We've been going out about a year. She's nice to be physically affectionate with, but I'm finding myself dreading talking to or seeing her. She just seems too superficial to me. Plus, I'm tired of spending money on her and she springs events on me at the last minute.
In fact, one of the biggest things keeping me with her is that it took me a long time to find anyone willing to go out with me. What do you think I should do? Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I don't think that anyone here can make that decision for you based on the information you gave.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote: Plus, I'm tired of spending money on her and she springs events on me at the last minute.
Well you'll just love marriage then... Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Dreading seeing her is bad. I guess you could ask yourself whether you can fix that somehow: if not, or if it seems like a long shot, you should probably cut it off, on the assumption that she isn't the ONE single person in the world that will go out with you (because believing otherwise would be silly). It's gonna suck, of course.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04:
I don't think that anyone here can make that decision for you based on the information you gave.
I know nobody can make the decision for me. What else do you want to know?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:but I'm finding myself dreading talking to or seeing her.
this should be a good indicator of what to do.
Maybe not, maybe there are other reasons that are causing this dread. If so, take some time and figure out exactly what it is that is causing it. If it's something that can be worked out, that you can talk to her about, do so. Look at yourself too, and see if the problems are stemming from something you are or aren't doing. If it stems from a fundamental desire to not be with her because of who she is as a person, or how you are together, than it seems the answer would be pretty obvious to me.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
It's really that we have nothing to talk about. I have to feign interest in what she's interested in but she doesn't do the same for me.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: In fact, one of the biggest things keeping me with her is that it took me a long time to find anyone willing to go out with me. What do you think I should do?
End it. From the sounds of it, you'll be doing both of you a favor. Would you want to be with someone because being with you sucked less for them than being alone? I wouldn't. I also wouldn't want to be with someone that I thought so little of.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're not married. If you don't like being with her anymore, break up.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're not married. If you don't like being with her anymore, break up.
Yep.
Being single isn't a bad thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On a slightly related note, there is of course no chance that she will read Hatrack and know this is you right?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
And, if there is no chance that she will read Hatrack, perhaps therin lies the problem.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote: Plus, I'm tired of spending money on her and she springs events on me at the last minute.
Well you'll just love marriage then...
Posted by anti_maven (Member # 9789) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: And, if there is no chance that she will read Hatrack, perhaps therin lies the problem.
Wise words.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
On a slightly related note, there is of course no chance that she will read Hatrack and know this is you right?
No. She reads almost nothing except entertainment magazines (and I haven't read much either lately, but I know I should---I doubt she even thinks she should), so she probably doesn't even know who OSC is.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're not married. If you don't like being with her anymore, break up.
I don't really like what you're implying, from both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand you seem to be saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't mean as much as a married couple. That a commitment and bond between two people doesn't mean anything until they have a piece of paper that says so. And on the other hand you seem to be saying that the official recognition of marriage trumps all other considerations in a relationship.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm okay with both of those, albeit not to the extreme. In other words, I'm fine with saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't generally mean as much to the couple and especially to society as a married couple's. And I'm fine with saying that the official recognition of marriage should trump many other considerations that might otherwise end a relationship.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What Tom said. I mean and believe exactly what you felt I implied, except for the extremes you took it to.
Breaking up a marriage should require more thought than breaking up a non-married relationship, but there are still good reasons.
However, if you're just dating and you find you can't stand the other person, for the love of Pete, break it off. You'll both be happier.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I totally agree with both Tom and Katharina on every point.
Marriage is a promise to stay together forever (and should be treated as such.) Dating is a try-before-you-buy situation.
If you dread seeing her, dump her. You both have only a certain number of years before "all the good ones are taken" so make them count. Lingering on with a relationship that is going nowhere ill-behooves both of you.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm confused by the term "leaving". Do you live with her?
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
No, I'm not living with her. Maybe I should have said "dumping", but I thought that would be too crude.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You both have only a certain number of years before "all the good ones are taken" so make them count.
Baloney. Unless by "taken," you mean to indicate one's death.
Otherwise, I have nothing to say in this thread.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In other words, I'm fine with saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't generally mean as much to the couple and especially to society as a married couple's ...
