|
|
|
|
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/5/2009 6:13:02 PM | "In a relationship, at just the 6 month mark, often there are conflicts that start to come into things, as the "honeymoon" phase wears off."
Sad that some people think the honeymoon phase has to ware off. Sad that some people have had so many attempts at a commited relationship that has had a honeymoon phase that has died.
Time to stop banging heads against the wall, and try something else to grow before trying again.
"If you're living together, small "issues" can fester and escalate. I know that I tend to get annoyed, if we've talked something through, but she's still giving me the "cold shoulder", or huffing and puffing, indicating anger with her every move. Then, to go to bed next to someone pissed off at me, starts to make me want to "shut down" emotionally."
Thank God I have never had to live through the above. Again banging head and expecting different result. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/5/2009 7:58:57 PM | When I first read the post - and the term 24/7 ws used - I thought it meant all day, every day.... that each other must do what the other is doing .... that for instance, one cannot go shopping or visit with a friend, without the other ..... If thats what you mean ...... take a gun and shoot me before it gets to that.
However, if you mean that you share a common domocile, that you share important things in your life, that your lives are intertwined .... then that is different .... I think each person chooses/decides what is best for them .... different circumstances ... different paths..... I would never say never ----- | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/5/2009 8:52:46 PM |
the term 24/7 ws used - I thought it meant all day, every day.... that each other must do what the other is doing .... that for instance, one cannot go shopping or visit with a friend, without the other ..... If thats what you mean ...... take a gun and shoot me before it gets to that.
However, if you mean that you share a common domocile,"24/7" is just a short hand way of saying "living together". When I started the thread, that was all it meant. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/5/2009 9:24:52 PM | I think it's harder at 55 to imagine myself 'living with' another person than it was when I was younger. When I was in my twenties and thirties I imagined that I would find someone that I would spend the rest of my life with. I imagined that we would get married and have children, buy or build the perfect house, and spend summers watching our children and grandchildren play at the beach!!
Reality is that I ended up being a single mom, and while my children grew up in a safe, warm, happy home, and we spent plenty of summers playing at the beach, I am finding that I am less interested in sharing my home with someone else! My life -no problem! My bed (with the right person) - not an issue! My heart - again with the right person - could imagine it! My closet, my bathroom, and my morning coffee on a regular basis - MUCH HARDER TO IMAGINE!! | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/6/2009 12:17:04 AM | If you're living together, small "issues" can fester and escalate. I know that I tend to get annoyed, if we've talked something through, but she's still giving me the "cold shoulder", or huffing and puffing, indicating anger with her every move. Then, to go to bed next to someone pissed off at me, starts to make me want to "shut down" emotionally".
Ren, I'm going to share this with you and also hope alot of others read it.
My wife and I lived together almost two years before we married (great way of finding out just how compatible you are) our marriage lasted almost 38 years.
During those years people frequently said "Wow! what's the secret?". So, we told them, and now I'm telling you and others.
Of course we had thoughs days, one or both would become irritated.....but rather than letting it escalate we made an agreement...to step back, and we'd discuss it in the morning. First guess what? in the morning more often than not one of us would say "what were we arguing about last night?", and more times than not the answer was "I forgot", and the response was "I did too".
Part of that agreement was no matter what, when we went to bed at night we exchanged kisses and said I love you.
May not work for everybody, but I think if more people practiced that in their relationships they'd be alot happier.
Of course there were other things, but to us, that worked really well. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/6/2009 7:00:12 AM | lonesomerick----My wife and I lived together almost two years before we married (great way of finding out just how compatible you are) our marriage lasted almost 38 years....
Of course we had thoughs days, one or both would become irritated.....but rather than letting it escalate we made an agreement...to step back, and we'd discuss it in the morning. First guess what? in the morning more often than not one of us would say "what were we arguing about last night?", and more times than not the answer was "I forgot", and the response was "I did too".
Part of that agreement was no matter what, when we went to bed at night we exchanged kisses and said I love you.
I have often said that the only real "relationship experts" are the widows and widowers, who made it all the way to "til death us do part". Their insights are always worth listening to, for those seeking a meaningful relationship.
If I were to be in a relationship with a woman, who is as reasonable as your wife was, and who values the relationship enough to let the "little things" slide, then I would be far more positive about the possibility of living together. Your wife was a rare gem, though, in my experience.
