"I want a girlfriend/boyfriend", and other such relationship advice

[muggiwhplar]

Out of curiosity, what's stopping you guys from soft nexting? Is it because you think it's mean? Do you think the ends won't justify the means? Are you afraid of the consequences? All of the above?

 

It's kind of hard to discuss the efficacy of it with you guys if you aren't willing to try it yourselves :P

 

So there would never be a need to give them the ultimatum that they were affecting your happiness and risked being cut off?

 

If I "cut them off," it would only be temporarily until they've become calm and rational.

 

So why can't the same thing happen in a monogamous relationship?

 

If you're talking about soft nexting in a monogamous relationship, then you can, and you should. Remember that you only ignore someone for a few days and then talk to them as if nothing ever happened. As opposed to cutting them out of your life completely.

 

In fact, it strikes me as odd that your parents would be so mature with you but then immediately act like children when dealing with each other....which must be the case, as if I understand your points correctly such unnecessary drama is unavoidable in monogamous relationships.

 

My parents were married long before 1990 ;)

[obfuscator]

If that's what soft nexting means, I do it all the time. (Although I don't ignore people, I'll ignore the issue) My point is that it's entirely possible to avoid drama in a monogamous relationship the same way you claim you do.

 

And stop with the "before 1990" point - it's such a crutch. There was no great enlightenment where all women sundenly refused traditional gender roles on a specific date. The way men and women view each other is constantly changing - women have been held in much higher esteem in some ancient societies than they are today, and vice versa.

[muggiwhplar]

Lol obviously it didn't just happen over night. But some things that were acceptable prior to the current era are no longer acceptable, and vice versa... and I think we agree on that. My argument is that in terms of traditional monogamous marriage, things have changed for the worse.

[obfuscator]

I don't agree with with that. I think that increased equality has made successful marriages slightly more difficult, and much more rewarding. But the biggest changes, I think, took place in the early 20th century rather than the 90's....and millions of lifelong marriages have happened since.

[muggiwhplar]

I wonder if the people with "happy" marriages as a result of tons of work and compromise are just exaggerating their happiness due to cognitive dissonance

[obfuscator]

I wonder if the people with "happy" marriages as a result of tons of work and compromise are just exaggerating their happiness due to cognitive dissonance

 

Entirely possible, but the same question is just as valid when directed at the polyamorous.

[Randox]

Of curiosity, since I've not seen the 1990 remark yet, what specifically are you referring to?

[muggiwhplar]

"Milestone" to mark the beginning of modern traditional marriage. 1950s marriages were much different from 1970s marriages due to the sexual revolution. Things changed again by around 1990 after the Reagan years and haven't changed much since then. Thus, comparing marriages post-1990 to marriages from the 1950s and 1970s is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Mylez]

Reading this drunk makes me want to headbutt my laptop

[Randox]

Can you give me a little brief over some of the things that changed? Recent history has never been my thing, much like Geography.

[Estonian dude]

I am a [bleep]ing weird dude.

I can't say anything properly IRL without being drunk.

What is the matter with me?!?

PS: This is 9 beers talking...

[Noxx]

tonight was weird.

So we went to the same place we go to every friday night. I saw the [bleep]ty girl there (mentioned her a few pages back, girl i want to [bleep] but not date). Actually got the balls and went up and talked to her. It went okay. Didnt get a number but i left with the ball in my court. Her time to come get it now.

Few minutes later girl walks by me, winks at me. I stand there kinda shocked cause this is the same girl my friend has been staring at for most of the night. So i tell him to go talk to her. An hour later he still hasn't. I told him that he has 5 minutes before i go talk to her. He didnt do anything in those 5 minutes but stand there and look at me. So i went to talk to her, got her number, danced with her a bit. Hes now mad at me.

 

Why......

[Tim]

tonight was weird.

So we went to the same place we go to every friday night. I saw the [bleep]ty girl there (mentioned her a few pages back, girl i want to [bleep] but not date). Actually got the balls and went up and talked to her. It went okay. Didnt get a number but i left with the ball in my court. Her time to come get it now.

Few minutes later girl walks by me, winks at me. I stand there kinda shocked cause this is the same girl my friend has been staring at for most of the night. So i tell him to go talk to her. An hour later he still hasn't. I told him that he has 5 minutes before i go talk to her. He didnt do anything in those 5 minutes but stand there and look at me. So i went to talk to her, got her number, danced with her a bit. Hes now mad at me.

 

Why......

 

*Facepalm*

 

I'll never get why people get pissy at that. This sort of stuff is a competition for a woman (or man). Unless, your friend is already seeing her, the court is open and it's first come first serve. It's simple as that.

[muggiwhplar]

Can you give me a little brief over some of the things that changed? Recent history has never been my thing, much like Geography.

