|
|
|
|
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/11/2009 11:05:15 AM | Re: Post #89
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.
seems to contradict the second part of the post
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?
Part of what kept the pressure off in my 20 year marriage was that, for most of that time, I travelled on business 5-6 nights per month, thus giving both my ex and me some "alone time".
Spending the "majority of time" with one's SO is one thing, but "almost all" available others is quite different. I won't say "never", but, having had a couple of "live withs" too soon into a relationship, I have experienced how quickly the seemingly little "day to day" annoyances can build up and destroy that which seemed good for both people.
Many posters have commented that, at this point in life, it's a huge adjustment to live with another person. It is, and one that, IMO, requires having established a broad based compatibility, and having developed skills between the two to harmoniously work through issues. Those aren't based on "feelings" or "committment", and take a fair amount of time to be certain that they are in place, BEFORE starting to live together, rather than just visiting each other's homes.
The question isn't, though, what's better? It's more about "what's up with people who say it has to be "all" or "nothing" to be a monogamous, committed relationship? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/11/2009 8:24:16 PM |
The question isn't, though, what's better? It's more about "what's up with people who say it has to be "all" or "nothing" to be a monogamous, committed relationship?
Is it possible that these folks who must have "all" or "nothing" have never learned to be content with their own company?
I have to admit that one of the things that makes me hesitate to get involved with someone else is that in many ways I am perfectly content with my own company. I have also learned that it is much preferable to be lonely alone, than lonely with somebody!
I have always believed that in order to be content with someone else, you must be content with yourself - and out of that contentment should evolve the ability to grant someone you love and respect the freedom to live a life interdependent with yours and vice versa??? Or - at least that is my hope! | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/11/2009 9:05:09 PM | | I agree with RenMan and Forum Filly. I like things the way I like them in my home, and my boyfriend is a bit of a slob, I love him to death, but I think us cohabiting would put an uneeded strain on our relationship. I think it's fine to have a LTR without marriage or cohabitation, and we're both on the same page regarding this, so it works for us. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/12/2009 8:08:03 AM | If living with one another will "ruin" your "relationship", then trust me...you weren't meant for each other anyway. You just found out by living together that you actually were not compatible like you thought you were. If you can't live together, you just weren't meant for each other, period! You're not "ruining" what just wasn't there in the first place.
Your relationship would not be ruined by moving in together if you were really meant to be with each other for the LONG TERM. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/12/2009 9:17:14 AM |
If living with one another will "ruin" your "relationship", then trust me...you weren't meant for each other anyway.
That is the natural, normal viewpoint that nature intends for a never married 24 year old, like ameliamd would have. It's wholly appropriate, when one is at that point in life. Most 24 year olds look at finding a relationship as part of the process towards marriage, building a family together, and growing into the rest of their lives together.
So, I would expect that "point in life" would have a strong influence, in terms of response to this question. For those who have had marriage in the past, and with children grown, and no intention or ability to have more, I think the question can be far more complex.
While it varies from one to another, mature adults have "relationship needs", for both the special type of companionship that comes with romantic love as well as for a sex life. Those with a strong need for day to day companionship may not find much "meeting of need" in a relationship that isn't 24/7, but others may find that it meets their most important needs just fine, especially for those who sense a desire and need for some personal autonomy.
Add to that, that more mature peoploe tend to be "settled into" their lives, may own homes, have careers that they can't just up and leave and find another job "just as good" somewhere else. There are also far fewer "potential" partners, as a percentage of the whole, among more mature people, than there are for 20 somethings. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/27/2009 12:44:25 PM | RenMan wrote originally:
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?
sweetest wrote:
I agree that living together is the fastest way to ruin (the wrong) relationships, but living together is also the best way to develop, nurture and grow (the right) relationships. Living together is the ultimate expression of sharing when the relationship and timing are right. When the relationship and the timing are right, couples develop "our way" that works for the two of them. Examples: You need time alone; she gives it to you. You don’t want to pick up and she likes a clean house; she picks up. She doesn’t like to mow the lawn; you do it. And so on. 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, so it's not seen as a compromise or tit for tat. It's about loving the other person. ^^^Agree with Kay here. Living together is the ideal situation that I'm looking for. And while marriage may or may not be part of it, I simply can't envision less than that. I want to share my life fully. I've spent a good chunk of time on my own and don't need to investigate further what that's all about. I don't agree that there is any aspersions cast by articulating 'need' so honestly as Renman has...I see it for myself exactly as he wrote it. I don't choose to deflect or posture in a way that makes this seem less than what it is...The right person will feel as I do. 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".
