|
|
|
|
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 11:08:45 AM | For me, at least, I've come to the conclusion that living together can be the fastest way to ruin a good relationship. It's not that I don't share the dream of many, that if I find the "one" with whom I imagine spending the rest of my life, that it would eventually lead to lving together "til death us do part". I'll merely want to wait, at least two years, before going there again.
I really don't see what sharing chores has to do with a loving relationship. In this day and age, most people are living just fine independently, and don't have to find a roommate for financial reasons. So why do it?
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? | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 12:11:40 PM | As you say , your dream is to find someone you would eventually want to live together with. This is the problem , we all would like to find the One , but we want to just be a date/companion with the Not One. I think you would still be looking, as in marital status on POF being not single/not living together/kindof looking
Your either the Not One for her, or she is the Not One for you ? I think that thought would also ruin a relationship quite quickly ? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 12:41:59 PM | a dear friend in her late 60's has this relationship with one man since they met in college over 40 years ago. lol that's the extreme in my opinion, but it works for them. she was bound to her ailing mother, then her ailing sister, but I often wondered what happened before her mother and sis were ill, why the two never married or whatever.
as one not seeking a live-in mate, I'll have to agree with you.
I agree with the "vote" that this is a redundant topic, been asked many times over, although to be truthful I don't think there are ANY topics left that are new. this sounds more like you're seeking validation rather than opinions...?  | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 1:01:05 PM | Your either the Not One for her, or she is the Not One for you ? I think that thought would also ruin a relationship quite quickly ?
It's not that simple. Living with someone brings a lot of stresses that have nothing to do with a romantic relationship. An earlier poster mentioned leaving the toilet seat down, and while that, by itself, is trivial, it's a good example. It's not about expressing "uncertainty" or partial committment. It's about not having something good ruined by the little things of day to day life, that maybe, with enough nights spent in each other's houses, over a long period of time, might, or might not, lead two people to think it would work living together, or else decide to continue to live separately.
Two grownups, who have been living on their own, have their own ways of doing things, like having things kept in certain places, etc.. I'm "ok" with having some clutter around, until I feel like cleaning over the weekend. I'm ok with not always immediately taking my clothes into the laundry area, etc.. If I'm living with a woman, who wants everything picked up, neat and clean, then in doing things "her way", I don't ever really feel "at home".
Then too, there are times, when I just want to zone out, and not have to be engaged in conversation. I like to shop for groceries the way I do it, not off of a "list". I like to cook, but I don't think that every pot and pan has to be immediately scoured, etc..
What do any of those things have to do with love and relationship? It's not as if we need, at this point, to form a stable family so as to have and raise children. So why does cohabiting seem to be the "holy grail" for so many? | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 1:04:51 PM | There is absolutely NO reason why a couple in a committed, monogamous relationship can't maintain their own homes and spaces. In many cases, I'm sure it would be preferable. Perhaps one partner is afraid to bring up the subject for fear the other partner may not understand their reasoning behind it. I would think that maintaining separate abodes, that are close enough for spontaneous visits, would be ideal. You can enjoy 'together' time, as well as, the much needed 'me' time.
Being in a committed relationship has nothing to do with living under the same roof, to which many of us can testify. It's a mindset, not a geographical location.
I like your thinking, RenMan! | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 1:22:51 PM | For me, at least, I've come to the conclusion that living together can be the fastest way to ruin a good relationship. ... I'll merely want to wait, at least two years, before going there again. I really don't see what sharing chores has to do with a loving relationship. ... 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".
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.
Having said that, I also agree that too many people jump into cohabitation too quickly. It takes time for even the best relationships to reach a point that living together is a positive growth option.
By the way, sharing chores has a lot to do with a loving relationship. I truly miss the days when taking care of the yard and other "outside duties" were not on my list of weekly responsibilities. Mowing my lawn, weed eating, spraying for bugs and weeds, putting gas in my car, clearing the driveway of snow, and taking care of household repairs can be, in the right circumstances, viewed as loving acts by a man with a caring attitude.
And the part about putting gas in my car ... That's just romantic. Anything a man does beyond the usual "man stuff," can be considered to be at the level of romance. It demonstrates deeper consideration for the partner and a willingness to go the extra mile. But to address the point of the OP, a man doesn't have to live with me to put gas in my car, shovel snow from my driveway, or otherwise exhibit romance. A couple can be in a loving, committed relationship without living together.
Renaissanceman1950 (msg 8): Two grownups, who have been living on their own, have their own ways of doing things, like having things kept in certain places, etc.. I'm "ok" with having some clutter around, until I feel like cleaning over the weekend. I'm ok with not always immediately taking my clothes into the laundry area, etc.. If I'm living with a woman, who wants everything picked up, neat and clean, then in doing things "her way", I don't ever really feel "at home". Then too, there are times, when I just want to zone out, and not have to be engaged in conversation. ... What do any of those things have to do with love and relationship?