 

In the sexually repressed 1950s, basically men would get married for sex and women would get married for security (marriage is a requirement for neither of those things in modern society). Women had to "put out" regardless of if she had a bad day or if she was in a bad mood. Then during the sexual revolution, if the wife didn't want to have sex, the husband could just go sleep with someone else since everyone was all "sexually liberated." But nowadays if the wife doesn't want to have sex, then the husband has to either go to bed with blue balls or resort to pleasuring himself in defeat :P

 

Don't wanna retype everything, so here's these old posts :P

http://forum.tip.it/...00#entry5212086

 

http://forum.tip.it/...80#entry5303129

[obfuscator]

Those are nothing but stereotypes.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Was it not more the case that, during the 1960s, one of the most significant advances in medical science became reality? Oral contraceptives meant that, for the first time in human history, women had a staggering amount of personal control over their own fertility and therefore if they wanted to have sex, whether it was with their SO or anyone else, they could without any significant risk of an unwanted pregnant. Instead of assuming why women got married in the 50s, maybe you should look at stuff that actually did happen during that era.

 

I'm not so sure how any of this is relevant to this, frankly, silly "poly" vs "mono" dichotomy you seem to have designed. The sexual revolution, which owes a lot of its roots to oral contraceptives and the role of women during WW2, had just as much impact on those who want sex with one person exclusively, as those who wanted sex with more people.

[muggiwhplar]

Those are nothing but stereotypes.

 

I'm beginning to suspect that you're content with infrequent sex. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

But if that's not the case, then what are you going to do when she isn't in the mood for sex?

 

Are you still planning on traditional marriage?

Are you still planning on living with someone for the rest of your life?

Are you planning on getting a pre-nup?

Are you planning on co-owning your assets?

What are you going to do if you want to do something big such as move to a new city, but she doesn't want to?

What are you going to do if she wants to move to a new city, but you don't want to?

 

Those are the kinds of questions you (and everybody else with the same "goals" as you) need to consider before making such a critical life decision.

 

Was it not more the case that, during the 1960s, one of the most significant advances in medical science became reality? Oral contraceptives meant that, for the first time in human history, women had a staggering amount of personal control over their own fertility and therefore if they wanted to have sex, whether it was with their SO or anyone else, they could without any significant risk of an unwanted pregnant. Instead of assuming why women got married in the 50s, maybe you should look at stuff that actually did happen during that era.

 

I'm not so sure how any of this is relevant to this, frankly, silly "poly" vs "mono" dichotomy you seem to have designed. The sexual revolution, which owes a lot of its roots to oral contraceptives and the role of women during WW2, had just as much impact on those who want sex with one person exclusively, as those who wanted sex with more people.

 

That's basically one of the reasons fueling the transition from 50s to 70s marriages. Not really sure what the point your point is :P

[obfuscator]

 

I'm beginning to suspect that you're content with infrequent sex. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

 

But if that's not the case, then what are you going to do when she isn't in the mood for sex?

 

Are you still planning on traditional marriage?

Are you still planning on living with someone for the rest of your life?

Are you planning on getting a pre-nup?

Are you planning on co-owning your assets?

What are you going to do if you want to do something big such as move to a new city, but she doesn't want to?

What are you going to do if she wants to move to a new city, but you don't want to?

 

Those are the kinds of questions you (and everybody else with the same "goals" as you) need to consider before making such a critical life decision.

 

 

Actually, I'm content with no sex at all.

 

Yes, I'm still planning on traditional marriage.

Yes, I'm planning on living with someone for the rest of my life.

I'm undecided about a pre-nup.

I imagine I will want to co-own the majority of my assets.

Your last two questions are difficult to answer with no context. I'm entirely prepared to do what she wants to do if it makes sense, and I won't marry a woman who wouldn't do the same for me.

 

Do you really think I've never thought about these questions?

[muggiwhplar]

I'm undecided about a pre-nup.

I imagine I will want to co-own the majority of my assets.

 

Why are you undecided? Why do you want to co-own your assets?

 

Your last two questions are difficult to answer with no context. I'm entirely prepared to do what she wants to do, and I won't marry a woman who wouldn't do the same for me.

 

You're assuming that she won't ever change once you've been married for several years. I'm not necessarily talking about her personality, I'm talking about her behavior towards you. This is something you won't know until years into the marriage, at which point you've already put your chips on the table.

[obfuscator]

I'm undecided about a pre-nup.

I imagine I will want to co-own the majority of my assets.

 

Why are you undecided? Why do you want to co-own your assets?

 

On the one hand, a pre-nup is obviously a good idea in the event of a divorce, which is of course a possibility in any marriage. On the other hand, I wonder if requesting it shows an element of mistrust in your partner....like I said I haven't made a firm decision about it. I'd want to discuss it with my future SO.

 

I want to co-own my assets because I think there are financial benefits to doing so. Being able to easily pool assets give you more financial power, and having it centralized means decisions can be made more efficiently.

 

I do realize there are certain issues that can arise because of this - and as a result I expect my partner to be as financially responsible as I am.

 

 

You're assuming that she won't ever change once you've been married for several years. I'm not necessarily talking about her personality, I'm talking about her behavior towards you. This is something you won't know until years into the marriage, at which point you've already put your chips on the table.