The sort of willingness to value the relationship more than the petty grievances is also something that you can't really determine in the first 6 months. However, were I to find that sort of harmonious dynamic, along with a strong bond in the other important areas, that would be the hoped for "ideal", and I can see that working for the long term.
In my experience, though, in my marriage, it was fairly harmonious. We were always focused on our children first, and cooperative as co-parents, even when we divorced after 20 years. It wasn't strife and discord that caused our divorce. It was that the passionate connection evaporated, and our last 10 years was a celibate, brother/sister type of dynamic.
We had our children, which gave continuing on in our marriage a "higher purpose". At this point in life, though, it's hard to see what "higher purpose" would exist in a relationship, if there isn't a strong, passionate connection. I'm not interested in having a "roommate", if that's all it is.
So, as I said in the OP, I am not saying that I'll never live with a woman, or get married. I am saying that it would have to pass the test of time, and after some considerable length of time remain passionate and harmonious, before I'd take that step again. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/7/2009 9:00:58 PM | i've been doing a lot of (re)thinking about this overall topic. ideally, i too would like to share habitat. i'm not a clean freak, but i have a housekeeper, bless her very soul and existence as this is a big house for one person with a disablity.
so, it boils down to this for me. first of all, i tend to attract opposites when it comes to romance. example: i like to laugh my butt off, but often attract more serious types. how would it be living with someone like this 24/7?
then there is physical attraction. you can really love someone as a friend, but not feel the sexual vibration. you could even live with that person. but, then you can have a monogamous sexual relationship with a person, with whom your living styles may not be in sync. i have pets and family over, alternating with peace and quiet. the guy i am dating finds pets and family ovewhelming at times. he tends to go "out" for his comradery. i tend to entertain a lot at home. this is partly from my east coast heritage and cold winters and partly due to my lymes disease aftermath disallowing me to go on rugged hikes or do competitive sailing like he does.
i have a strong personality and strong opinions. many of my good friends have opposing opinions, often with the same goals in mind but disagreement as to how to get there. but, when someone does not have a strong personality, or does not express themselves as openly as this nyc jewish girl--AND is not as flexible or forgiving, s/he has a hard time "relating" to my everyday world of very diverse companions and bantering about topics w/o any personal insult intended. in essence, s/he becomes offended or confused via operating out of a different paradigm. both attracted to the energy, but offest by it as well.
the list goes on. i too believe it takes a long while to figure out the long term compatibility, let alone the cohabitation. but, it's still my ideal. so, i am monogamous and i procede with good faith. or do i? because, what if it becomes clear that we could never live together? in light of what i say is my ideal, does that mean i am always keeping one eye out and over his shoulder, scanning for "the one"? or do i give up my ideal and how does someone do that, i wonder?
what do those of you with similar ideals who are exploring monogamy with one person "honestly" think? i am not asking those who say nobody is good enough for them or are already married. i'm asking people in my position who still cling to the ideal while they procede living in a world and at a time and at an age, when the "ideal" is not that easily obtainable or is not yet clear. do your really remain NOT on the lookout for the "one".
just curious. i am still trying to "get" all this. i am practical but also a romantic. sometimes i wish i could split myself in two. furthermore, most people agonize that they could never again live with someone. so, hearing that, should the object of this person's affections just move on along. i mean "never" means never, as opposed to saying one is not optimistic, but open to the gift and willing to be happy versus "right" ALL the time. some things are just not such a big deal. my butt is big enough not to fall in the toilet seat. maybe that's the deciding factor!?*  | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/7/2009 10:08:36 PM | serenitycw,
Personally I think alot of people blow it because they expect someone to conform to all the things they like to do, while not giving alot of consideration as to what the other likes to do.
Real love includes concessions, adjustments and balance. A simple example I'll use is grocery shopping.
My wife loved to "graze" while shopping, seemed she'd stop and look at things on the shelves for no apparent reason (at least to me). It wasn't just me, my daughter noticed it too. But you know what? it always seemed to irritate me...just a little. Not worth arguing about...but still, just irritating. The problem was, she always wanted me to go shopping with her....and really, I didn't look forward to it. Sometimes I'd even ask her "are you gonna shop or graze", hey, we both laughed about it.