AmeliaMD wrote:
If living with one another will "ruin" your "relationship", then trust me...you weren't meant for each other anyway.
This thread has been bugging me, now, for several weeks. The above quoted posts initially spoke the most to me, but are not exclusize of the number of good posts on this matter. One thing I want to start off with is that no healthy relationship is going to be 24/7(/365). Even with retired couples, say, a healthy relationship has the two apart for a significant amount of time. If for no other reason than when they come back together they can share together that which they did apart.
Personally, I cannot imagine, at this time, getting into a serious relationship in the future in which the end goal would not be living together (married). It could just be me and my world view: I am opposed to the concepts and practices of FWB, FBs, NSA sex, etc. But then, it could also be that which was expressed by AmeliaMD above.
In any event, living together in a lifelong committed relationship is the highest expression of what the union between two individuals can achieve. To do so means having to give up some of yourself for the betterment of the other, their desires and needs, and they doing the same for you. As Kay9876 said: "ourway." Ourway is neither right nor wrong, it is a path that the couple has found beneficial to walk to together. That is what I want. [one note about "ourway," not all "ourways" ae going to look similar. Some "ourways" will be ways that some (maybe most) of us would shy away from. But it is their "ourway."
As a personal example I knew "we" were in trouble when "ourway" kept getting smaller and smaller and "herway" became more a priority and "myway" less so.
I've had a lot of time to think about this topic the past couple of weeks while working on the lawn and the trees. There is a portion of the "lawn" that I recovered a dozen of so years ago from being a hay field. For what ever reasons it has never remained flat. Over time, and even after having a very large vibrating asphalt compactor flatten the area, the recovered "lawn" develops the equivalent of frost heaves. So this year I pulled out the hand held thatcher and manually scalped off the worst of the "heaves." In effect, smoothing out the rough spots. As I was scalping the area, I was thinking about this thread. I needed a smooth(er) area of lawn (fora variety of reasons) and I tried several methods to achieve that end. None of them worked until ... and even then only time will tell if this latest attempt will be successful.
It's like this in a living together relationship. If you're serious about making it work there are going to be times when you have to scrape off those rough spots to get down to something approaching smooth. That is, if you want to recover what was initially there or create something better.
On the other hand, there were these two trees I transplanted, Hargrand apricots. Developed for colder climes like mine and relatively self fertilizing. The thing is that for optimum production you want another tree of the same type along side. Well, my transplant did not take for one. The other was, according to neighbors, dead. But I held out hope. Near the end, all but two of the original leaves had dropped, and those two looked kind'a sickly. Well, I watered, I weeded, I even talked to it. And about two weeks or so ago, I went out on a Tuesday and there were new buds and leaves all over the place. And yes, I talked to it some more. What was said is private.
Originally, I thought that this was an example of just sticking it out. Doing the hard work, together, to get to that point of regeneration or even resurrection. But then I realized that it is even more that that - those two trees needed each other to be all they can be. If one died, then what was going to be left for the other. You're right, I could have dug up the "dead" one and replaced it, but where would have been the fun in that. I had an investment in both trees and together both trees were better than alone.
I think it is this way for us. We have to be there. We have to be there always. If we don't want to make the committment of living together what does that say to the other person: "you're good enough for the recurring sex, but I don't want you in my face the rest of the time."? And no matter how you phrase it that is how it will come out.
Now, if you are so damaged by what has transpired before and you cannot make that committtment, I feel for you. And if the best you can manage is the periodic moments when you can allow someone into your bed for "your" comfort, don't go around praising that momentary flush as the be all and end all. That's like using a cracked glass for hot tea: soon enough that crack will break.
As I said, I'm looking forward to having that "ourway" relationship in the future. There is enough of me that I don't mind giving up a bit of it to have something greater than the parts alone.
TK
{I like the candle example in marriage: two smaller candles start off lit and together they light a larger candle. Instead of blowing out the smaller candles, those two are set aside still lit: while there maybe a more important larger candle (which gives more light) the two smaller candles still remain as a reminder that the individuals also still remain} | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/30/2009 4:56:06 PM |
I'm also wondering how POF even knows this stuff. If someone receives an e-mail looking for IE or sex, does the receiver have to report them and then they get "flagged" as someone who has done this?
