Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Over 45  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 151
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.Page 7 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Abelian, retaining my sense of self has NEVER been a problem,even in my marriage. But my late DH was not a hypertraditionalist,despite having come from a very traditional family. Since my family of origin was less traditional( both parents working full-time outside the home in- for the times! fairly gender-neutral settings),looking back, I'm often somewhat amazed that we pulled it off.



Start with the idea that men and women are equals.
I've never lost that idea, I was raised with it.
And I am not opposed to those who chose to meld their lives. I'm just not real sure that I want to do that again.
As for men supposedly wanting relationships so badly, how do you account for so many 45+ males who are basically dating to get sex, or who get a relationship started and then panic and back off? So many males that are afraid that a serious relationship or marriage will ultimately fail and cause him to lose half his "stuff"? I would think that these men would be delighted to have a loving, committed,monogamous,yet less intertwined relationship with a self-assured,self sufficient woman.
Let me pose a hypothetical question here...understand that it IS PURELY hypothetical,I have absolutely no wish for anything to go wrong in your relationship!-but what would your reaction be if your fiance came to you, said she still loved you very much and wanted to continue the relationship, but did not want to get married or cohabit?
also

The bottom line is that most guys are probably going to see that type of relationship as giving something up while gaining very little or nothing in return.

What is it he's giving up, that she would not also be giving up? in fact, what exactly is this whole "giving something up to gain something"...we are talking about 2 people who love each other, not a quid pro quo trade-off arrangement.
Cindy O
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 152
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/17/2011 10:02:35 AM

As for men supposedly wanting relationships so badly, how do you account for so many 45+ males who are basically dating to get sex, or who get a relationship started and then panic and back off?

I'm not sure that it matters too much. If they're dating to get sex, but are wary of being in a relationship, they want sex without any of the strings. It's the strings that scare them off and monogamy and committment are probably the strings they least want to have attached.

Let me pose a hypothetical question here...understand that it IS PURELY hypothetical,I have absolutely no wish for anything to go wrong in your relationship!-but what would your reaction be if your fiance came to you, said she still loved you very much and wanted to continue the relationship, but did not want to get married or cohabit?

I'd tell her that would be fine as long as she also lowered her expectations about a lot of things, like monogamy and a stable relationship. I've lived with three different women, been in even more relationships and been told, ``I love you'' more times than I can remember without spending some time thinking about it, so none of those lesser relationships are in short supply and I'm not interested in playing house again unless I do it for real and get married. The only relationship that's difficult to find is one that survives marriage. Because I'm 47 and never been married, I know that I can get just about anything short of marriage without any committment at all, so I can't see committing to much for someone who isn't marriage material. I was happy being single and had already decided that I was unlikely to ever get married a long time ago. It took a lot to make me give that up.

And I am not opposed to those who chose to meld their lives. I'm just not real sure that I want to do that again.

I understand that. I also think that you are probably not comfortable fulfilling any sexual desires outside of a relationship, so the relationship you've constructed serves a purpose for you (and perhaps other women who feel the same way). You aren't having sex with lots of different people. My point is that men generally have a lot fewer reservations about fulfilling their sexual desires outside of a relationship, so what you're offering has little appeal to men, regardless of whether they are interested in marriage or not.

What is it he's giving up, that she would not also be giving up?

I've already explained that twice, most recently:

I can see how it might appeal to women who have difficulty retaining their identity in a traditional relationship, but need the security of a relationship to be comfortable having sex and aren't self reliant enough to be happy going it alone. Those usually aren't problems a guy needs to solve, so from a guy's perspective, I'd think ``What's the point?''

So no, I think the women to whom such a relationship would appeal are gaining the ability to maintain their sense of self that they couldn't maintain in a more traditional relationship. I've never met a guy who felt like he lacked that ability, so I can't see what he gains from a relationship that for him, only solves a non-existent problem.

So many males that are afraid that a serious relationship or marriage will ultimately fail and cause him to lose half his "stuff"?

I'm not including cynics, unless you want to include them as desirable partners. Maybe they would be ``happier'' knowing their ``stuff'' is safe, but they're already starting from the premise that it's not going to last.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 153
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/18/2011 10:55:14 AM

If they're dating to get sex, but are wary of being in a relationship, they want sex without any of the strings. It's the strings that scare them off and monogamy and committment are probably the strings they least want to have attached.