So one day I said it, and she responded by saying "hey, why don't you go do the shopping!". Caught me by surprise, but I said OK! Of course I was going to prove a point! Go to the store...get what we needed, and get back home in record time.
I was home in record time alright.....as we unloaded and put away the groceries she said "did you get any butter?" as an example. No, it wasn't on the list! and you made the list...(ah, got her).....nope, she said "well, who used the last of the butter? and why didn't you add it to the list?". Crap..she had me. So, from then on most of the time we went together.
I don't think people should expect 100 percent compatibility when coupling up, yeah, you want to make sure most of it's there. But part of a successful relationship is nurturing that compatibility, and that only comes by making consessions and adjustments.
Sorry for the ramble. Just hope some of it makes sense! | |
|
| |
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/7/2009 11:36:24 PM | lonesomerick, sure it makes sense. i was married twice for ten years apiece, not counting each with about two years living together--plus worked day and nite with hubby number one. however, that is another story.
you were married and living together. both of you made that choice. i am talking about someone who is totally attracted to me, but has a hard time with my pets and my kids and neighbors coming over. this is a kind person and one who enjoys things like music and dancing, etc. someone who shares most of my values. but, whereas i like to think of myself as flexible, he mentioned that given "his" issues, he was not sure that he could live with someone again. btw, also a widow. btw, let's not assume that all widows had everything going perfectly in their lives either.
so, i am thinking, here's someone i like being with. but, i also like to laugh a lot. i also like having babies and dogs and neighbors in my home here and there. not all the time. but periodically with the visitors. with the pets, no biggie to me on a daily basis. i don't expect my loved one to only have time for me--or vice versa! for me, staring at tv all day is not preferable to having pets. but, that's me. i don't much mind what someone else prefers, as my house is large enough to accomodate two people and their individual eccentricities.
the modern solution is to live alone to accomodate the more "sensitive" being. for me, "ideally" my goal is to live "together". why? for one, i don't like sleeping singly. i like to share in expenses and daily activities and free up some income for "fun", i like to "want" to live with someone BECAUSE i love him-- and not to NOT live with him because of a toilet seat!
but, i realize, in today's world, my dreams are idealized and i also realize it takes time to figure out. i guess where my pessimism lies, emanates from my prior significant other of three years and with whom i stopped dating last summer. he too "warned" he could not live with someone and due to that, he could not say i love you to me. partly, i "wasted" three years, although i sure learned a hell of a lot and with him, in between his raging, we did laugh a lot. oddly. only when he and i broke up a few times, did those words leap from his mouth (i love you). this man cried when i left, but could not function with me in his life. so yes, that gets into my "picker" part.
now, i am dating a man who needs a lot of down time. so, what do i do? commit to someone who does not share my ideal or is down on himself and thinks that he is not able to pull off another long term "live in"--not because of me, but because of him? there are many good things between us. i haven't found these good things in anyone else thus far. we are attracted to each other. so, do i put blinders on? or do i continue to wish for /seek "surruptitiously" someone who, at least, is not adverse to the "ideal". someone who is not that rigid and capable (or willing) to compromise or make light of such things as toilet seats, dishes in the sink, perhaps having two tv's if necessary? someone who can hide in a room somewheres in a big house, if s/he does not want company? yada yada yada.
capeshe? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/8/2009 9:07:20 AM | Yeah serentity, I get it. Obviously can't tell you whether to alter your ideal of living together to make space for a man you otherwise enjoy. I can share with you a lesson I learned from my father - which is why I end a relationship once I know it isn't going to get where I want it to go...
My father took me into a truck yard one day, swept his ams to all of the trailers parked against the fence and asked "What are they?"
"umm, empty trailers" I eventually offered with all of the disdain only a teenager can muster.
"Not really" he said, "That's the mistake most people make. They think they are empty but what they really are is 'available for load'."
When you think of them as empty it's tempting to accept any load that's offered. After all, better to make a little bit of money rather than have them parked against the fence, right?"
"yeah, that makes a lot of sense, better to make money than not" I agreed, still thinking this distinction between 'empty' and 'available' was semantic hair-splitting.
