick, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. I've made many posts in many threads that people who reference an external time frame, and elevate that external rule over the connection with one specific person, are way too controlling.
I said 6 months, as an example, because, in my experience, that is the point at which it often happens that conversations about cohabitation often begins. If you live 100-200 miles apart, and see each other on weekends, it's seemed that it's about at that point that the pointed "hints" that one or the other should move, with the "assumption" that if one, or the other moves, that you'll end up living together. I agree with you, that it's way too soon, as my experience has borne out in 2 different relationships over the past 3 years, that were fine prior to 24/7, but were ruined by the "business" of sharing the same address.
IMO, people who try to find relationships, and initially attempt to put head over heart, making it logical, will never find a "great love and grand passion". For me, that's an emotional connection, that is only influenced by logic. On the other hand, the decision to live together, for me, should be based on logic, while influenced by emotion.
I have had relationships that lasted for close to 2 years, without ever living together. They were a nice part of life, were monogamous, committed, and good for both people. They didn't stay together because of all the complications of having to move, if we broke up, so they stayed together, because both people wanted to keep seeing each other. That's in contrast to the two "live withs" that got to the point, where I avoided coming home "too early", because it was one big hassle towards the end, and we were only together, because of the practical factors. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 6:56:06 AM | This is just a guess, but one reason why many people might have a hard time being in a monogomous, committed relationship is the whole "trust" issues ... or... the wondering what he/she is doing on the nights they are not sleeping over?
I totally agree on the living apart concept ... to have a bit of your own life, but be in relationship. Sure, it's not beneficial financially for either ... but maintaining some personal space might be worth it. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 7:17:34 AM | I agree with you, Ren. I've been single for the last 25 years and now find myself in a somewhat unusual relationship with a man whom is going through a divorce yet he and I are almost inseparable on a daily basis. He has his place (for obvious reasons right now), and I have mine. I remember years ago when I was married (yes, some poor sucker actually wanted me for matrimony at one time.. ) I felt like a wild animal in a cage and couldn't stand going home to him...funny, when we were just dating I couldn't wait to see him.
"Committed" means different things to different people. I'm "committed" in my heart to one guy and one guy only whether we're living under separate roofs, one roof or if I'm living in Papua, New Guinea. Some people can only equate being committed if they're living under one roof...I guess it gives them a feeling of security knowing they won't be sleeping alone one more night, yanno? I treasure my time alone but here's the thing. The pleasure I feel from being alone is the exact same pleasure I feel when I'm with my guy so that tells me it's right. To me, people that demand we "live together or get married" to seal the relationship are clingy, needy parasites that need constant validation that the relationship is indeed monogamous and committed.
Dayum...I would rather be an exhibit in the San Diego zoo than to date that kind of person..at least I would have a tree or two to climb to get away from their nagging, clinging a$$ when I needed to.
Sans | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 8:03:50 AM | I think all of us can make up our own minds about the definition of a committed relationship - the trick is to find someone else to agree.
If my relationship goal was a committed, exclusive relationship while living in separate houses and not marrying, I wouldn't still be on a dating site. It seems that is what more and more women in my age bracket want. However, that isn't what I want. My relationship goal is to have a true partnership, a shared life, with one who is my "best friend and lover" (a cliche, but true in my case) - and for me that is achieved by living together in marriage. I agree with the point that many people ruin budding relationships by rushing the closeness; that is why I have a "friends first" approach. Recently I replaced "long term" with "friends" on my profile as an experiment to see if I will attract someone whose thinking is more in line with mine. Msg. 10 beautifully encapsulated my thoughts in this one sentence: "When the relationship and timing are right, couples develop 'our way' that works for the two of them." Msg. 10 and Msg. 20 both point out that romance can be found in sharing the day-to-day responsibilities and even the nitty-gritty chores of life, not just in the exciting and adventurous experiences that usually comprise dating encounters. I have lived by myself for three years, which is long enough to decide that I want something different. An "our way" with the right partner, a relationship of continuously giving and receiving and sharing a mutual life vision, would be satisfying and fulfilling on a level that a "my way" never can be. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 8:18:05 AM | "The pleasure I feel from being alone is the exact same pleasure I feel when I'm with my guy so that tells me it's right"
No offense, but there seems to be a little "I" syndrome there. Takes two to make a relationship, and both parties in that respect have to be on the same page.
No one should be expected to give up their independence because their in a relationship.We should all be allowed to have our own space on occassion!
Although I'd like to be in a relationship where we eventually cohabitated I hardly think of myself as "clingy" or a "parasite". And at least for me it has nothing to do with "validation". Guess I'm just a little ole school, but if I'm truely in love with someone I want (and I hope she does too) to spend as much time together as God allows.