Actually, no, what I am talking about is lots of 45+ single men who want committment and monogamy(as well as sex) but are incapable of conceiving how that can happen without the man and woman being under the same roof and joined at the hip. I run into them all the time. They WANT a committed, monogamous relationship-or as they sometimes put it- "a serious girlfriend"-but they presume that all women will want AT LEAST cohabitation, that he will be expected to overhaul his schedule to allow for paying her lots of attention( because otherwise "she'll get mad"),that there will be conflicts about activities, friendships, spending time with family. What is really odd, the reverse face of that is the man who just cannot comprehend how a woman would want to retain some of her hobbies and interests,that she's not prepared to toss her own family, friends, avocations,etc- the man that thinks everything a woman does is just killing time til a man deigns to chose her. Yup, I've run into them as well. The thought has crossed my mind many times that there are a lot of mature single people,regardless of how they happen to BE single, who would like to have a "Significant Other"but equate that with no longer being able to call their soul their own. I hear various comments that boil down to exactly that,all the time. People would like to have a "serious bf/gf" but they think it means a continous conflict over whose activities, schedule,interests are more important.

nd I'm not interested in playing house again unless I do it for real and get married.

I'm not even talking about "playing house", I am talking about relationships that do not involve cohabitation or marriage. You mean you can't imagine someone being monagamous unless they both sleep in the same bed every night? That the only forms of male/female sociosexual interaction are either casual dating/casual sex with a variety of partners, OR completely hip-joined psuedo-marriage or plans for marriage or psuedo-marriage?

I also think that you are probably not comfortable fulfilling any sexual desires outside of a relationship,
Actually, while I have no interest in just going out and grabbing any old guy simply to get laid, nor in promiscuity, I do not necessarily have to have some big-ass serious committment. I'd be FINE with FwB except too many guys think that means "booty call on his terms", they forget about the friends part.

My point is that men generally have a lot fewer reservations about fulfilling their sexual desires outside of a relationship
Well, I run into a lot of men who DO have reservations about no-strings sex, but feel that they don't have many choices, it's either finding NSA,(even if it means being less than truthful or creating misperceptions), celibacy, or else the traditional"we own one another" relationship.

and aren't self reliant enough to be happy going it alone.
Actually, I am just fine with being self-reliant and going it alone. I would love to have a man in my life, not in my house underfoot all the time, and I can't believe that all men think that its' either no-strings sex OR a complete "mutual ownership" relationship. If thats' true, I suspect that the ones shooting themselves in the foot are MEN. I cannot believe I am the only woman in civilization that would like a serious exclusive,monogamous longterm 'dating' type relationship. And before anybody gets their buns in an uproar,"dating" need not be an ongoing process of wining and dining,movie dates,etc-the dates could be one helping the other whitewash their henhouse or similar
activity.

think the women to whom such a relationship would appeal are gaining the ability to maintain their sense of self that they couldn't maintain in a more traditional relationship.

I can't speak for any other woman, but I have never had a problem retaining my sense of self. Its' precisely that sense of self that has kept me from rushing out to find another husband-trust me, if a gal ain't too picky, a husband/husband figure is not at all difficult to acquire. There are lots of 45+ guys looking for a woman to 'take care of' when what's REALLY happening is the woman is taking care of them.

I'm fairly confident and somewhat dominant, therefore drawn to confident/dominant men. The give and take is invigorating and fun for some people all the time, but sometimes I get enough of it.

ABSOFREAKINLUTELY.
I have always been pretty much my own person, and I may have been exceptionally lucky to find a guy who LIKED that,for the time he was granted to be on the earth.
I'm quite certain that my more independent attitude is exactly what tanked a couple of serious relationships when I was a young woman and I suspect that it has contributed to the fizzling of a few relationships since I returned to datingland.
Cindy O
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 154
view profile
History
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/18/2011 12:18:32 PM
^^^^ The kind of mutually independent relationships being describe appear to me to be the kind of thing that results with stable long term friendships amongst single people. I do know of committed monogamous relationships that go on for years without any co-habitation. Most I have seen devolve from cases where children are involved or LD things.

In ALL cases in my own life, it has invariably been the female that brought pressure to bare towards co-habitation. I was generally completely happy with FWB situations that were stable and involved emotional bonds.

As far as sexual relationships are concerned, multiple partners, either in series or in parallel, lost their appeal to be decades ago. Even before deadly disease, there were all kinds of drawbacks to multiple partners, not the least of which was the emotional energy needed to keep them going. Its just not comfortable.

Again, in my own experience, sexual relationships tend to end because the female stops being receptive for whatever reasons. This more or less forces the male into a multiple partner situation of some kind.

Of course, I am NOT saying its all the womens' fault. It is, however, the reality of the situation.

As to the co-habitation issue, I observe that relationship evolve, never staying the same for very long periods of time. Evolving closer together, to me, means that co-habitation, if at all feasible, is a destination in that evolution, even if neither party particularly wants or needs it.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 156
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/18/2011 1:34:11 PM

Actually, no, what I am talking about is lots of 45+ single men who want committment and monogamy(as well as sex) but are incapable of conceiving how that can happen without the man and woman being under the same roof and joined at the hip.