He continued "But as soon as I accept that cheaper load just to fill it the one thing it no longer is, is 'available for load'. I can't look for a better contract because I no longer have the resources to fulfill it. What I've done is give away opportunity for something that will never give me long term viability". He paused to make sure I was following "Building a business requires looking after long term needs"
As we were walking away he pulled the kicker, "So, what are you doing in your life? Are you filling it up with things and people that are just to keep you from being empty, or are you 'available for load'?"
Sneaky b*stard. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/8/2009 10:56:03 AM |
Living together or casual dating around? And nothing in between? Gotta say I disagree with the poster who posited that thought.
I also disagree, but I don't know exactly who posits these things and who is simply talking about a common attitude here.
Seriously, there seem to be people who think that the name of this site is "Exactly one fish on the entire planet!" I have seen many profiles that seem to expect to find someone to spend the rest of their lives with them simply on the basis of a half page of text and a blurry profile. When someone in their 20s, brainwashed by songs about first-site love and eternal devotion, does that, it's at least understandable. When someone above 45 does that, it's more than a little pathetic and smacks of desperation.
The only value of a profile and the limited amount of conversation allowed by this site is to lead to further exploration. That exploration could lead to a number of different things. Demanding a particular outcome from the outset is simply naive. Presenting it as evidence of a superior morality is supercilious. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/8/2009 2:51:26 PM | i was not aware this is about profiles. i thought this was about meeting, dating and making decisions that balance current fullfillment and long time goals or better yet, "ideals". can "the one" be the one for just now or do you wait--perhaps forever? not everyone is willing to wait. some of us are willing to risk, until such time as it becomes clear that the person can never be "the one". you have to take educated guesses. nobody knows for sure.
i for one am a physical and touchy feeley person and i like "partnering" in life's daily activities, as well as having my own downtime and time with personal friends . i have made my mark in business and my profession, adopted three teens while at that time, quite severely disabled. so, my point is that i'm not just an empty being or wanting to suck the life out of someone else, hoping he will make me whole. i want partnership and not my own "individual" completion.
margo, having run a business, the middle decision is still missing. maybe won't make a million dollars, but not settling for junk just to fill the trailer. business plans need to be adjusted for an "environmental assessement". it's not about being empty for me, it's about being honest and realistic "with myself". it's one thing to be 30 or 40 or even 50, and say you've got plenty of time, 'cause you do. when you are 60, despite a youthful appearance and still "feeling it", nonetheless you (or at least "i") try to face things head on --and i continue to question. the use of my time and my decisions need to be more thought out--at least for my satisfaction that i am making the right decisions in a strategic sense.
largely my questions come from what i hear from other pofer's (often things i never considered) and from what i experience in the later years single world. i'm pretty social, so i get to take in a lot of "data". my social circles range from 40 and up lately, but i don't date that young for practical reasons. i have traditional values and have lived a non traditional life. sometimes it's hard for me, to pull it all together. both a gift and a curse at times. so i wonder, for those who are sure they will not be living together, but still reserve this romantic notion of a "maybe", how can you be true to your monogamous relationship who you deem "long term"? maybe this is the difference between long term and commitment. maybe my ex was just being honest. he liked the long term and the monogamy, but could not commit because i was not his ideal--or maybe he didn't see himself as being mine. so, how do i apply that lesson to today?
ps itsmargo, i love the humor on your profile. sure you're not from brooklyn in a past life? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/8/2009 3:08:24 PM | It's very difficult to be in a "committed relationship" unless you spend the majority of your free time w/ the person that you've "committed" to being with,IMHO.
Now,if that person is away on business..or in the military...then I think sacrifices can (and should) be made.
But I see little point in committing to a "relationship" where our not spending as much time as we can together, is seen as an annoyance and inconvenience or unnecessary.
What would be the reason? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/8/2009 4:26:16 PM |
i too believe it takes a long while to figure out the long term compatibility, let alone the cohabitation. but, it's still my ideal. so, i am monogamous and i procede with good faith. or do i? because, what if it becomes clear that we could never live together? in light of what i say is my ideal, does that mean i am always keeping one eye out and over his shoulder, scanning for "the one"? or do i give up my ideal and how does someone do that, i wonder?
That is a good question serenityCW. What if you are in a monogamous, intense relationship, but you are only able to spend from Friday night until Monday morning with each other in person? What if, in addition to that, you are talking on the phone every night from Tues-Thurs, and are close, intimately involved in each other's lives?