That doesn't follow logically. In relationships I've had, prior to becoming 24/7, it hasn't been "all about sex". You do things together, and are often very involved in each other's lives in all sorts of ways. What it says to the other is that we each maintain some space, separate finances, and spend some of our time in separate residences. How, exactly that is all worked out will vary from one couple to another.
To me, the quality of the relationship, at least for the first year or so, doesn't hinge on whether you are sharing a bathroom, or having all your meals together. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/30/2009 7:05:21 PM | it is not for you...you would rather be on your own...or you have not found the right person...many people want to be with somebody all the time...not everybody is the same...hopefully i will meet somebody and shre my life with that person...but some people are happy to live on their own... | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/30/2009 7:05:35 PM | | Gee this is really a hard one ...for the girls i say run, as you haven't really met the right person or are you just keeping your options open either way i think they call it friends with benefits ., | |
|
| |
| |
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/30/2009 7:23:50 PM | | The question itself is enough to induce an anxiety attack in me at this point in my life. I've grown realistic about myself over the years. What woman in her right mind would wish for me in her life 24/7? Such a woman would surely set off an alarm in my head. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/30/2009 7:27:10 PM | | hi''''a true union between a man and a woman is there being together 24 hours per day and sharing emotionally/mentally/physically. They help each other in these ways and they share responsibilities in the home. As one of the woman posters mentioned and very very well, the couple works together; they bear together as neither one is perfect; they help each other. Living in seperate places is that you want to be single but just share the sexual part. The sexual part of a union is as the fountain of joy that flows from the entire relationship: each has respect for each other in speech and actions; each sacrifices for love of the other. Your union should not feel like you are caged in and cannot come out. It is supposed to be a freedom to be your unique selves and you are blended into one heart and one spirit. Speaking as a christian and how God designed marriage; if you have a poor foundation it will not work. God created man and woman to be together and to love each other and to raise Godly children so the man and wife need to get right with God first and start reading the bible. This is how a successful marriage spiriturally speaking is going to be had, lived and succeed. God will His grace to the couple to help them thru the difficult time. If a man or woman only use each other's bodies for sex, is that loving one another? Do not animals do this also? it is a natural, biological happening. But to love each other in the Lord is a supernatural happening of grace. I will say that once a couple sleeps together, they are married before God. The license is a man made piece of paper for legalism but God did not make up such. So couples that live common law are considered married before God as those who just have sex. God has given the great pleasure of sexual intimacy to couples that are committed and as a gift to them and to strengthen them in their marriages at other times; for comfort; for supporting the spouse who may be going thru a hard time. So wanting all the pleasures of sex and not the responsibilities shared or sacrificing for one another and accepting one another tho not perfect is not what a union is all about; it is two individuals wanting to do their own lives and not take responsibility to uncondtionally love their partner and help them ; it is not just coming together when each wants their sexual needs to be fulfilled. Smiles4444 | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/31/2009 8:27:07 PM |
jahdeh==Gee this is really a hard one ...for the girls i say run, as you haven't really met the right person or are you just keeping your options open either way i think they call it friends with benefits .,
smiles444-- true union between a man and a woman is there being together 24 hours per day and sharing emotionally/mentally/physically.
That point of view is exactly what prompted the OP. Does it have to be 24/7 to be a committed, monogamous, mutually fulfilling relationship?
Some will label it FWB, if it isn't, and others will insist that if it's the "real deal" that is will HAVE TO BE 24/7. The question is "why?". Why can't people maintaint some personaly autonomy, yet be sincerely "involved" with each other? When did the push to "live with" become the defining element of whether a relationship is "serious"? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/31/2009 9:12:09 PM | Renaissance, I totally "get" what you're driving at. I too would actually prefer what I like to term "easy availability" to one another.
Having had the settle down and have a family routine, I can see ONE exception though where this type of relationship might not work at all and would actually create far more stress, and that is when it comes down to children.
If a couple has decided to be in a family way, their immediate availability to those responsibilities will be a daily necessity. There is no "easy availability" in this case and I think that is the premise of why the other type of relationship works best. The prior arrangement would not be sufficient to meet the children's needs. I suppose it's possible to a certain degree but who could orchestrate such a thing?
It is far more rare for a young couple NOT to have children than for a couple to elect not to. For this reason, I think an "easy availability" relationship is a rare sort. I think they happen in cases where both partners are either past the childrearing years or have elected to forego having children.
