newly single

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I just think there are too many young people today that think it's the in thing to live commonlaw with someone. It's a very serious step, and one should be fully aware of the risks involved. I believe the younger it happens, the greater the risk.

as opposed to 60 or 80 years ago, when getting married at 18 was pretty normal?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

as opposed to 60 or 80 years ago, when getting married at 18 was pretty normal?

The figures I have seen are:

In 1950 the average age for first marriage for men was 28.5 years, and for women was 25.9 years.

In 2000 the average age at first marriage for men was 30 years, and for women was 28 years.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I don't believe that you've lived with someone and still think this. Before moving in together, people have their own place to go to when s*it get rough. Each individual is financially responsible for their own bills. Each individual is personally responsible for the upkeep of their own houses. Once they live together, sharing all those burdens is the entire learning curve to what most people hope to work toward, which is marriage.

I can't believe that any sane person thinks that they can figure out what it's like to live with someone before actually living with someone.

I gotta side with 4x4 here, living with someone is very different even when you know them. I also tried living with an ex (read: I stayed over at her place 4x's a week, she stayed over 2x's a week) and it is very different. They are always there, and always there I mean ALWAYS there. She liked to have music on in the morning, I liked quiet. Etc etc... things are always different.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

About 6 to 8 months after we broke up I met a girl who was everything my ex wasnt' (read: not a bitch). I really started to like the "next" girl and despite my instincts telling me not to I got involved. My instincts told me I wasn't ready and that I'd make a mistake.].

Similar story here. After breaking up with my last LTR, I dated around and I met this one girl Marie. Things hit it off fast, and we already having sex 1st date in. She was alright, the sex was great but I just couldn't feel anything more for her than FWB. She kept wanting more, I wanted space and I was probably a jerk to her, and eventually things ended badly. (Though after they ended, there was still angry sex... I don't know how that happened, she came over to pick up a pair of ear rings she left and yeah...)

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Dion

My parents and thier generations before them didn't live common law before marriage. Maybe they knew something you don't.

They also had the wife stay home to cook and clean instead of getting a job. Maybe we should all revert to how it was in the 30's!

[return to the red]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

I just think there are too many young people today that think it's the in thing to live commonlaw with someone. It's a very serious step, and one should be fully aware of the risks involved. I believe the younger it happens, the greater the risk.

While I do think that this is the case I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing.

The only unfortunate thing however, is that it seems that by doing this people seem to put their lives into "steps"

1) meet someone
2) live with said someone
3) get married
4) have children
5) get divorced
6) rinse and repeat

In my circumstance I asked my ex why she even said yes to marry me and would try to have kids and she even told me outright that it was the next thing to do

[Knalus]

Back on topic, I only have one bit of advice I know helped me. When you find your thoughts spiraling out of control, and you want to stop thinking about, well, anything, pick up a simple game of Tetris. Play it till you can barely see. When your eyes close, you'll do nothing but see falling blocks and that catchy music. Normally, this is pretty bad - I dislike the feeling, like you can't get it out of your head. But when what was in your head was worse to begin with, it becomes a relief. Better than drinking. For getting things out of your head, that is.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Dion

My parents and thier generations before them didn't live common law before marriage. Maybe they knew something you don't.

Or maybe they just lived in a patriarchal society where most fights were usually solved by "I'm the man, this is my house, therefore I'm right." Relationships are substantially more complicated now.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Or maybe they just lived in a patriarchal society where most fights were usually solved by "I'm the man, this is my house, therefore I'm right." Relationships are substantially more complicated now.

Patriarchy isn't really a bad thing. I know, I know. Stupid thing to say, but I've always equated patriarchy with balance, confidence, and a reasonable self-respect for masculinity. We can't control women, only blockheads would ever try to do that, but it's good to be confident in yourself and how you are different from a woman. Patriarchy means rule by man, but from a philosophical or literary perspective, I think this means "self-rule" more than "rule over women."

If you look at some of the great "patriarchal" literature, Hemingway, Tolstoy etc... there is a purposive harnessing of the negative aspects of mankind and their emergence as servitude or at least "chivalry" towards women.

Dion's position is just kind of a naive sniffing around the issue.

That said, being together before marriage or after marriage is really a relationship by relationship thing. There is no right way, as far as I can figure it out. The human being is a complex organism filled with a myriad of sexual desires that must, need, have to be fulfilled. Sometimes people get hurt. That's life. We shouldn't pretend that comfort and security can be found in the living room with a pair of slippers while the wife mixes us a martini.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Patriarchy isn't really a bad thing. I know, I know. Stupid thing to say, but I've always equated patriarchy with balance, confidence, and a reasonable self-respect for masculinity. We can't control women, only blockheads would ever try to do that, but it's good to be confident in yourself and how you are different from a woman. Patriarchy means rule by man, but from a philosophical or literary perspective, I think this means "self-rule" more than "rule over women."

Except that it's always led to the suppression of women's rights. And, yes, in many traditional societies women were controlled by the mere fact that their rights weren't equal to men.

If you look at some of the great "patriarchal" literature, Hemingway, Tolstoy etc... there is a purposive harnessing of the negative aspects of mankind and their emergence as servitude or at least "chivalry" towards women.