Its worth adding that the first point is only a statistical observation. Unmarried relationships may mean less on average, but in the specific there are/were a few unmarried couples in my life for whom I have much greater confidence long term than many married couples. For some of them, marriage was practically a road-bump, a technically of registration. As a cluster of outliers, I would also note a great number of couples in California who may no longer be married, and yet whose relationships mean quite a bit to them Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
They're still married. Right?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're not married. If you don't like being with her anymore, break up.
I don't really like what you're implying, from both ends of the spectrum. On the one hand you seem to be saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't mean as much as a married couple. That a commitment and bond between two people doesn't mean anything until they have a piece of paper that says so. And on the other hand you seem to be saying that the official recognition of marriage trumps all other considerations in a relationship.
Marriage is a serious commitment and is also much more likely to involve children. This isn't to say that you shouldn't get out of a bad marriage, but generally speaking, it's a good idea to try to make things work. If a married man told me that he was enjoying their physical relationship but had nothing in common with his wife, I would recommend a variety of options including couples therapy to attempt to reconnect. Possibly, the decision to marry was ill-conceived in the first place but nevertheless, especially if there are children involved, it's good to try to make the decision right, even if they didn't originally make the right decision.
When a person who is dating -- not engaged, no children -- tells me that he likes his physical relationship but has nothing in common with his girlfriend, then it seems simple: Find someone else. The sea isn't out of fish and there's nothing wrong with being single. Think about what kinds of things you are looking for in a girlfriend and try to make a better choice next time.
Staying with someone when you don't see a future is dishonest. She needs the chance to get over you and find someone who is right for her. You need the same thing.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Whether or not you decide to leave, it sounds to me like you have to start standing up for yourself in your relationships. I'm not talking about ultimatums, but better communication. She probably doesn't even know why you're unsatisfied. If, once you have the lines of communication open, both parties are making an effort and it's still not working out, then it's time to leave. [Addit: in this situation I wouldn't think any less of you if you leave right away, but of course that's your decision.]
By the way, I really sympathize with the idea that it's hard to find someone to go out with you. I felt that very strongly in my first two relationships, and after those ended it was over 5 years before my next relationship. It gets better, though. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Staying with someone when you don't see a future is dishonest."
This depends greatly on the communication within the relationship.
It seems very common, though, for dating relationships to include the understanding that "I haven't ruled out a future with you." To the extent that this is the understanding, even if unspoken*, it could be dishonest to continue the relationship if you've already ruled out a future. However, I don't see that Omega has yet done so: he's trying to make that decision now.
There might be a chance that Omega just needs to be very clear about his needs and preferences, and see if the relationship can adjust to make him happy. That's what married people or couples with kids should do before they give up.
However, absent legal or familial entanglements, it might be wiser just to end it and see what else is out there: expecting the other person to change is usually a bad bet, and delaying the not-very-evitable outcome just makes it harder and more painful when you finally get there (speaking from experience).
*(It's too bad that expressly defining the terms of the relationship early on seems icky and unromantic, because I do think not doing so causes problems. My first girlfriend seemed to think that going on more than three dates with her meant I wasn't allowed to ever break up with her, ever, and by the time I figured that out, I hadn't yet figured out how to be honest about my differing view because I didn't want to hurt her feelings, and oh my goodness what a mistake it was to wait 2 years before breaking up.)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: They're still married. Right?
Heh. I think my sentence was ambiguous. I mean "married" as in a verb rather than an adjective.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In the posts, you don't really list anything that you have done to try to make the relationship be better. Relationships take a lot of work. If you don't think she is worth that work, then there is your answer. If she is (or just not being single is worth it), then you need to spend some time thinking about how to improve things. What initially drew you to each other? Is there any way you can share in her hobbies? How about yours? Maybe you could come up with some new hobbies both of you would be interested in learning? You could try reading books together and talking about them. Something my husband and I do is sometimes limit conversation- we can spend ten minutes talking about something he is interested in and then he has to be as attentive to me for the next ten minutes. And then his turn to pick a topic. It is a lot easier to actually be interested in something for a short period of time that you know will end then for what could be hours.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Staying with someone when you don't see a future is dishonest."
