|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 104 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 25 of 104:
| 
Jan 17 23:11 UTC 2006 |
Do you think you are close to someone else's ideal? To your own ideal?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 26 of 104:
|
Jan 17 23:16 UTC 2006 |
To someone else's ideal -- probably not, but possibly.
To my own ideal -- distinctly not. (Not even of what I think I ought to be.)
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 104:
|
Jan 18 00:15 UTC 2006 |
re #23
Lemme know when you'll be in Seattle! ;)
|
furs
|
|
response 28 of 104:
|
Jan 18 00:48 UTC 2006 |
re #15 - lets move to utah and get married. :)
|
richard
|
|
response 29 of 104:
|
Jan 18 01:47 UTC 2006 |
Statistically most marriages either fail, or devolve from romantic
relationships to friendship relationships, where the marriage is kept
together for convenience purposes. It is not uncommon for a husband and
wife lose their "spark" and become "just friends" over time, but stay
married for the benefit of their children or other family, or just out
of convenience.
This idea that "romance" is supposed to last forever in a relationship
is more often than not myth.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 30 of 104:
|
Jan 18 02:18 UTC 2006 |
Those would be the extreme possibilities in long marriages. There are many
shades between, as people can be very fond of and comfortable with each other
in various degrees, between the extremes you mention.
|
furs
|
|
response 31 of 104:
|
Jan 18 11:28 UTC 2006 |
re 29. That's cause people are lazy and don't do anything about it.
Gotta water the flowers.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 32 of 104:
|
Jan 18 14:50 UTC 2006 |
Yup, only fairy tales end with 'And they lived happily ever after.'
|
marcvh
|
|
response 33 of 104:
|
Jan 18 15:50 UTC 2006 |
Out of curiousity, what's the objective measurement for a married couple
becoming "just friends"? Not buying flowers? Separate bedrooms?
Separate vacations? Dating other people?
|
edina
|
|
response 34 of 104:
|
Jan 18 16:05 UTC 2006 |
re 29 Are you married?
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 104:
|
Jan 18 18:01 UTC 2006 |
re #28
Psychadelic Griz! LOL! ;)
|
naftee
|
|
response 36 of 104:
|
Jan 18 20:08 UTC 2006 |
lolol
|
richard
|
|
response 37 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:01 UTC 2006 |
re #33 all of the above, I guess different people have different
criteria. When a couple stops being hopelessly in love with each
other, loses that "feeling" about the other, stops having sex together,
stops sleeping in the same bed. When a person realizes he/she cares
for a person more than he actually is in LOVE with that person. When
that person has become more your friend than your lover. Etc.
|
tod
|
|
response 38 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:03 UTC 2006 |
What kind of sucker lays down for that kind of marriage?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 39 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:04 UTC 2006 |
Re #37 (nit-picking): I think it's a contradiction in terms to "care for" a
person more than one is "in love" with them. (Provided that they're the
sort of person one could be "in love" -- and again, I have a broader definition
of "in love" than the "romantic entanglement" definition.)
|
tod
|
|
response 40 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:04 UTC 2006 |
Maybe his idea of "care for" means to be the breadwinner and sugardaddy?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 41 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:26 UTC 2006 |
Samantha: How do we know when we fall in love?
Mrs Krabappel: Oh, don't you worry. Most of you will never fall in
love, and marry out of fear of dying alone.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 42 of 104:
|
Jan 19 01:30 UTC 2006 |
Hah.
But then again, I think I've already "fallen in love" several times. (I'm not
sure those meet my own definition for the term, but they certainly meet the
cultural-stereotype definition.)
|
glenda
|
|
response 43 of 104:
|
Jan 19 06:39 UTC 2006 |
Richard, what you are describing as love is really more like infatuation.
Caring for a person more than being IN love with that person is really loving
that person. Loving someone is very, very different than being IN love with
them. Part of the reason marriages fall apart is that people are too wrapped
up with being IN love rather than loving and caring. The infatuation is what
brings a couple together, love is what keeps them together. Infatuation can
happen almost instantly, real love takes time to develop and work from both
parties to stay alive. Deeply caring for your partner is a very big part of
loving them. How can you love without that deep caring? I know that I
wouldn't want any part of that.
STeve and I have been together for over 23 years, the infatuation is mostly
gone. But there is a strong underlying love that is based on friendship
(I don't know about you, but I couldn't stay long term with a person that
wasn't first and foremost my friend) that gets stronger with every year we
are together. I wouldn't want it any other way. Infatuation can get very
annoying after a while, where a lasting friendship and love just gets better
and better. I feel that infatuation is too much of a selfish type of love.
It is more about what you feel when the two of you are together. Loving and
caring for someone is more about sharing the feeling and supporting each
other. Much more important for the long haul.
|
keesan
|
|
response 44 of 104:
|
Jan 19 16:30 UTC 2006 |
Jonathan, do you care for your parents and brother?
|
edina
|
|
response 45 of 104:
|
Jan 19 17:52 UTC 2006 |
Dave and I were friends for a few years before we started "dating"...it's made
a huge difference in our relationship. We knew a lot of each other's quirks
before hand, and I wouldn't be involved with him if we weren't friends now.
Glenda has made a great point about infatuation...in the beginning, there's
so much new relationship energy that once it settles down (and the real work
begins), they see it as a sign of no longer loving the other.
|
tod
|
|
response 46 of 104:
|
Jan 19 18:28 UTC 2006 |
re #0
Changing ideals:
I don't like to take shit from people or be treated as a 2nd citizen.
I've found that I give society as a whole much more slack but those close to
me get less slack and then myself the least amount of slack. Expectations
change and you become more comfortable with who you are and what you need in
your relationships to the point that you learn to either communicate more
effectively or else the bad stuff just boils inside you until it becomes much
harder to address. I try not to let anything boil up inside.
One thing that has changed dramatically in my ideals is my wish for
close family ties while juggling my time with stupid relatives enough to
have a relationship without feeling compromised. In the past, I always
had to compromise myself because I felt helpless when giving an opinion
about who was socially involved in my family. It fell on deaf ears.
Some of that probably came from me not giving alot of slack to people for
who they are..but more often than not I just wasn't part of the picture.
It helps tremendously to have a spouse that puts you before all others
and communicates well when events attract friction.
Instead of getting "whatever" as a response in conversation and then the
S.O. going off on a tantrum or giving the cold shoulder and bitching to their
friends, I'm allowed some slack to discuss things without alot of
belligerence getting in the way or hearing complaints second hand.
My previous relationships had alot of rude people in the fray and it bothered
me that I couldn't punch their lights out. Now, my spouse is more critical
than I am about the same issues so we get along like peas in a pod.
|
edina
|
|
response 47 of 104:
|
Jan 19 18:37 UTC 2006 |
I think Todd and I subscribe to the notion that "Second time's a charm". ;-)
|
kingjon
|
|
response 48 of 104:
|
Jan 19 18:49 UTC 2006 |
Re #41: I don't think I could possibly care for someone in the same way I care
for my parents and my brother and at some other time in my life be "in love"
with her -- the attractions, while similar, are directed toward different (IMO
mutually exclusive) traits. (Confusing the discussion is our language's lack of
precision.)
|
tod
|
|
response 49 of 104:
|
Jan 19 19:05 UTC 2006 |
re #47
I don't really consider my former marriage legit when I do a mental
comparison.
|