Sure, but partiarchy is also evident in societies ruled under Sharia, and in ancient and modern day India, where women practically become ghosts once their husbands pass away.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Except that it's always led to the suppression of women's rights. And, yes, in many traditional societies women were controlled by the mere fact that their rights weren't equal to men.



Sure, but partiarchy is also evident in societies ruled under Sharia, and in ancient and modern day India, where women practically become ghosts once their husbands pass away.

I agree with the second part, but not necessarily with the first part. The problem with our modern view of love etc... is that it's all governed by statistics and moralism. That is, whenever arguments of this kind arise, they are dominated by whoever can produce the most convincing and recent study on mass behaviour or who can cling with wounded pride to some position which has been deemed archaic by the majority.

So, in a sense, we're probably on the same page. I don't reject patriarchy as a whole because I think some things that are labeled patriarchy are really just means of male self-regard and understanding.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I agree with the second part, but not necessarily with the first part. The problem with our modern view of love etc... is that it's all governed by statistics and moralism. That is, whenever arguments of this kind arise, they are dominated by whoever can produce the most convincing and recent study on mass behaviour or who can cling with wounded pride to some position which has been deemed archaic by the majority.

So, in a sense, we're probably on the same page. I don't reject patriarchy as a whole because I think some things that are labeled patriarchy are really just means of male self-regard and understanding.

All I was really getting at was that traditional male/female roles have evolved drastically since the beginning of the 1900s, and that evolution accelerated after about 1965. Women were pretty much expected to defer to their husbands on most matters before then, which probably explains why there were less instances of divorce and marital strife (at least from the man's POV).

EDIT: I'm not rejecting patriarchy from your second standpoint, but when I talk of a patriarchal society, I'm generally referring to a society where women are considered subservient to men.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

All I was really getting at was that traditional male/female roles have evolved drastically since the beginning of the 1900s, and that evolution accelerated after about 1965. Women were pretty much expected to defer to their husbands on most matters before then, which probably explains why there were less instances of divorce and marital strife (at least from the man's POV).

And I don't think that's true. It's a myth of the post-60s world that women were imprisoned in a world dominated by men.

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally Posted by peter12

Patriarchy isn't really a bad thing. I know, I know. Stupid thing to say, but I've always equated patriarchy with balance, confidence, and a reasonable self-respect for masculinity. We can't control women, only blockheads would ever try to do that, but it's good to be confident in yourself and how you are different from a woman. Patriarchy means rule by man, but from a philosophical or literary perspective, I think this means "self-rule" more than "rule over women."

If you look at some of the great "patriarchal" literature, Hemingway, Tolstoy etc... there is a purposive harnessing of the negative aspects of mankind and their emergence as servitude or at least "chivalry" towards women.

Dion's position is just kind of a naive sniffing around the issue.

That said, being together before marriage or after marriage is really a relationship by relationship thing. There is no right way, as far as I can figure it out. The human being is a complex organism filled with a myriad of sexual desires that must, need, have to be fulfilled. Sometimes people get hurt. That's life. We shouldn't pretend that comfort and security can be found in the living room with a pair of slippers while the wife mixes us a martini.

I don't see why masculinity or femininity is valuable in and of itself. It's just probable biological make-up combined with cultural shaping. Why is it important for masculinity to be maintained in a society or an individual? I say, if it's harmful or undesirable to an individual or society, it's fine to get rid of it as a value.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

And I don't think that's true. It's a myth of the post-60s world that women were imprisoned in a world dominated by men.

Well the extremities of that really depend on which part of the world you're talking about, but in Canada and the UK I'd say there's a certain validity to that. Women certainly had difficulties achieving financial independence from their husbands.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

When my family asked me about why they hadn't seen my last girlfriend around lately, I told them that I had killed her and buried her in Banff park.

I really like awkward silences.

I really like the Happy Gilmore line:

"Oh, she fell off a cliff and died on impact."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I don't see why masculinity or femininity is valuable in and of itself. It's just probable biological make-up combined with cultural shaping. Why is it important for masculinity to be maintained in a society or an individual? I say, if it's harmful or undesirable to an individual or society, it's fine to get rid of it as a value.

Not only that, but do you think we could find even three societies who would agree on a universal definition of masculinity? It's all pretty subjective.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

I don't see why masculinity or femininity is valuable in and of itself. It's just probable biological make-up combined with cultural shaping. Why is it important for masculinity to be maintained in a society or an individual? I say, if it's harmful or undesirable to an individual or society, it's fine to get rid of it as a value.

Well, this is neither here nor there, but I would say there are attributes or virtues assigned that are more common to either gender, but not necessarily contained to gender, which makes it important to understand for example why manliness should still be considered an important virtue.

We live in one of the most emasculated worlds in the history of humankind, we should think about the consequences when men are ordered not to act like men, but we should also realize that Margaret Thatcher was pretty manly herself.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Dion

My parents and thier generations before them didn't live common law before marriage. Maybe they knew something you don't.

That you don't need to show up on time for an aircraft with 150 other people who were on time?

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Or maybe they just lived in a patriarchal society where most fights were usually solved by "I'm the man, this is my house, therefore I'm right." Relationships are substantially more complicated now.

My parents and grandparents, and my wife's parents were all matriarchal relationships...and that's going back a long way.