I do believe people should get to know someones living habits before committing to cohabitation though. I'm somewhat of a clean freak although not OCD, Therefore I couldn't live with someone that couldn't careless about their living environment! Probably be a deal killer for me.
Nicely put Shorelife! | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 8:23:53 AM |
In my experience, when you see each other a lot, often stay over the night, but each has his/her own place, there's a positive choice to being together a lot. When you're living together, you have no choice, and often yearn for time alone. When you aren't living together, you yearn for time together.
The only "problem" with doing what seems obvious to me is healthier for the connection, is that for so many there seems to be an attitude that, if you aren''t living under the same roof, it's not "committed". Some even label it as FWB. Why can't two people be in a monogamous, committed relationship, yet maintain some personal autonomy?
No reason at all. And in a committed, monogamous relationship, the FWB label is, IMO, as inapplicable as it would be if they were in fact cohabitating. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 8:33:05 AM | No offense, but there seems to be a little "I" syndrome there. Takes two to make a relationship, and both parties in that respect have to be on the same page.
No offense taken but let me clarify. In any relationship, if you don't feel comfortable with the way things are going then there's going to be some problems, no? I'll admit that I have no children and can be a little blonde bit*ch when it isn't 'all about me' but don't you agree that you want to feel good yourself when in a healthy relationship? Also chief, when the dude makes it 'all about me' then I make damn sure it's 'all about him' as well.
Why would I want to be in a relationship just to meet someone else's needs and have mine ignored? (Btw, lonesome..I do respect your post's and hope you feel the same about mine.)
Sans | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 9:24:44 AM | Thank you, and of course I respect your opinions and what works for you.
And I certainly agree with this; "if you don't feel comfortable with the way things are going then there's going to be problems, no?" The word compatibilty comes to mind.
But the word "needs" perplexes me. At least in a relationship. If it's "needs" rather than "wants" or "desires", there's a problem. Needs are basically simple; Shelter, security, food, clothing. Of course in this world...income.
Wants, and desires are what makes us different, unique if you will. As long as your "wants' are compatible with your partners...what difference does it make. If the two of you choose to live in separate domains, and that makes the two of you happy...so be it! I on the other hand couldn't be in a LTR if that didn't eventually happen...cohabitation....just doesn't work for me. And it has nothing to do with trust issues.
I hope you have a happy life, and that's really all that matters. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 9:41:44 AM |
the word "needs" perplexes me. At least in a relationship. If it's "needs" rather than "wants" or "desires", there's a problem. Needs are basically simple; Shelter, security, food, clothing. Of course in this world...income.
If one references motivational theory, as illustrated in Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, very few in our society are focused on the physiological needs, such as food and shelter. People are focused on their most urgent unmet needs, and for many people, who have no struggles with the basics, nor are worried about safety, the focus does become "love and belonging needs. While we can survive with those needs unmet, they can be "urgent", and the needs of which we are most aware, focused, and motivated.
There is a "need" in the heart of most of us, to have "someone special" in our lives, and to love and be loved in return is a very real need, not just a passing "want".
The question is, does the "model" that's appropriate for forming a family in which to raise children, earlier in life, still the only model that will meet those "love and belonging" needs, as we reach a more mature part of our lives.
The romantic in me still visualizes that, at some point, cohabitation might work and last "til death us do part", but only when it truly fits both people. Prior to that, IMO, it's entirely possible to mutually meet each other's needs, while maintaining some level of personal autonomy, by maintaining separate residences. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:07:45 AM | I hope you have a happy life, and that's really all that matters.
Thank you, but I won't acquire happiness until I can afford proffessional help and with the economy as it is in Florida I must rely on the forums at hand for therapy.
When I mention 'needs' I guess it can be right up there with 'desires'. Fixed needs are of course food, shelter, water and whatnot. (I'm a survivalist..I can subsist on a q-tip, matches and build you a mall in the wilderness if need be.)
All I ever wanted was to belong to someone, somewhere. All I ever wanted was for someone to want me more than they wanted their beer, their sports or their remote control. I 'needed' that. I 'needed' to feel first for once..just for once. I'll tell you guys a secret and I've only told one other person this. 25 years ago I walked in on a man I thought I loved unannounced. He was in bed with another woman and when I caught them together he just looked at me, laughed and said "Sans, you will never, ever be as beautiful as she is...look at her..she's blonde with an awesome chest and you'll always be homely..like a forgettable ugly pet."
I was never, ever the same again, so my needs may be a bit different than other people's. I know that. My 'needs' are compatible to my 'desires.' What I need is also what I desire. Does that make sense?
Homely, my a$$. I just wish the son of a bitch could see me now. Sorry, off topic.
Sans | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:27:30 AM | Ren, hate to disagree with you, but I do. I'm going to restruture what you've said...so, I guess it will become my alternate statement.