Myself, I know that if I did not have children, I would likely appreciate my time to myself much more than being with my partner 24/7. I don't see the necessity of his constant presence as any kind of emotional assurance that we are "a couple" and I must admit I love a good night's sleep where I can sleep spread eagle in my bed and not have to worry about whether I'm disturbing his sleep. There are a whole lot of other little quirks that might influence my need to have the autonomy spoken of here. Emotionally though, I question whether I could truly handle such an emotional "detachment" from my partner. Would he remain accessible to me when I really need him for support or for comforting? What about my sexual needs? Would he be there at my beck and call? Would it even feel fair to him that my requests for what would be easily taken care of if cohabiting suddenly becomes a task mistressing of his life? I say this with a completely selfish viewpoint in mind of course...I'm sure that it translates much the same way for him. Would I be available to him when he needed me? Hmmm, in theory it sounds good, but I'm afraid it may not really be the right answer just yet. LOL | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/31/2009 9:29:23 PM |
Some will label it FWB, if it isn't, and others will insist that if it's the "real deal" that is will HAVE TO BE 24/7. The question is "why?". Why can't people maintaint some personaly autonomy, yet be sincerely "involved" with each other? When did the push to "live with" become the defining element of whether a relationship is "serious"?
When your love compels you to. I believe it really is that simple.
When my sweetie and I decided to move in together, we discussed what we would do if it didn't work out. If the timing wasn't right for us, we would have had separate residences and continued as we did before. So, it did not HAVE to be, but at the same time we were each compelled to share our lives fully. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/1/2009 6:22:27 PM |
misscontemplative---If a couple has decided to be in a family way, their immediate availability to those responsibilities will be a daily necessity. There is no "easy availability" in this case and I think that is the premise of why the other type of relationship works best. The prior arrangement would not be sufficient to meet the children's needs. I suppose it's possible to a certain degree but who could orchestrate such a thing?
I totally agree. At the time in life, where two people intend to have children, then it is, IMO, a very natural and normal thing to "prepare the nest" by forming a family unit in which to raise the children. I was married for 20 years, and we stayed together, because the committment to give our daughters two parents was a "higher purpose" than what either of might have preferred for ourselves.
My perspective now is from the "other side", someone past the point in life where I plan to have more children. Were I to be involved with a woman, who had younger children, that would require a lot of thought. I love kids, and that would be a wonderful thing, in the right situation. However, "age appropriate" women are unlikely to have younger children.
I was really thinking about people past the age of raising children, who are "single again", and the question is about two independent adults, who are having a good relationship, seeing each other frequently, are monogamous, and focused only on each other, in terms of relationship things. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/1/2009 7:31:26 PM | I completely agree that a 24/7 relationship is the ultimate goal. But at what time frame does it become a total live in relationship? A week? a month? a year? I find personally to many do this too fast - all swept up in the moment and the finding out -oops- that was a bad idea. Things are all good when the hormones are raging, but then one day- this person is not who you thought they were. The rose colour glasses stop working and now you've got a mess to sort out.
It makes a difference if your in your twenties as opposed to your forties. When your young, you want to do the best you can for the kids. If things go astray- as many of us here have found out- you work it out - a least for a time and get the innocent ones- the children- get off to a good footing in life. Then comes time to find the best one for yourself and reach a mutually good relationship. At midlife this can take a bit of time.
There are lots of situations that won't work out for everyone involved and a small few that will. Expecting that you will get divorced, walk down the street next week and meet your true love on a corner- maybe in Hollywood but for most- no.
I wish we could all have the fairy tale and meet that perfect person for us- and keep them. Here in North America, we think this certain and expected. But its really only a coin toss away from going the other way.
The Renman speaks wise words born of experience. Not all relationships are husband and wife going to sleep beside each other until they die. And you don't always find these relationships after a month. For those that love to talk about their parents long relationships after meeting briefly- it was a different time and they didn't expect to be ecstatic every minute of it. They took the good times with the bad- they settled ( I know- pure heresy on POF) but they compromised for a reasonably good life. I want to be the guy in a romance novel too- but it doesn't happen too often. So we just soldier along and hope for the best- why not meet a few good people along the way and say - that's not too bad of a life. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/1/2009 7:34:23 PM | | OP, we all all different. For me the goal is definitely a 24/7 committed relationship. That of course means to love and be loved. If two people are in love, then it only makes sense to be 24/7 cohabiting. Personally, I do not like dating or seeing more then one woman a time. Of course a date can be and should be fun. But I'm always looking for that thing called chemistry and hope we are right for each other beyond this dating thing. For me, the purpose is to find that one special woman to love and live with for the rest of my life. I don't like living alone, having no one to share the day's events with, to wake up next to. Life is for sharing and caring. Living apart won't work for me. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/1/2009 7:41:50 PM |
f two people are in love, then it only makes sense to be 24/7 cohabiting.
why? How does that arrangement become the only one that makes sense?