This depends greatly on the communication within the relationship.
Agreed. I spoke too hastily and worded it poorly. First, I should have said "when you see no future" (indicating that your mind is made up that there is no future) and second, I should have added that the other person is unaware of this fact. Certainly, with dating, there are all kinds of relationships and for all kinds of reasons. Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
She is good for you. Stay with her.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Heh. I think my sentence was ambiguous. I mean "married" as in a verb rather than an adjective.
Gotcha.
Don't blame yourself. It's my long habit of confusing "may" and "might".
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Omega -
It looks to me like it's already over and you're just friends with benefits. Ask yourself what you really want, and if it's fair to you, and to her, and then act, either to break it off or to stay committed to it.
But it sounds like you've already made your decision one way or the other. Somewhere in your head you've either decided to stay with her for the physical benefits, or you've decided to break it off. I think sometimes people overthink things in relationships when their gut reaction is already the culmination of a lot of little judgments and decisions you've already made. What's your gut telling you? And can your head come up with anything big to contradict it?
I'd also be willing to bet a lot of your hesitation hinges on the fear of being single. I know the feeling, and being single can suck if you aren't the type that easily meets people and goes on a lot of dates. I know both kinds of people, and their reactions to the single life are dramatically different. It's a tough decision, despite how obvious it might look from the details you've given. But think long term, and think fairness, if you really don't see this going anywhere, and I can't imagine that you do, do you plan to stay with her to meet your physical wants and so you aren't lonely until you find someone better? Do you really feel right about that?
Forgive any assumptions I might have made that aren't true, but like others have said, there isn't a lot to go on there, so I made some guesses.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I can't believe everyone here has glossed over the most important fact:
This girl doesn't even know who OSC is.
I think the choice is clear. Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:In other words, I'm fine with saying that an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't generally mean as much to the couple and especially to society as a married couple's. And I'm fine with saying that the official recognition of marriage should trump many other considerations that might otherwise end a relationship.
I'm sure we've had this conversation before, but I still feel the need to chime in. I've gotten a little more perspective on the matter, I think, and I tend to lean a little more on your side of things than before. But at the same time, I'd like to point out that the convention of marriage is only a label that we human beings put on what are essentially "feelings" in order to classify a state of being that is really a huge ridiculous hodge-podge of emotions, thoughts, and decisions that an individual couple has and makes for and by themselves. Meaning, in a sentence that actually can be parsed, that the state of "coupledom" is really a state of mind that can only be determined by the two people in it, and even then is more an individual experience than anything else (i.e. a connection can be felt by one that supercedes the other's, etc.) So in that sense, I don't agree that "an unmarried couple's relationship doesn't generally mean as much to the couple," depending, of course, by what you mean by "mean."
At the same time, I recognize that by living in a populated world, how others deem the importance/unimportance of a relationship does actually effect the efficacy of that relationship. So i tend to agree that the legal label of "marriage" becomes harder to dissolve than the emotional label of "relationship," because of the weight the concept carries, and despite the fact that there is no real reason why that should be.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:So i tend to agree that the legal label of "marriage" becomes harder to dissolve than the emotional label of "relationship," because of the weight the concept carried, and despite the fact that there is no real reason why that should be
One could easily surmise that marriage is a defined commitment to stay together, and generally it's in marriage that children are produced, and that putting barriers in the way of decoupling ensures some sort of familial stability for child rearing and the continued success of society.
That and the fact that it seems as often as not in history, marriage was more a financial arrangement than an emotional one.
It's a concept we've carried through time for thousands of years that has changed constantly from time to time and place to place to fit whatever need we have for it at the time.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:...marriage is a defined commitment to stay together
So is "becoming a couple," though we don't have a specific word for that beyond "dating" or "being exclusive" -- I'm sure, though, that I'll want the social weight of a label like "marriage" sometime in my life, whether or not I feel that having that label will change anything in my relationship specifically.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the difference between marriage and unmarried couplage is more like the difference between dating and unmarried couplage. It's three things that might all sound the same but are different. It has to do with levels of commitment and a degree of sacrificing individuality for the sake of the whole, especially in the case of marriage.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:So is "becoming a couple," though we don't have a specific word for that beyond "dating" or "being exclusive" -- I'm sure, though, that I'll want the social weight of a label like "marriage" sometime in my life, whether or not I feel that having that label will change anything in my relationship specifically.