At this point in life, it's not a simple thing to quit a job and move 50-100 miles, so as to cohabitate. At this point in life, many realize how rare and special it is to find that sort of connection of body, mind, and spirit.
So, do you walk away from something really good "today", because you "might", or might not, find someone who wants to live together, sooner rather than later? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 12:00:57 AM | well ren, you've added a new variable to the mix. are you saying this theoretical person who lives too far away "is" the ideal? or are we going back to your original OP, where it seemed you rather doubted meeting the "ideal" and even then, you would wait two years to be sure? but in the course of that timeframe would still be monogamous, etc. therefore this would not be an fwb. just not living together because of the cleaning styles, toilet seats, need for lone time, yada yada yada....but, NOT looking out of the corner of your eye, for perhaps someone who is more compatible for the 24/7 "ideal" live in situation. can you honestly say you would not keep an eye out AT ALL for "the ideal one" and if not, then what about the ideal you originally referred to in the OP. when do you discard that concept totally and how can you honestly not look for it, if you continue to hold it in your thoughts?
i "think" to be honest, i'd have to wonder in the back of my mind, that someone else might be in the vicinity and i'd better keep my antenna up. even moreseo, i tend to do that, when i hear the guy, i am "monogamously" seeing, also wonder out loud to me if he could again achieve couplehood and living together, but yet wants monogamy and does not think this is an fwb. well, he wants me all to himself. who wouldn't? but, is that enough for me?
i'm not sure it is enough for me, but i'm keeping an open mind for now. he and you raised the doubt in this mind of mine. now, i have to honestly say, i have one eye open. for me, that's an uncomfortable feeling. as a passionate person, i don't like to disperse my passion, because then it is no longer passion. well, for me.
grrrr...... | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 1:25:18 AM | Because every time you move you lose things that have sentimental value and some, NOT all, people have very poor decision making skills. LMAO. I personally agree with the long term before the cohabitation aspect because I know how communication plays out, how life plays out, and how there's this thing called a honeymoon period (which no one means for there to be that little period but it occurs all the same). I'm not saying that it may not move fast if someone just totally grabbed my attention and we started spending a lot of time together but yet proved that I could maintain some me time. However, the norm doesn't portray that and as a result the long term relationship leads into a broader knowledge of the life you're getting into exactly.
I've been married and divorced twice, nonetheless, marriage isn't completely out of the options, it's just something in my past that has taught me A SHIT LOAD! Someday I want kids, perhaps not of my own, but I want more kids living with me, I know what risks are involved and honestly it's a risk I'm willing to take but NOT right away because I don't want to hurt the kids if the newness wears off and either one of us fail to face issues, problems, and life in a respectful, compassionate, attentative manner. Make sense? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 6:15:45 AM |
Serenitycw--ell ren, you've added a new variable to the mix. are you saying this theoretical person who lives too far away "is" the ideal? or are we going back to your original OP, where it seemed you rather doubted meeting the "ideal" and even then, you would wait two years to be sure? but in the course of that timeframe would still be monogamous, etc. therefore this would not be an fwb. just not living together because of the cleaning styles, toilet seats, need for lone time, yada yada yada....but, NOT looking out of the corner of your eye, for perhaps someone who is more compatible for the 24/7 "ideal" live in situation.
It's not that much of a "switch", nor all that theoretical for me. My thoughts on this whole topic have come from the personal experience of two different relationships that were at a distance, and worked well, that became "24/7" too soon.
One of those relationships, was the example I used. Almost every weekend we were together from Friday night until Monday morning, and it filled the need to "love and be loved in return". It was fun, exciting, and passionate. Then, at the 4 month mark, we both moved to a location that allowed us to be together. It didn't take long to realize that it was too much "togetherness" too fast, and what had been a very good relationship, started to unravel.
I have been in LDRs a few times, and when I'm in a relationship, I've never felt a need to "look around" for someone else. If the connection is good, and we're meeting each other's more urgent needs, there's no motivation to have a "wandering eye". One LDR lasted 4 years, and I know of couples who have married, while living and working in different cities during the week.