It seems that the assumption is, if you aren't living together, that it means that you're "dating around".
Personally, I do not like dating or seeing more then one woman a time.
Earlier in life, at the point that most people were looking to get married, it was the norm to be engaged, while living apart. So when did it become the "norm", that if people are "involved" that they have to quickly move in together?
Nothing wrong with that, if it's what both want, and I'm not arguing that they shouldn't. The OP was about the assumption, much like the one stated above that, "if it's serious", then, "of course" it "must be" 24/7. Why? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/1/2009 8:03:12 PM | ^^^^^^^^
Thats a nice sentiment Gentleman (post 119) - I wish the same - but two things- does 24 / 7 happen instantly or over a day a week a month a year or more? You need to wake up and go to bed - and be able to instantly share your thoughts with your SO?
Don't get me wrong- again that's an admirable goal- but - if you couldn't be together everyday- could you still send that feeling through an email or telephone call? or decide to head over and see them? Do you need to live under the same roof, all the time, to be commited to them? Or do you just need to know where they are all the time?
As a poster above said ( Mrs Contemplative post 115) said- Convenience of access is great. But it is always necessary? Its great for pre and post sleep sex, but do you really do that every day for 40 years? Would the phone not suffice sometimes? Could you spend maybe half your nights together and half away? Many do this for jobs and other situations. Do they not love each other as well?
Ah - its a complex world- maybe we make it that way for ourselves sometimes. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/1/2009 9:54:45 PM |
Nothing wrong with that, if it's what both want, and I'm not arguing that they shouldn't. The OP was about the assumption, much like the one stated above that, "if it's serious", then, "of course" it "must be" 24/7. Why?
Renman, If you noticed I did say "FOR ME" For 'ME" it makes the only sense. I could ask why not for you or anyone else. But it does not matter why it doesn't. I respect your position the topic. It's just not for me to love apart from the one I love. And I never said "move in quickly | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/1/2009 10:03:18 PM | truetemp. in response ot your question;
Do you need to live under the same roof, all the time, to be commited to them?
I've been there done that. My last relationship started out long distance and there was a lot of time between visits 1,2oo miles apart. I was as committed as anyone could be for that year before she moved here. It was her desire to NOT live together at first. I was still vary committed. I did not like it, but loved her... so went along with her wishes.
There would have to be a damn good reason to NOT live together. That's me,maybe not you and that's OK. Next time Ihave tobe sure it's NOT her either. No doubt in my mind that NOT living together played a big role in the demise of that relationship...directly ior indirectly. But she was like many that enjoy way to much alone time to suit me. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/2/2009 2:38:13 AM | I don't believe you have to live with someone but you do have to be present in the relationship for it to work....you have to be there.
My perfect life would be to live next door to my man...for the rest of our lives...lol | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 8/2/2009 9:55:42 AM |
I could ask why not for you or anyone else
In my experience with "live withs", you have to be "available" to your partner, when she wants to talk, do things, etc.. You both have to be present in each other's lives all the time, or it won't work.
My schedule looks like this. Mon and Wed I get up at 6:15 and 45 minutes to shave, shower, dress, do my morning bible reading and daily prayers, and leave by 7. I am in the field until 5:30P or so, usually not taking more than 15 minutes for lunch. I get home at 6P, and have to do a daily report to my company, and spend an hour planning the next day. I don't even start to get dinner until 7P, and I need a little time to "decompress".. If I were in a relationship, an hour phone call would be fine, but having to immediately get "involved" in things the moment I walk in the door, would mean there would be little downtime. Then, when living with someone, one always has to leave an hour for lovemaking at the end of the day, so it's "bed time" at 10P, and maybe go to sleep at 11P.
Tues and Thurs the mornings are the same, but I'm out in the field until 7:30 or so, leaving very little time beyond doing the report, planning, and eating dinner. The time demands, if I were living with someone, would be too much.
Friday nights, from 7P through Sunday night, though, I'm fully available.
So, for me, were I to have a relationship now, it would have to be weekends and phone calls during the week. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