That's what you aren't getting. You are assuming there are lots of men and women who want that. What I'm trying to point out is that although there may (or may not) be lots of women who want that, I really don't think there are many men who do. You're premise is faulty, so you're solving a problem that I think for most men, doesn't exist. I don't need to enforce some sort of physical seperation to be mentally seperated from someone. The physical seperation is inconvenient and gains me nothing but wasted time and additional expense.

You mean you can't imagine someone being monagamous unless they both sleep in the same bed every night? That the only forms of male/female sociosexual interaction are either casual dating/casual sex with a variety of partners, OR completely hip-joined psuedo-marriage or plans for marriage or psuedo-marriage?

Well, right now, I'm stuck with not being able to sleep with my fiancee every night for a little while longer, so I can certainly imagine it. I can't imagine liking it much less a relationship that's intended to be that way indefinitely. So yes, the two forms of sociosexual interactions I can imagine between males and females are, more or less, sex with no committment nor promise of monogamy and a relationship that is headed for cohabitation in some reasonable amount of time. I can see your idea working only to the extent of a lot of serial monogamy, i.e., strings of relationships lasting a few months to maybe a year at time - when the novelty wears off.

I would love to have a man in my life, not in my house underfoot all the time, and I can't believe that all men think that its' either no-strings sex OR a complete "mutual ownership" relationship.

I'm sure there are some men who might be ok with what you think is a good idea, but I think most men ARE that black and white.

If thats' true, I suspect that the ones shooting themselves in the foot are MEN.

Really? Why? If I wasn't with someone I wanted to marry, I'd be perfectly happy being completely alone except when I wanted to get laid and in the extreme, I could pay for that. What's not to like about that? I was only willing to give all of that up for someone really special - special enough that not living with her at the moment is a real hassle and detriment, not a plus.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 157
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/19/2011 11:05:55 AM

You are assuming there are lots of men and women who want that.

Where do you get the idea I assume ANYTHING?
I am commenting on the type of relationship that would most appeal to me at this point in my life. I REALIZE that it is not a super-common relationship model. I am simply wondering aloud, (so to speak) if part of the reason for that is BECAUSE people don't "think outside the box",when it comes to dating and relationships.

so you're solving a problem that I think for most men, doesn't exist.

I'm not solving any problem, I'm stating MY preference ans SUGGESTING that there might be a lot fewer "hit'n'run" sexual encounters, or the "3 or 4 dates, it seems to be going good and then he(or she) flakes out" scenario we hear so much about. I don't care what other people do or don't do, I'm offering some observations as food for thought.
What I am doing for myself, actually, is creating a WIDER selection of potential SO candidates BECAUSE we will not be all up in each others' business, I can be free to love a guy and enjoy the time we spend together without either one of us having to worry about financial ramifications or families' resistance,etc.
If the only option I have is singlehood or marriage/cohabitation and intermingling of finances, credit scores, insurance rates, fighting over whose friends we hang out with,etc, I am FINE- even beyond fine,with being single. I don't want to have to involve lawyers, tax consultants, financial planners, pre-nups and paperwork. I do not need to be rescued and I do not want to be someone's rescuer.
I won't totallly rule out marriage or cohabitiation, but I'd have to know a helluva a lot about the guy and I would think he was an idiot if he didn't feel the same about me.

I'm not opposed to people getting married or living together. I am simply suggesting, that for those who have concerns about the socioeconomic ramifications of break-up or the death of a non-spouse cohabitation SO, that the "independent individuals in a relationship" concept might be worth considering. I'm not insecure about sex,(or anything else) I'm not trying to solve anybody's problems, either real or imagined.
I'm simply suggesting another option besides completely single, casual sex/STRS/serial dating, and marriage/psuedomarriage.
Cindy O
 ohenryx
Joined: 3/12/2010
Msg: 158
view profile
History
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/19/2011 1:05:27 PM
Did anyone see this weeks Real Time with Bill Maher? Annabelle Gurwitch was a guest, and she was talking about this very subject. That is, couples who were "committed" but did not live together.

Bill also did a segment (apparently taken from her book?) about married couples who are stuck with each other, that is, they cannot afford to divorce because of the bad economy.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 159
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/21/2011 7:22:28 AM

Where do you get the idea I assume ANYTHING?

Well, you said:

But there are also lots of people who enjoy dating, non-cohabiting relationships, people who have no intentions toward marriage,who manage to get together and have sex as much as they want with a specific partner-who may indeed be as much a "significant other" as someone living(or planning to live) under the same roof.