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. | |
|
| |
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 1:54:53 PM | Jeepers here I am agreeing with Ren in some respects?? I believe it takes at least 2 years to really know someone.. I certainly would not consider living with anyone ever again before dating for at least that time period..
Do I think you can have a committed relationship and each of you live in separate places?
Of course you can.
Without trust though it will not work..
I do not label a truly loving, caring and faithful relationship as being a "friends with benefits" situation. I believe friends with benefits simply implies two friends that get together to enjoy a roll in the hay from time to time.
thecatsmeoww | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 1:59:34 PM | *respited* said:Most that feel caged are sitting behind a door that isn't locked.
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.
thecatsmeoww | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 2:04:05 PM |
I do not label a truly loving, caring and faithful relationship as being a "friends with benefits" situation
This thread has nothing to do with FWB, so it's off topic. Please, let's not go down that off topic path. It's always polarizing and divisive, and can easily take a thread about anything else, and make it all about that uber redundant topic that's been D2D. | |
|
| |
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 2:20:38 PM |
ren said: This thread has nothing to do with FWB, so it's off topic
Then why did you mention it in your post?
The last line in the Opost was:
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?
That was not to open up the subject of FWB, and since you had already posted that you agree that a relationship doesn't have to be 24/7 to be committed, it wasn't relevant.
Catsmeoww, I wasn't being critical of you. I'm just trying to keep the thread on topic, rather than having it become all about something else. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 2:46:41 PM | Kay9876.... I think I'm in love!
I't not that you have to live/be together 24/7 for a successful relationship...it's simply because sooner or later if everything seems so right in it.....you come to desire it! | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 3:02:01 PM |
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?
Renman, I would think that is the way it should be, for at least a good amount of time. Where did you get that some so many people feel you must live together to be in a monogamous committed relationship. Am I that out of the loop to think that is the norm? I sure hope not. Since I was married for 13 yrs, and have been single for 13 yrs, I have often wondered if I could really be able to live under same roof as another adult. I sure hope in time I would and with the right guy I could, but I can't ever imagine doing it from the get go-from the time we decided to give a relationship a try and be committed to it. It should all be a process, and if you skip part of that I would think it would be setting failure into play much quicker. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 3:15:49 PM | lonesomerick said:I't not that you have to live/be together 24/7 for a successful relationship...it's simply because sooner or later if everything seems so right in it.....you come to desire it!
First off okay ren sorry Igot you now..
lonesomerick I agree with you as well.. When you are in love with someone and know they are right for you would eventually want to share space together.
If you never want to share space with them best to find a partner that feels the same way?
Also what you think today may not be the same after you have fallen in love with someone.
I remember this friend of mine that had ideas of how his perfect relationship would be.. He living in his place and her in hers. A year later he falls in love with a wonderful woman and they marry and get their own place together..
thecatsmeoww | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 3:19:24 PM | I'm with you on waiting a couple of years. However, after that, if you love eachother, most folks want to be together 24/7.
There are a lot of practical advantages:
HUGE financial savings in maintaining one home as opposed to two.
Another pair of hands on the end of the 2 by 4.
Sharing the sh*t work is so much easier a lifestyle. (Right now, I do all the handyman maintenance, repairs, gardening, housework, cooking and work at a job. It gets exhausting.)
And let's not forget the emotional advantages (if you love one another). Unscheduled petting, talking, laughing and making love. | |
|
| |
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 3:46:29 PM | To OP & Chomskian;
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. When we arrived back home we were greeted by a reception committee with champagne and fresh strawberries to celebrate our accomplishment!! | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 3:51:17 PM | | Yes, of course it must be the goal. If it isn't the goal then the world will stop spinning and everything that's not nailed down or in a cave will go flying off into outer space. The world will be empty like that for millions of years, then explode into tiny pieces smaller than grains of sand. Those will mix back in with space dust particles and in the end it will be like nothing we know ever happened. I urge everyone to reconsider abandoning what must be the goal in a committed relationship. Think of the children. | |
|
| Must the goal be 24/7 in a committed relationship?
Posted: 7/3/2009 4:27:20 PM | 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 (
Absolutely. In a strong relationship, you will probably be sleeping over at each other's houses a lot, taking vacations, as mentioned above, and spending a lot of time together. In deference to Kay9867's point, i've found myself, in those situations, often cutting her lawn, coming over to shovel snow, fixing things in her house, as gestures of affection and concern.
Where the dividing line comes, is whether you maintain separate residences, or share the same address. I'm not saying that in the ideal, I don't hope that I have a relationship that is so harmonious, so balanced, and so great that I'd someday want that.
What the OT was really about is the prevailing attitude in the fora, and with some IRL, 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. Yet, my real life experience has been that to take a relationship of 6 months, that is really a strong, good relationship, but then thrust it into 24/7 can create stresses and discord about daily living issues, that have little to do with a romantic love connection. | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