The topic isn't "what's the ideal?" , although thats what it has become. In the ideal, people live close together to start, but at this point in life, and given the realities of mostly meeting people online, it often happens that someone with whom you feel an interest, is likely to live some driveable distance away. When that happens, with more mature people, isn't it possible to have a good, monogamous, committed relationship, without one or the other having to quit his/her job, sell his/her house, so as to be 24/7?
For me, there are so many other factors to making a good relationship, than that you spend 7 days a week together, that proximity has become less important, so long as the distance is a reasonable drive away, and you can have weekends together. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 7:20:38 AM | serenitycw, hope you don't think this is calous, but I'd be willing to bet, a yr. 2 yrs. maybe 3, if you and I were to speak and I asked you how the relationship was going...you'd respond, oh Rick that ended sometime ago!
Why, because at this point you've more than pointed out your incompatibilities!
Could it be saved? Maybe, but you'd both have to make adjustments, concessions and balance things out.
First; Animals, you like them, he's not fond of them! Don't get me wrong, I love animals...to an extent! Mainly I've had dogs, but my wife and daughter loved cats....no way I wanted a cat in the house, detest litter boxes, and no matter how much you clean it's inevitable sooner or latter you'll stand up looking like a hair ball. Cat issue...he could be like me!
How do couples resolve that so each person is happy? Well, it's a concession, you agree to a specific animal (cat/dog) and a limit on how many. After all, what matters, the animals or the relationship? Its got to be balanced! In a way that makes both parties happy.
As far as friends and family comming over to the house...that's a tough one, unfortunately the only hope for that is balance and concession! Possibly less often but with more quality time! On the other hand, if he can't be socialable, live with that.....no hope!
Once again, I don't mean to be calous, but if you two can't make adjustments and concessions....you don't have a relationship, simply because you're incompatible. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:50:16 AM |
i too believe it takes a long while to figure out the long term compatibility, let alone the cohabitation. but, it's still my ideal. so, i am monogamous and i procede with good faith. or do i? because, what if it becomes clear that we could never live together? in light of what i say is my ideal, does that mean i am always keeping one eye out and over his shoulder, scanning for "the one"? or do i give up my ideal and how does someone do that, i wonder?
i"think" to be honest, i'd have to wonder in the back of my mind, that someone else might be in the vicinity and i'd better keep my antenna up. even moreseo, i tend to do that, when i hear the guy, i am "monogamously" seeing, also wonder out loud to me if he could again achieve couplehood and living together, but yet wants monogamy and does not think this is an fwb. well, he wants me all to himself. who wouldn't? but, is that enough for me?
^^^I'm ruminating on a similar situation...
The question for me is...should I always look at the next relationship as 'the one'...or can it be enough for right now...under whatever terms it presents itself in?
It's hard for me to answer because I'm not one to spin my wheels with someone or something that is not aligned. I need to be with a cohabitant partner and that doesn't seem possible down the road...so like you I too am uncomfortable and keeping an open mind and eye. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:53:11 AM | I'm posting off the OP becaus it is still too early in the day to read four pages, lazy wench that I am.
My thoughts about forever and what that might look like have changed over the years. I don't think I have any need to marry and I don't necessarily need to live with someone although as Margo noted, I cannot imagine remaining with someone that I could never really see myself living with.
I think where most people screw up is moving in together when they need to or when it makes sense, or because there is a sense of urgency to do so. If you move in together because of convenience (stupid to maintain two domiciles when you spend all of your free time together), or beause your finances are screwed, you change the dynamic in a way that makes commitment of choice totally different. If you feel an urgency to move in together, I would also refrain from doing so.
If after a year or two or however long it takes you to feel this way that you know you can easily live without the person underfoot but you wish to spend more of your time with them, to always be the last and first person you see when you go to bed and wake up, then you should live together. Do you want to wait five years or more to discover you are not compatible as housemates? Idk
As older people, many with a failed married or two under our belts, we certainly have learned those things worth fussing about and as Lonesome said, those things that are so not a big deal that if you actually stop fighting and give yourself a sleep on it, you don't even remember what was going on. Many of us kept fighting when we lost sight of the real issue hours, days or months ago.
I don't think 24/7 is necessarily a goal, I just cannot at this time imagine a future with someone wherein 24/7 was not a part, that does not mean that this is correct or that it could change over time. I think if you find the right person, whether 24/7 or something else works for you will evolve in THAT relationship, between the two people. The one person that thought they wanted 24/7 could be perfectly content with them keeping two places. The person that thought they wanted to keep their own place could wind up being the one who believes that 24/7 is right for them.