So, you are assuming there are lots of people who want what you are decribing.

I am simply wondering aloud, (so to speak) if part of the reason for that is BECAUSE people don't "think outside the box",when it comes to dating and relationships.

``Thinking outside the box,'' generally means taking a novel approach to something that hasn't occurred to anyone. I don't think what you're describing is all that novel. Just about everyone in a relationships starts out doing exactly what you're describing. If that's what they wanted, the relationship would stay that way rather than most often lead to marriage or ending.

I'm not solving any problem, I'm stating MY preference ans SUGGESTING that there might be a lot fewer "hit'n'run" sexual encounters, or the "3 or 4 dates, it seems to be going good and then he(or she) flakes out" scenario we hear so much about.

Well yes, you are tryin to solve a problem, which if nothing else is what you just said about ``hit'n'run sexual encounters..., '' and the one that is the title of this thread:

I think a lot of the "why can't we find thee" may be due to people NOT being able to consider a relationship that honored committment and monogamy but also respected individuality and autonomy?'
The so-called ``hit'n'run sexual encounters'' are only a problem if someone is expecting something other than sex from a sexual encounter. I think that's less of a problem for guys, so again, what you're describing would mainly appeal to women who aren't comfortable having sex outside of some sort of relationship. I'm not sure why it would reduce the incidence of such encounters, though. Three or four dates isn't long enough to establish whether or not you go on a fifth date, much provide assurance of anything long term. Women who want relationships first and sex second will still be in the position of having to make the same decision by the third or fourth date.

I'm not opposed to people getting married or living together.

I didn't say you were. I only said that what you are suggesting may have some appeal for you (and perhaps other women), but is probably not going to appeal to many guys, hence, ``finding someone'' isn't going to become easier by offering that alternative. I'm sure most people are aware they could continue a relationship that way if they chose to do so. Most people seem to want to either cohabitate or be free.

I'm simply suggesting another option besides completely single, casual sex/STRS/serial dating, and marriage/psuedomarriage.

And I'm simply suggesting reasons that your alternative is not very popular.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 160
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/21/2011 8:29:37 AM
So, you are assuming there are lots of people who want what you are decribing.


No, I am saying that I KNOW people that have this kind of relationship.

Obviously, since I live in a more rural area of mostly middle-class people;actually rather old-fashioned people, in many respects-I may not have the sheer volume of friends, acquaintances and contacts that people who live in or near large urban centers.

I'm also basing my comments on relationships that I know are real-not just online contacts, casual contacts, etc.

I will not go so far as to claim I know the exact dynamics of these relationships, it's entirely possible that they exist because one of the couple insist that the relationship be on this basis, and the other chooses to go along with it for whatever reasons they may have.
But I do know these relationships exist and some of them are quite long-running. I'm not assuming anything, I am speaking of relationships I know to exist.

If that's what they wanted, the relationship would stay that way rather than most often lead to marriage or ending.

Maybe these marriages are occurring( with a 70% failure rate for those that are subsequent to a first marriage), or relationships are ending because people are so conditioned to believe that relationships MUST progress to complete intermingling of lives, or end. These are simply things that I wonder about...I'm not saying that anyone is wrong to cohabit or marry if that is what both people truly want. But I wonder how many marriages-AND break-ups!-occur in 45+ dating couples because they think marriage is the only "right" way to be with someone,and although they are deeply fond of their dating partner, marriage looks risky (for whatever reasons)-so they break up because that's the ONLY OTHER "right thing to do".

You have never been married, so you can't KNOW the emotional,financial, social, psychological ramifications of going through a divorce...or the devastation that can be wrought by having a spouse die and having to rebuild ones' life. YOU think not many men would like a non-cohabiting relationship,but you can read these forums any day and see people who have serious and valid concerns about financial ramifications should a 2nd marriage fail. Lots of 45+ people may still have kids in high school and college, if they take a financial or general socio-economic hit due to a failed marriage or cohabitation, SO DO THEIR KIDS.

I understand, from YOUR perspective,you may not be able to fully grasp some of the concerns that a 45+ person who has been previously married-regardless of whether divorced or widowed-can be faced with. I'm sure you've read lots of threads here by men who are quite certain that women over 45 are looking to remarry for financial security/lifestyle upgrade. What doesn't get written about as much, but a situation that does exist, are women who've been "courted" by improvident men looking for a meal ticket, as well.