 

I believe that you can tell whether or not someone will change their behavior towards you by looking at their personality. I've seen countless couples that are destined to fail or have already failed because their personality gave away that they were not truly committed to their partner.

 

Likewise I have seen many people who are truly committed to their partner and will always put them first, no matter what.

[muggiwhplar]

On the one hand, a pre-nup is obviously a good idea in the event of a divorce, which is of course a possibility in any marriage. On the other hand, I wonder if requesting it shows an element of mistrust in your partner....like I said I haven't made a firm decision about it. I'd want to discuss it with my future SO.

 

If your spouse can't understand why you would want a pre-nup, then wouldn't that raise some red flags?

 

I want to co-own my assets because I think there are financial benefits to doing so. Being able to easily pool assets give you more financial power, and having it centralized means decisions can be made more efficiently.

 

I do realize there are certain issues that can arise because of this - and as a result I expect my partner to be as financially responsible as I am.

 

It puts you in a very bad position in the case of a divorce, though. Co-owned assets -> Her assets. More reason for a pre-nup :P

 

I believe that you can tell whether or not someone will change their behavior towards you by looking at their personality. I've seen countless couples that are destined to fail or have already failed because their personality gave away that they were not truly committed to their partner.

 

Likewise I have seen many people who are truly committed to their partner and will always put them first, no matter what.

 

But always putting your partner first means sacrificing your happiness.

[obfuscator]

 

If your spouse can't understand why you would want a pre-nup, then wouldn't that raise some red flags?

 

That depends. If she really "can't understand why I'd want it", then that shows a complete inability to think logically, and I wouldn't be dating her in the first place.

 

It puts you in a very bad position in the case of a divorce, though. Co-owned assets -> Her assets. More reason for a pre-nup :P

 

Yes, I realize there are risks associated with it.

 

But always putting your partner first means sacrificing your happiness.

 

Not if your happiness comes through your partner's happiness.

[muggiwhplar]

That depends. If she really "can't understand why I'd want it", then that shows a complete inability to think logically, and I wouldn't be dating her in the first place.

 

Agreed, but then what are the logical reasons for not getting a pre-nup?

 

Not if your happiness comes through your partner's happiness.

 

Well it wouldn't really be a sacrifice then, would it? :P

[obfuscator]

 

Agreed, but then what are the logical reasons for not getting a pre-nup?

 

Does it bring distrust into the relationship? I don't know - it might. And while that's probably more of an emotional reaction than a logical one there is some logic in the idea that having a backup plan means you aren't completely sure that the original plan will succeed.

 

Well it wouldn't really be a sacrifice then, would it? :P

 

It's one kind of sacrifice...but however you want to look at it is fine.

[RpgGamer]

How about we do something different for once. I want you guys to tell me why you think monogamy will make you happy, and what you imagine your monogamous life to look like, what you expect, etc. Also be sure to include WHY you choose monogamy, as opposed to celibacy or polyamory.

 

[bleep]ing christ. i'm drunk and i have 5 pages to catch up. screw you people. (still got the debate and muggiw's denial of spectators)

 

I choose "monogamy" (quotations intentional) because it makes me happy. Having a girl that I don't share, that makes me happy is my goal. I want to be married, and have kids and lead muggiw's definition of a "boring" life. I feel I'm kinky enough to keep the sex life strong, up until I'm in my mid-life. After that, it'll be an emotional thing, something that can only be maintained by YEARS of determination and love. Something that Muggiw, with his current life style will never understand. If I get what I want I'll be happy. I understand it will be excruciatingly difficult to achieve this.

 

to make my argument short (whether or not you disagree with me whatever) I want to be happy. Whatever makes me happy is what I do. I beleive that everyone else should follow the same creed. If it makes you happy - do it.

 

@muggiw

I respect your input. I enjoy your devil's advocacy. But I think the thread may benefit from putting disclaimers on your more forward posting. (ie: 'You wouldn't have this problem if you let go of your silly monogomous ideals...just realize you may be alone for a while')

 

also completely agree with your notion that dudes don't care if you ignore them. At all. None of them do. including myself. You want to do your own shot for a few years? cool whatever, have fun. A chick? if she thinks a guy "disappears" for a few days all hell breaks loose with the "is he mad at me?" and the "I don't think he likes me anymore". Shit is stupid.

 

@Randox

 

what is love?

 

It's hard to describe, and while I respect with total totality your opinion of having it built, I am one who believes in first sight love. I am a fan of the whole chemistry spark deal. If you've ever felt that deep gut feeling, you'd understand. (but then you can break down my "gut feeling" as a reaction to a sheer lack of attention prior, which could then be sited as desperation, or alternatively commitment)

 

@Obfuscator

 

I disagree with your point in that monogamous relationships by today's standard are better off. Before, definitive roles were implied. These roles made a balanced system that worked. Now that 'equality' is implaced in our modern culture, marriage and committed relationships are less common. This is supported by sheer statistics (50% of all marriages divorce). Marriage was a status security back in the day. Now women can get everything they need by themselves; they don't need "a man" in their lives to provide for them, if they choose not to.