For me, I've still got the kids in the mix. I can't see myself getting involved with someone and wanting to cohabitate but doing that in digs that weren't big enough for the whole family, trying to make one or the other of us fit into what we already have. For the right reasons and creating a new home together, that takes time to figure out and it is often in not taking the time that things go to shit. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 9:34:57 AM | thanks ren. i guess i "assumed" that if not the ideal, you would be taking a sneak peak. it sounds like you are following a one day at a time approach.
rick, i'm from nyc and don't see you as being callous. us new yorkers are not always politically correct. how many have declared true love and within a few months time, it all went south? you may be right or my concerns may find solutions or reversals. i don't know for sure, either way. i am challanging a long held belief and i do it honestly. i have two old dogs--so, in my situation it would mean no more dogs in the future. the cats are not the issue. i could adjust friends and family to a point. but can he? it remains to be seen if my relationship can evolve or not. i guess i question his view in all this and i tend to find out, slowly but surely. sometimes a person can't answer this question, as he also does not know. it's hard to be up against pre-conceived notions and that applies to both philosophies of living together or apart. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 11:04:17 AM |
Iron Rule of Tomassi #4
NEVER under any circumstance live with a woman you aren't married to or are not planning to marry in within 6 months.
You are utterly powerless in this situation. NEVER buy a home with a girlfriend, NEVER sign a rental lease with a girlfriend. NEVER agree to move into her home and absolutely NEVER move a woman into your own established living arrangement. I'm adamantly opposed to the "shacking up" dynamic, it is a trap that far too many men allow themselves to fall into. My fervor agianst this isn't based on some moral issue, it it simple pragmatism. I know a fellow right now who is in the pit of misery with a girl he signed an apartment lease with for a year and has had to basically live with his ex for the past 5 months and wont get out of the lease until May. If you live with a woman you may as well be married because upon doing so every liability and accountability of marriage is then in effect. You not only lose any freedom of annonymity you commit to, legally, being responsible for the continuation of your living arrangements regardless of how your relationship decays.
I should also emphasize the point that when you commit (and it is a financial committment) to cohabiting with a GF you will notice a marked decrease in her sexual availability and desire, trust me on this. All of that competitive anxiety and it's resulting sexual tension that made your single sex life so great is removed from her shoulders and she can comfortably relax in the knowledge that she is your ONLY source of sexual intimacy. Putting your name on that lease with her (even if it's just your name) is akin to signing an insurance polcy for her - "I the undersigned promise not to fukk any woman but this girl for a one year term." She thinks, "if he wasn't serious about me, he wouldn't have signed the lease." Now all of that impetus and energy that made having marathon sex with you an outright necessity is relaxed. She controls the frame and she's got it in writing that it is for at least a year.
Just don't do it. Relationships last best when you spin more plates or at the very least keep each other at arm's distance. Look how this applies to your situation here.
| |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 11:17:04 AM | | I certainly don't think 24/7 MUST be a goal...but I think for a lot of people it is. Maybe some of us have that "find Prince Charming, get married, have a pack of kids and live happily ever after" ingrained so hard into us, that, even as we mature, we still think that is the only "real" committed relationship. Even if the specifics (like the marriage and/or the kids) go out the window - the happily ever after equates to living under the same roof. For me, I want 24/7 - but of course, finding the person I want it with is another story. That's just how I'm made and what I have found in the past has made me happy. I prefer to share and shoulder all the joys and responsibilities of day to day living with someone. I want to find someone to build a life with - not share part of mine with, and have a piece of theirs. I have of course come across people who just aren't wired that way. And there's nothing wrong with that! But it's not the kind of life I would choose to live. That has, in fact, been the deciding factor for me in a few instances, in ending something that was just beginning. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/9/2009 12:03:20 PM | Re: Post#99---cookie2222
One of the best posts on the thread, and one that, thankfully, gets this thread squarely back on topic. You clearly stated that, for you, for a relationship to fulfill what you need in a relationship, it has to be 24/7. At the same time, you acknowledge that, what's true for you, doesn't mean that every relationship has to be 24/7, to be a serious relationship. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