I'm not trying to solve anything, just commenting that it would seem like many of the financial, legal, and practical concerns that create hesitancy in 45+ romantic relationships, might be addressed if people considered a more autonomous non-cohabiting LTR,rather than thinking that their choices are single/celibate, some kind of dating/social interaction to satisfy sexual desire, or a "real relationship" that MUST progress to cohabitation at the very least.
Cindy O
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 161
view profile
History
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/21/2011 10:35:14 AM
Considering the way family law has evolved to handle to growing numbers of cases of common law relationships, I suspect that a mass transformation towards non-cohabiting relationships would result in similar legal changes. Indeed, the financial issues presented today to those who even consider moving in together are enough to make sane people avoid the prospect completely. Certainly, legal marriage in Canada is no longer a benefit to anybody, unless the couple stays together through thick and thin, something that no reasonable person can expect given the statistics.

Even so, I still think that people generally do want to live together, and while the single crowd touts the wonder of freedom and safety from the predations of the legal system, there is still a widespread need to bind together. As long as that exists, people will move in together, and even get married, in spite of the risks.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 162
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/21/2011 11:18:15 AM

there is still a widespread need to bind together. As long as that exists, people will move in together, and even get married, in spite of the risks.

Of course they will- some will count the risk to be one worth running, and some just will never be able to feel "right" about having a "significant other" that doesn't reside under the same roof.
If a couple chooses to NOT cohabit, to not significantly co-mingle finances or material possessions, have children, why would the legal system have anything to do with such relationships? What I am talking about is MATURE(45+) people who are not planning to start a family...I don't encourage young people who want to create a family to attempt to do so via a non-cohabiting relationship-that sounds pretty damn unworkable to me.
Where I am suggesting that non-cohabiting LTRs would apply, is to people over 45 who've done the kid thing, or those who have older kids that are still dependent or partially dependent.
As far as "predations of the legal system"...there are lots of 45+ women who could find themselves dealing with a serious financial impact,should a marriage or psuedo-marriage fail.
It sounds like what is being said here, is that people who choose to be cautious about guarding their financial well-being because they may end up with a financially compromised old age,should an over-45 marriage or psuedo-marriage fail, have only 2 choices, either anxiety-ridden couplehood, or being completely alone. I am simply suggesting that there ought to be a middle ground.
Cindy O
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 164
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/23/2011 8:39:42 AM
This out of the box type of relationship seemingly would be what might work for men, I wonder why these type men seem difficult to find?

I think I've explained that pretty thoroughly, but I'll be more succinct. That sort of ``middle ground'' relationship would appeal to women who would like to have a sexual relationship but need the sort of committment to each other from the relationship for the sex to be satisfying (or possibly even acceptable). On the other hand, I think most men would see a ``middle ground'' relationship as a fwb or fb relationship with no committment. For the most part, men don't need the committment or anything else to justify having sex. For them, the committment and everything else that goes along with the ``middle ground'' relationship Cindy describes is just additional responsibility they don't want, unless they want to go all the way.

I would personally see it as the worst of both worlds. I have to give up some freedom for that sort of relationship with no compensating gain. The difference between that sort of relationship and being married is basically zilch apart from the additional hassle of not living together and having to arrange our time together around a schedule. I can understand perfectly why it would be difficult to find men who would want that sort of relationship. It's worse than either no relationship at all or being married.


More than a few male POF posters have complained and whined about ex wives and ex girlfriends taking them for a ride so to speak and leaving them poor, etc.

Unfortunately, none of the women who have posted in those threads seem to find those men to be what they're looking for in a relationship. I suppose that if you were happy dating men who were cynical and whined about being taken for a ride, you might find a few takers.
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 165
view profile
History
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/23/2011 9:09:08 AM

why would the legal system have anything to do with such relationships?


Why indeed. One has to realize that traditional marriage was, and is, in large part, a taxation policy developed to implement various kinds of discriminatory treatment of taxable assets. When people just stopped getting married to avoid such policies, governments simple extended these policies to people deemed to be married. Why? Court cases by plaintiffs that felt hard done by by the new social trends.

Here in Quebec, the government specifically decided that those who chose not to marry should be exempt from all the marriage related provisions of the law. People were left the choice of how to organize their lives. Recently, however, court cases have resulted in legal changes that will overturn this specific decision of the government and remove such choice.

You see, its all about what a judge at some point in the future decides about what is "fair", based on the arguments of plaintiffs who feel that they have been harmed or deprived by how they managed their lives. The specific case here is about a woman who feels deprived on an allowance of $56,000 per month. Evident suffering, no doubt.

If there is a mass trend towards arrangements that protect people from the effects of laws, courts will simple redefine what is fair, and protection will vanish.

The only issue is whether a relationship exists or not. While today you can in most cases avoid current legal consequences by not living at the same address, that is a technicality which can easily be ignored by the law. Just look at how immigration enforcement view people who claim marriage to get visas and such. Simply having the same address is not sufficient to convince authorities that the marriage is not a fraud.