"becoming a couple" does not suggest to me the intent of permanence like marriage does.
When you have the option, there's little reason NOT to get married once your commitment level matches the requirements of the institution: if you've found someone you want to be with from then on, then you should get married, so you can have the legal benefits. The marriage doesn't change the relationship, it reflects (and rewards) the commitment of the relationship.
Not taking advantage of the legal benefits suggests to me one of several things:
1) Intentional rebellion against tradition (OK, if that's what you want, but it's not as neutral as not needing the label). 2) Can't, legally. 3) Not ready for THAT much commitment.
I'm sure there are many other reasons, but those seem like the big three to me, in order of increasing prevalence.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think all that I'm arguing is that none of these things is cut-and-dried, aside from legally. We've decided that "marriage" means one thing, and that "dating" means another, and that "unmarried couplage" another. But bottom-line, all those things are is labels, and the concepts are far more personal and unnameable (or currently unnamed) so much so that any one word would not have sufficed for, say, describing my last long-term relationship. Although I think that label is actually fairly appropriate as a general statement, though certainly not indicative of the whole. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Seriously? If you can talk about her like this online it's probably better for both of you if you're not together. I don't think I'd want to be in a relationship with someone who respected me little enough that he'd say those things about me (albeit behind my back.) And obviously, you're not deeply and abidingly in love with her. End it, hopefully before she hopes it's more serious than it is.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:if you've found someone you want to be with from then on
I quibble with this because of the impossibility of knowing whether you'll want to be with that one person "from then on," but it's semantical really. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Just don't break up via text message.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide:
quote:if you've found someone you want to be with from then on
I quibble with this because of the impossibility of knowing whether you'll want to be with that one person "from then on," but it's semantical really.
At the moment, you want to be with that person with no foreseeable expiration date on the desire. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You don't like or respect her. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Break up with her, you will find a better person! *thumbs up*
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
A pet kitten would be cheaper and more fun in the long run anyway.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide:
quote:...marriage is a defined commitment to stay together
So is "becoming a couple," though we don't have a specific word for that beyond "dating" or "being exclusive"....
"becoming a couple" is defined by society as a commitment that is or may be temporary. You're not available right now. Marriage is (or is supposed to be) a lifelong commitment. You're not available and you're not ever going to be available again so don't ask.
Marriage, to me, is a lot more about a decision and a commitment than about feelings and emotions. The feelings and emotions precede the commitment, but marriage is not a feeling. It's a decision to form a lifelong partnership. Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner - even if he's not "feeling it" right now - is very different than knowing you have a boyfriend who will stick around until he loses the feeling.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
The problem with all this is that that is the way marriage is "supposed" to be. But with the divorce rate at 50% can you really look at marriage as "Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner"? To many people in this country, marriage is just something you do, and divorce is just as easy as getting married. The signing of the marriage document doesn't promise commitment. Only you as a person can promise that, with or without the marriage to go along with it.
In a perfect world I'd agree with most of you. That marriage is a decision to make a life long commitment to your partner and have it be recognized in the eyes of our society(whether it be for religious reasons or practical reasons), and thus should have more weight placed on it than a couple who is not married. But given how bastardized the system is I don't think it's fair to make that divide, just like it's not fair to lump all married couples together under one label when each and every individual views their commitment differently.
All that being said, i'm in no way advising for Omega to stay in a relationship that he doesn't want to be in!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Marriage, to me, is a lot more about a decision and a commitment than about feelings and emotions. The feelings and emotions precede the commitment, but marriage is not a feeling. It's a decision to form a lifelong partnership. Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner - even if he's not "feeling it" right now - is very different than knowing you have a boyfriend who will stick around until he loses the feeling.
Yes, exactly! I was about to post this but you beat me to it.
quote:Originally posted by Strider: The problem with all this is that that is the way marriage is "supposed" to be. But with the divorce rate at 50% can you really look at marriage as "Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner"? To many people in this country, marriage is just something you do, and divorce is just as easy as getting married. The signing of the marriage document doesn't promise commitment. Only you as a person can promise that, with or without the marriage to go along with it.