There is a want/hope in the most of us, to have "someone special" in our lives, and to love and be loved in return is a very real desire!
I know it sounds like semantics, but its really not. Yes, I used Mazlows(thanks for spelling his name, been along time, I would have spelled it Mazlov) as a base for needs.
But what you're describing really falls under the wants, desires and hopes. Men and women really don't "need" each other accept in procreation. If someone feels they "need" someone else to make them whole it's another recipe for disaster.
I also believe that two people can cohabitate, no, let me change that, two people better be able to cohabitate while allowing each party personal autonomy....independence.
But I do get your meaning. Just that in a LTR it wouldn't work for me...but whatever works for two people...great.
*Sanscheyle*, you're a very beautiful woman, probably always have been...the guy you mentioned was a pig, a heartless one at that, if not blind. You deserve much more than that! But it's still not something you need..it's simply wants, desires and hopes.
| |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:49:04 AM |
lonesomerick----*Sanscheyle*, you're a very beautiful woman, probably always have been...the guy you mentioned was a pig, a heartless one at that, if not blind. You deserve much more than that!
I second that thought. Men like that, who would say such a thing to a woman who they claimed to love, are beneath contempt.
in a LTR it wouldn't work for me...but whatever works for two people...great.
A secondary consideration in considering this question for me, is that without the pressure to cohabitate, it substantially broadens the horizons. As an example, for me, a serious relationship could sustain a good long while, with weekends ( Fri night-Mon morning) together, and phone contact during the week.
In my case, that makes the "available universe" a 3 hour drive, which would include Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St.Paul, Rockford, as well as Madison,WI, and all points in between. That's a population area close to 11 million people, whereas Madison, WI whick skews to younger demographics, is only about 5% of that. LDRs can work, and have in the past for me, and to focus only on local, in the context of "online dating" makes the search far less productive. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:52:40 AM | ^^^Thanks, guys. You are gems as well for your edit to me. (Lonesome and Ren) I'm so very, very tired of trying to be what other's want me to be. I like my chest just the way it is. I like my beautiful brunette hair the way it was..it was so shiny and pretty at one time..forget the 200 bucks it takes me to keep my hair blonde twice a month down here. meh!! Who the hell is paying for it?!?! Not him. I 'need' guys like both of you in my life! Thank you both for being.... just you.
I just 'need' a man to accept me for who I am, shrew and all.
Sans | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:55:16 AM | While I don't think moving in together right away is a good idea, the goal of sharing space on a regular basis is more appealing. How long to wait? One year or more is sufficient for me.
I think I'm independent enough to not be threatened by the day to day presence of another -- where others may feel smothered or that they "lose themselves". | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:57:21 AM | {quote]For the most part that is very true UNLESS you have a partner that will not allow you to go to the corner without them.
To allow the behavior means making the choice to be manipulated.
There is always choice. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 10:58:30 AM | Op, it is never a must....unless you realize you start missing them before they say goodbye that morning :P
I think alot of the attitudes I have seen show how some are still trying to make someone else make up to them what a prior person has done...they feel cause they went thru something that they are OWED special consideration...well IMHO you invited the "prior" person in your life and the only one who OWES you anything is YOU! and that is to heal and move forward in your life and stop expecting others to repair you.
Two people who would be perfect together can self destruct a relationship based on what they both have been thru before...yes it is all about trust and so when I see or hear someone say..they will have to prove themselves to me what I really see and hear is I dont trust myself enough to be able to tell is someone is good or bad so I am going to make the next person jump thru a ton of hoops to make sure they really want me...that is when I realize that person is better off playing in the sandbox alone.
Yes there are con people who take advantage of individuals but you can know them for years before you realize what they are...so the idea of *keeping your emotions in check cause you might like the wrong person" is hoop dancing. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 11:00:01 AM | Ren, if people feel "pressured" to cohabitate, and only do it because of feeling that, then it's all wrong!
Focusing on the local pond if you will, is one of my greatest downfalls...as far as the search goes. LDRs simply won't work for me...I have a hard time driving two hours to meet someone, which amounts to 4 hours round trip. 4 hours x 4 times per month x 12=8 days of driving per year. I know it sounds stupid, but I just don't wanna go there. Once again, to each his/her own, whatever works for the couples. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 11:01:41 AM | Why just stick to one person then if you don't plan on living with them? There's no point. You might as well just keep dating.
Why is it a given that to love means all others that do not follow the majority are in some way incorrect? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/4/2009 11:12:21 AM | *Sanscheyle*, if I may, stop trying to be what others want you to be!....be yourself, love yourself first. Your chest isn't what makes you who you are, neither does coloring your hair.
Thank you for the compliment. But I still don't believe you "need" anyone! Just rephrase it to "I want/desire a man to accept me for who I am!". If they can't, their nothing you want in your life anyhow! | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