Why would anyone expect that any other social convention would withstand the scrutiny of the law?

Unfortunately, the only "safe" situation is to not be in any relationship. Every other scenario is simply a question of degrees of safety, and those are simply a function of the always changing social context.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 166
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/23/2011 11:29:54 AM

That sort of ``middle ground'' relationship would appeal to women who would like to have a sexual relationship but need the sort of committment to each other from the relationship for the sex to be satisfying (or possibly even acceptable).

why do you keep trying to make this be all just about sex?
Actually, the most enjoyable/satisfying/acceptable post-martial sex I've experienced has been in involvements that were what I can only describe as situation related FwBs.There was no stated expectation of monogamy or committment. It was MY choice to not have multiple sexual partners in those instances, not a requirement of the non-relationship.
In fact in a couple of them I had to be quite definitive that we were NOT going to live together or hang out all the time. In the one situation I am fairly certain I would have strangled the guy if we were together all the time.
However, I would certainly like to think that I could have a relationship with a guy that I loved but did not want to live with.
I may be a person who requires more autonomy, privacy and alone time. I strongly suspect that my late DH was also hungry for that,I know we had very similar backgrounds of being the eldest child of large families,with a lot of expection and responsibility placed on our shoulders. Now that I have gotten used to living by myself,I find that it would be something difficult to give up. However,if my only options are hipjoined cohabitation or completely unpartnered, I'm fine with being unpartnered. I have been for the last couple of years dealing with stuff that diverted a lot of my energy and focus AWAY from dating and sex,which has also been a valuable learning experience insomuch as it has shown me that I won't DIE from the uncertainty of sausage in my life, and that I can in fact be very choosy. I choose not to pursue casual sex, f*ckbuddies, ONS,NSA, hook-ups. Those things had their place and time in my life,but now I would like to find something that is about companionship, friendship, caring,mutual emotional support, AND romance/sex/fun,without having to be under one anothers' feet all the time.
I am not going to rule out the chance that lightning might strike twice and find me meeting someone that I would be happy to have a 24/7 cohabitation with, but I'm not going to insist on that. If I really really LIKE the guy, he feels the same about me, but neither of us wants to make a major overhaul of our lives to live together, that's what I'm looking for.

Unfortunately, none of the women who have posted in those threads seem to find those men to be what they're looking for in a relationship


Actually, I HAVE dated guys who seemed to be genuinely interested in having a SO but they were just so terrified that it would inevitably lead to cohabitation, marriage and ANOTHER round of devastation to their lives, that they would backpedal.And these were NOT guys using "relationship" as bait for sexual interaction, in fact the common course of the proceeding is that the massive anxiety attack occurred BEFORE the involvement became sexual.

The one involvement I had I thought could/would go on longterm, but when I refused(because it was completely impractical and he knew it) to drop everything and spend the winter in a southern fleamarket/antique show road trip.When he returned I just plain and simple had lost interest in him except as a very casual, very platonic friend. I'm not quite sure WHY that happened, he's an attractive man,a few years younger and the sex was great. But the interest to re-open the involvement just wasn't there on my part. This was not the topic of any discussion or argument, I'll give him credit, as tactless and abrasive as he can be, he picked up on my disinterest and didn't push.
This experience leads me to conclude that I would not care for a long-distance relationship,nor would I want an involvement that consisted of an occasional meeting for chit-chat and sex.

Some here seem bound determined to reduce what I've described, and other posters have echoed, to simply an ongoing socially acceptable means to have sex. What I am talking about is so much more than that,but apparently some are saying they can't wrap their head around it. To those people I respectfully submit that it's the WRONG HEAD they are trying to wrap around the idea.
Cindy O
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 167
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/23/2011 11:44:20 AM
why do you keep trying to make this be all just about sex?

Because if sex isn't involved, you have a relationship known as ``just friends,'' which, to the best I can tell, doesn't require any consideration with respect to individual desires in living arrangements.

Actually, I HAVE dated guys who seemed to be genuinely interested in having a SO but they were just so terrified that it would inevitably lead to cohabitation, marriage and ANOTHER round of devastation to their lives, that they would backpedal.

Then what they were afraidof is that THEY would eventually want more, since no one can force them to get married without them going along with it. I'm trying to point out that guys are more likely to not want a complicated relationship, i.e., sex only, or get married and get on with life. The ``middle ground,'' is too much work that is just a distraction from doing other things.

Some here seem bound determined to reduce what I've described, and other posters have echoed, to simply an ongoing socially acceptable means to have sex.