I completely disagree that the 50% divorce rate means that people think that marriage is just something you do. I'm sure some people feel that way, but having done a little bit of study of the causes of divorce, I would say that most people enter into marriage thinking it is going to be forever. Then, a lot of things go wrong, including the fact that a lot of people go into marriage thinking that it's all about feelings and that the love will last forever. Marriage isn't a fairy tale -- it's hard work.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: The problem with all this is that that is the way marriage is "supposed" to be. But with the divorce rate at 50% can you really look at marriage as "Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner"? To many people in this country, marriage is just something you do, and divorce is just as easy as getting married. The signing of the marriage document doesn't promise commitment. Only you as a person can promise that, with or without the marriage to go along with it.
I completely disagree that the 50% divorce rate means that people think that marriage is just something you do. I'm sure some people feel that way, but having done a little bit of study of the causes of divorce, I would say that most people enter into marriage thinking it is going to be forever. Then, a lot of things go wrong, including the fact that a lot of people go into marriage thinking that it's all about feelings and that the love will last forever. Marriage isn't a fairy tale -- it's hard work. [/QB]
but then you're not exactly disagreeing with me are you? You agree that marriage is about a decision and a commitment(which is how i view it), and you say that the divorce rate is so high because people are going into it for the wrong reasons, or are not fully aware of what they're signing on for. So those people are not viewing marriage the same way you do. Those are the people that get divorced at the first sign of problems, or when the love they feel isn't so strong anymore which may or may not lead them to cheat, and in the end leads to divorce anyway.
Maybe i worded it badly. My main point wasn't that most people get married because "its just something to do" though i think a lot do, but that many people don't view marriage as a life long commitment, and even if they do, don't value the commitment to the extent intended by the institution of marriage.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: When you have the option, there's little reason NOT to get married once your commitment level matches the requirements of the institution: if you've found someone you want to be with from then on, then you should get married, so you can have the legal benefits. The marriage doesn't change the relationship, it reflects (and rewards) the commitment of the relationship.
Not taking advantage of the legal benefits suggests to me one of several things:
1) Intentional rebellion against tradition (OK, if that's what you want, but it's not as neutral as not needing the label). 2) Can't, legally. 3) Not ready for THAT much commitment.
I'm sure there are many other reasons, but those seem like the big three to me, in order of increasing prevalence.
I've got two pretty big reasons for not getting married, even though my bf and I are going on 9 years together.
2) taxes. Yes they are supposed to have removed any marriage tax "penalty" but especially when it comes to housing and property tax deductions we get more money back in refunds, being single than we would if married.
1) Family baggage and the giant hassle and expense of a wedding. If elopement wouldn't hurt the feelings too many people in our familes we might would have done it by now, although #2 is still an issue.
In the societal institution of marriage, there is a still a certain amount of expectation of both families coming together at the time of the wedding to recognize the union. His mother would be extremely upset if she wasn't there, and I'd be extremely upset if many of my relatives *were* there. Putting the members of both of our families in the room with each other would be a recipe for disaster. The day would not be "our" big day. It would be me being a wreck because I'd be trying to arbitrate between all of things that all of the other people want, and him holding me together so that I didn't have a nervous breakdown. Not really enjoyable for either of us.
Also the logistics and planning of it all, even if it was done on an extremely low budget would be a giant pain in the patootie. Low budget weddings often take more planning in order to compensate for the budget. And we haven't gotten anywhere near the alcohol issue, which would also cause much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth from the rabidly tetotalling branches of the family.
I'd just plain rather not deal with the giant headache. I probably don't value the institution of marriage enough, but in my current situation I don't have any overwhelming benefits I'd gain by marrying him. In retirement, if he stays with his current position for the next 30+ years, he'd have the better health care benefits, but right now my own job has better benefits than he does.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: But with the divorce rate at 50% can you really look at marriage as "Knowing that you can always count on the other person to be there and be your partner"?
This has maybe been asked/said before, but what does a 50% divorce rate really mean? People always seem to say that it means you have a 1 in 2 chance of ending up divorced, but what about the people who get divorced several times? Wouldn't that skew the findings?