In my personal opinion, that's exactly what it is after you dig beneath the surface. I have plenty of friends who don't live with me, nor has that question ever come up.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 168
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/23/2011 11:52:09 AM

Because if sex isn't involved, you have a relationship known as ``just friends,''

now you are going to the other extreme and taking sex completely out of the picture and that also is not what I'm talking about.

The next time I happen to see some of my friends who are engaged in non-cohabiting LTRS, I will endeavor to explain to them how their relationship is too much work and that they should either marry/cohabit, or break up-because divorced and/or never married people on an internet forum say so. I'm sure they will be completely underwhelmed at the longterm error of their ways.
Cindy O
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 169
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/23/2011 11:59:11 AM
The next time I happen to see some of my friends who are engaged in non-cohabiting LTRS, I will endeavor to explain to them how their relationship is too much work and that they should either marry/cohabit, or break up-because divorced and/or never married people on an internet forum say so.

Hey, if it works for them, fine. However, the question and replies include the implicit question of why it is difficult to find relationships and my replies were written to address that point. So, regardless of what works or doesn't work for your friends, my argument for why what you are describing is going to be difficult to find, still stands. You can always cite an anecdote, but that doesn't address the general rule.

If you really want to dispute the points I've made, you could start by telling me what I'd have to gain (or any guy, in general) by that sort of ``inbetween'' relationship.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 170
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/23/2011 1:53:00 PM
What a person might 'gain' or 'lose' by any particular type or sort of relationship is so subjective that trying to describe specific benefits would be very difficult.

It seems like quite a few here have spoken up and said that they too can see a place for non-cohabiting LTRs,especially for the over 45 singles.

my argument for why what you are describing is going to be difficult to find,

Oh, I see. The primary consideration for determining the quality of a relationship is how easy it is to come by? By that token I could have had half-a dozen husbands or cohabiting bfs by now, if all that mattered to me was having a man under the same roof with me. And it isn't just all about love, I've dated guys I loved dearly but would not enmesh my material, financial,economic and practical life with, and I've dated men who were fine until they discovered I WASN'T sitting on a big life-insurance payout from my late husband, and I'm not implying that they were "gigolo wannabes", they were men who believe that women mostly date, have relationships, marry only to gain greater material and financial security. I find that taking a position of " looking for LTR but not co-habitation" thins out a lot of guys with concerns about being "used" for financial security, it backs off the house-hopper men who,for whatever reason, haven't got a pot or a window. Yes in some ways it does narrow the selection, and in other ways it opens it up...if we are both willing to be in a committed relationship without expectation of co-habitation or marriage, it can eliminate factors that might otherwise be dealbreakers or red flags.
Cindy O
 ohenryx
Joined: 3/12/2010
Msg: 172
view profile
History
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/23/2011 7:44:13 PM


If you really want to dispute the points I've made, you could start by telling me what I'd have to gain (or any guy, in general) by that sort of ``inbetween'' relationship.

Hmmm..... let's see. Did you ever read any of the Spenser novels, by Robert B. Parker? He described such a relationship, in a series of novels, spanning about 30 years.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I am looking for such a relationship. But if one came along, I would at least consider it.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 173
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/24/2011 9:10:04 AM

What a person might 'gain' or 'lose' by any particular type or sort of relationship is so subjective that trying to describe specific benefits would be very difficult.

Then it won't be any easier convincing someone it's a good idea.

Oh, I see. The primary consideration for determining the quality of a relationship is how easy it is to come by?

No, you don't see. You've gone out of your way to insert that which was never there nor implied. The question that was the topic of this thread was:

Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.

I stated why I think is the answer to ``why can't we find thee.'' At best, you've deliberately misconstrued what I said by reversing the cause and effect relationship, i.e., it would have been more accurate to say that such in between relationships are hard to come by because most guys probably don't see it as being a better quality relationship than the other options. Don't do that. At worst, you've entirely missed the point.