In other words, a marriage may have a 50% chance of failing, but that doesn't mean that a particular couple does.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
DON'T TEXT MESSAGE BREAK UP!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But given how bastardized the system is I don't think it's fair to make that divide...
Not only is it fair, it's the only way to fix the system. Unless marriage is treated as something meaningful, it will become meaningless.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Unless marriage is treated as something meaningful, it will become meaningless. [/QB]
Tom, I'm not sure I agree with you about it being the only way to fix the system, but I would agree with the above.
However, as Strider said "marriage" clearly has wildly different meanings to different sectors of society already. So how should a diverse society like the U.S. "normalize" (for lack of a better word) the meaningfulness of marriage, in a societal sense in order to make it fair? Or is the legal status quo acceptable to you?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I think marriage, as a general institution, has become essentially meaningless. I would argue that very few people are actually willing to stay with a person, not through the "bad" times, but through the changing times. People grow and their interests and passions change, and what naturally drew them to a person when they were 22 isn't always going to remain when they are 42. I think for most people, it's unreasonable to expect that "loving feeling" to continue on, for years at a time. There are people, however, who find happiness *in* the commitment, not just in being compatible, (i would actually lump myself in with these people, to a certain extent) and these are the marriages/relationships that work, when both people are the commitment-loving people. Some people find great joy in staying together and making something work, in having one person to rely on. Others find that they don't, or that they never did. 50% of the time, in fact. And even if you ARE one of those people that wants the stability and commitment, it doesn't mean you're going to be "right" about the person you chose to marry. Things change, you change, they change -- you can't help these things, and sometimes people grow apart just by growing up.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: There are people, however, who find happiness *in* the commitment, not just in being compatible
Heh. That sounds a lot like what I said to my husband yesterday.
"I love you. I also love never having been divorced. That's my failsafe."
Oh yeah. I'm a romantic.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: I think marriage, as a general institution, has become essentially meaningless. I would argue that very few people are actually willing to stay with a person, not through the "bad" times, but through the changing times. People grow and their interests and passions change, and what naturally drew them to a person when they were 22 isn't always going to remain when they are 42. I think for most people, it's unreasonable to expect that "loving feeling" to continue on, for years at a time. There are people, however, who find happiness *in* the commitment, not just in being compatible, (i would actually lump myself in with these people, to a certain extent) and these are the marriages/relationships that work, when both people are the commitment-loving people. Some people find great joy in staying together and making something work, in having one person to rely on. Others find that they don't, or that they never did. 50% of the time, in fact. And even if you ARE one of those people that wants the stability and commitment, it doesn't mean you're going to be "right" about the person you chose to marry. Things change, you change, they change -- you can't help these things, and sometimes people grow apart just by growing up.
I'm not sure exactly what to refute here, but my marriage isn't like any of this.
Let me try it this way...there is a theory out there that there are 4 types of marriages:
Harmonious: skills without commitment Traditional: commitment without skills Vitalized: skills AND commitment Conflicted: neither skills nor commitment
I say skills rather than love because you don't always feel that passionate love about someone all the time. But you can build a relationship based on communication, friendship, shared interests, compromise, etc. These require skills. They can even be taught, if couples are willing to work at it.
Commitment simply refers to a desire to stay together. The "traditional" type of marriage has a couple with no skills who are desperate to stay together simply because they think they should. These marriages are together, but I would hardly say they work.
So I guess here are a few places where I disagree with you:
1. Lack of divorce is not the best way to measure how effective a marriage is.
2. That most people aren't committed. (At least 50% are. And for the record, FIRST marriages stay together more often than 50% of the time. People who get divorced, don't tend to have successful second marriage either...they drive up the overall rate.)
3. I don't think this is a point of disagreement, more like rephrasing for clarity -- I think that people cannot find joy in a commitment when they lack the skills to work on a relationship. THey may stay married, but they are probably miserable.
I had another point but the baby's crying so I'll have to try again later. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: 2. That most people aren't committed. (At least 50% are. And for the record, FIRST marriages stay together more often than 50% of the time. People who get divorced, don't tend to have successful second marriage either...they drive up the overall rate.)