Your ``thinking out of the dox'' idea of an alternative relationship is not particularly novel or out of the box. In fact, it's rather obvious and if it was really desirable, more people would do it. I just don't see much appeal for it as a guy. It offers nothing I wouldn't have with no relationship. It's not like I have no one to talk to when I feel like talking, so at best it offers regular sex with a (possibly) congenial partner along with all of the headaches and responsibility of a relationship plus lots of driving back and forth, and all of the other hassles of dating at the expense of being able to do whatever the f*ck I want to do when I want to do it with whomever wioll do it with me. The price is too high for too little. It's just like being married except you have to live apart and visit each other like you are dating.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 174
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/24/2011 11:06:31 AM
I'm not trying to convince or persuade anybody to a certain course of relationship behavior. I'm simply making some suggestions, observations and offering food for thought. Perhaps because so often I hear people over 45 who are unpartnered or have become unpartnered for one reason or another, cite their "independence", "freedom", "being set in his/her ways" as the reason they don't partake of Adventures in Modern Dating, I simply am discussing another type of relationship model that does exist.It also seems to me that this non-cohabiting/limited intertwining might enable people who've decided to remain unpartnered due to concerns about finances, asset protection, accelerated resource depletion, resistance from family( particularly adult children),to feel more comfortable in seeking a Significant Other type of relationship.
Hey, if it's not acceptable to "most" men, so what? I'm not saying that anybody HAS to have any kind of relationship, simply that some people who have pretty much rejected the idea of dating to find a strong relationship because in their thinking, there is too much potential for serious risk to finances, assets, even personal safety/basic survival needs, might want to think about a relationship that does not have cohabitation or marriage as an automatic required destination. It does not mean that companionship and sex have to be scheduled and/or rationed, indeed a couple that lives within a reasonable distance of one another might spend quite a bit of time together,but that would be by mutual agreement/negotiation.
There are some facets of this that may not make sense to some, like those with lots of resources,( or very little!) those who do not have children or other close family, those who don't know what to do with themselves unless somebody else directs them,etc.
I GET that. I'm not trying to abolish cohabiting relationships or marriage, simply offering an idea for consideration by those who have serious concerns or reservations about entering into an completely intertwined-lives relationship,people who don't date because "I couldn't let there be any future in it".
For people who are completely sold on finding another marriage or cohabiting relationship, or those who are completely and totally soured on, and disenchanted with dating and relationships entirely, my comments will be irrelevant.
But I'm fairly sure, because I've talked to a lot of them-there are a lot of 45+ singles who are single because they feel that marriage or a cohabitation relationship poses too many practical issues, financial and family risks, would require re-adjustments they don't feel capable of making, or they fear that if the relationship fails they will be placed in a position of being very elderly and very broke,perhaps even nearly destitute.Or they fear being trapped by basic social and survival needs, in a deteriorating or untenable relationship.
Those are the people I am making these comments to. If more people gave the concept some thought, there might be more people who would be interested.
For those who feel that the ONLY way to have a relationship is under the same name/same roof, who have either totally accepted the risks and are dating or looking, and those who are thoroughly convinced that "under the same name/same roof" carries way too much risk, but is the only acceptable relationship style-and therefore are NOT looking or dating at all-or only grabbing the occasional social date or sexual hook-up, my comments will be rejected. If they'd like, they can borrow my cell phone to call someone that cares. My comments are simply to offer food for thought to those who would like to have a serious relationship-but have concerns.
Cindy O
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 175
view profile
History
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/24/2011 11:57:01 AM
Yes, well, having the same g/f for many years and being perfectly happy with the situation certainly is a new concept that evokes some thought. I wonder how many of us have ever done that?
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 176
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/24/2011 3:21:23 PM
Rearguard, I take it she does not live under the same roof as you?
Cindy O
 amethyst10616
Joined: 7/23/2009
Msg: 177
view profile
History
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 3/27/2011 10:10:58 AM
Maybe it is all about our perspective about what having a partner again really means.
When I married, the whole premise was to build a life with a loving partner and to have a family. We would build careers as well and work toward a comfortable retirement to enjoy the fruits of our lives. Now, I have that family, they are grown and that career has long ago been built. I have my retirement growing and I do enjoy the fruits of the life that I have enjoyed to this point.

Motivation now, as a 52 year-old, is simply companionship. I am able to take care of myself in every other way. I have had two long-term relationships lasting over three years each and one shorter than that over the last ten years. Blending families was an issue, but that is no longer a concern. I have many friends and really, the only thing that I do not have is the intimacy that comes from love with one man. I am truly hoping to have that again in my life.

I think that the problem has been that I simply have my life in order as I want it to be and he needs to fit into that. I have been really thinking about the attitude adjustment that I need to make in order to be more open to new experiences which might just unsurp my peaceful and predictable world. Peace was hard fought and won for me, as I can bet it has been for so many. When we are young and had far less responsibilities, being open was less of a struggle, but as a middle-age person, I think security, be it financial or emotional, is so important that it can prevent us from taking the risks that we might have as a younger person.

I took a break from it all for a while, really looked at the men I chose and what they had in common. I think I have a better perspective on why I make the choices that I make and hopefully, can make better choices from here on out. I truly believe that if we do not change, we will not get different results.
 HippyDippyWeatherman
Joined: 3/20/2008
Msg: 178
view profile
History
Over 45 & there must be something Why we can't find thee.
Posted: 12/30/2011 3:20:34 PM
I think it is because we are narrowing our chances.
Show ALL Forums  > Over 45  >