That's what I was trying to say, but I was looking for some statistics to back it up.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Divorce statistics are easy to misinterpret. The 50% number is generally obtained by taken the number of divorces in a given year and dividing it by the number of people who got married that year. But this is highly fallacious since the people who got divorced in say 2007, are by in large not the same people who got married in 2007.
If we tracked all the people who were married in 2007 and found out how many of them got divorced before 2057 (I'm presuming that the number of people who get divorced after 50 years of marriage is vanishingly small), that would be closer to the right metric but a number that is virtually impossible to get even if we were to look at people who married in 1958 (rather than 2008).
The most relevant number I could find was that 65% of children live with both of their biological parents for their entire childhood -- which suggests that roughly 35% of marriages end in divorce in less than 20 years. That number has lots of problems as well. For example it doesn't account for parents who weren't married but lived together at least until their children reached the age of majority and doesn't include any childless marriages.
[ November 19, 2008, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm sure that the Duggars more than make up for the childless marriages, all on their own.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Well, I went out with her last night and she was really nice to me. Plus I had a bad day for various reasons and I was glad I had her to talk to about it; she actually suggested a useful way to solve one of my problems. So maybe I wasn't thinking straight when I started this topic.
I still feel she doesn't show the same degree of interest in things I want to talk about as I show in things she wants to talk about. She doesn't seem to have learned the conversation strategy of asking people questions about things that they bring up.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: Well, I went out with her last night and she was really nice to me. Plus I had a bad day for various reasons and I was glad I had her to talk to about it; she actually suggested a useful way to solve one of my problems. So maybe I wasn't thinking straight when I started this topic.
I still feel she doesn't show the same degree of interest in things I want to talk about as I show in things she wants to talk about. She doesn't seem to have learned the conversation strategy of asking people questions about things that they bring up.
Ultimately, only you can decide, but I would point out that just because someone is a nice person, doesn't mean you are compatible. I have two very nice ex boyfriends that were just not meant to be for me. I am so glad that I found my husband and if I had stayed with them, I never would.
Posted by All4Nothing (Member # 11601) on :
Some couple's differences can be a burden to a relationship, while others can be an enhancement. More often than not that changes daily.
Anytime either person feels unappreciated though, you seriously gotta open up the lines of communication. If you're only telling us and not talking to her about it the only thing that can happen is for it to remain exactly the same as it has.
The majority of people here are very good with advice, but the one who really needs to know what you feel and how it's effecting you is her. Hopefully that'll bring good changes to your relationship...it could just as easily not. If you're already unhappy then all you got to lose is something that's not working for you anyway.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well said, All4.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Well, I broke up with her after our last date, during which I kept trying to make conversation and had it go nowhere. Here's how it went, more or less:
Me: I'm just not feeling very happy in our relationship. Her (nervously): Well, do you think you're supposed to feel happy all the time in a relationship? Me: It seems I feel less happy than I once did. Her: So, are you breaking up with me? Me: Well ... Her (angrily): I'm not doing this again! Goodbye!
I think the "again" referred to the time a few weeks ago when I first brought up the doubts I was having but backed off when she didn't seem interested in talking about them and when she started crying and telling me how we got along great compared to her previous boyfriends, two of whom cheated on her. In any case, the fact that she didn't respond with something like, "Oh, really? What's wrong? Could we talk about this more some other time?" suggests that she wasn't that concerned with me, either.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: In any case, the fact that she didn't respond with something like, "Oh, really? What's wrong? Could we talk about this more some other time?" suggests that she wasn't that concerned with me, either.
Not to get onto you or anything, because you probably made the right decision. But if a guy told me he wasn't happy in our relationship and was considering breaking up, that's how I would have reacted, too. Now, if he'd said he wasn't happy in our relationship and wanted to work on it, that would be a different story.
I mean, why would she suggest talking about it some more later if you didn't seem interested?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I hope you made the right choice. Good luck to you. Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Well, I haven't missed her yet. I miss not having someone to be physically affectionate with, but that was the only thing working out between us (and we were never affectionate as often as I would have liked; she once complained to me that I was the first boyfriend she'd had who was "always on").
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)