Relationship Rant Thread #5

Remove all ads!

lolwut

So treat women as you presume they'll turn out?

Every person, be they male, female or somewhere inbetween will have the biological urge to procreate, unless there is some form of hormonal imbalance that negates the feelings. Where, when and what sets this off, however, is unique to every person.

In the not so distant past, the only method of consummating the biological need in a socially acceptable manner was to marry and have a child in a monogamous household. It's been a theme in society for so long, and in most instances, it works fine.

If women are 'more traditional than they think' as so put earlier in this topic, then it only equates that men are just as much (if not more so ) traditional than their counterparts.

Of course everyone wants to find "the one", the one who seems perfect in every way and clicks in such a way you can't help but (grudgingly? ) admit that you never want it to end and want to stay with them for as long as you can.

Then comes the living, possible rituals, potential sprog popping, and all that stuff that continues the survival of the human race.

Mr/Ms Right rarely is. If you find someone who fits your little template perfectly then its usually because you've forgotten to check everything

Women in their 70s have lived, or should have done. Women in their 20s have their youth, newfound freedom and sense of adventure to while away before suddenly the world is less interesting. Likewise to men in their 70s lost their wildness probably some time ago, while a guy in his 20s still has achievments to reach and always something to try next.

At the crux of it, we're entering that 'age of horus' where men and women are both able to make such open decisions and reach an equality that has not been realised before. It will take time for societies to adjust and get out of the tracks of thought for 'gender roles' in relationships.

Kudos to chev for having the patience to write that much as well, I had to check it twice to make sure it really was one post :lol

 

Chev,
to keep this short: Be aware that the ideal relationship that you described, might be desirable, but is hardly the norm, and that it reflects the conservative or traditional model. That isn't universally representative any more. 8people has said it better than me - times have changed and society has changed.

That is to say that it might prove difficult for you to find your Mrs. Chevalier under your criteria. That said, I wish you good hunting, and that you don't find out that you chase a mirage. Also, it is said about people who determinedly look out for Mr. or Mrs. Right that they get tunnel vision, particularly when they hold views as firmly as you do. Good luck. Most importantly, relax, that always helps.

 

I think that what's he's been saying (and I don't mean to speak for him). His argument that "most" women will at some point in their lives wish to enter into the "next level" relationship, rationally implies that there is a male counterpart that desires the same thing - at least at some point as well. And I think he's right. In regards to the modern vs the traditional, I believe it is the matter of expectations, and greater equality within those deeper relationships (and the institutions) that's changed, more so than an outright rejection of the notions of romance, and/or the institution of marriage and family.

 

To be honest, some of you guys type far too much and 'do' far too less. Get on with life, meet people, make mistakes and learn from them, experience stuff. You feck up? It'll be alright, who cares! I don't get these page long essays about, what is really, feck all! Life is all just about stumbling through it and learning what you can, when you can. Well, in my experience anyway! Excuse me, I'm fresh from the club and a bit drunk, if I've just talked crap, just tell me!

 

I wasn't saying either party was wrong

A few years ago I doubted anyone would be able to put up with me long enough to want to marry me, as many younger women doubt they can find someone they can put up with for any length of time For some of the pickier ones, that's more than true

Nowadays there just seem too many considerations in marriage that weren't necessarily in place years ago, or perhaps it was just inconsequential to most people.

Cross-Religion marriages, cross-gender, cross-race. All pose situations that could place the 'happy' couple in a position they don't want to be: Namely conflict with family, friends and neighbours. In some cases perhaps the law. (UK and America (I believe) simply having Christian or civil unions as viable options, it was once illegal for a white man to marry a black woman, prop8, etc)

Beaurocracy is always a big turn off as well. The amount of paperwork EVERYONE has to deal with EVERYTHING nowadays and now the Mrs will probably have to go through ALL of it to change her surname with the banks, the board, her work... etc...

I know happily married couples who have never had (or wanted) children, I know happy families who have unmarried parents - or parents who have married from familial pressure, or in my friends instance: "Mummy, why do you have a different surname?"

I'm still determined to collect surnames btw
My initials will be CPMJPMKDAKKS. I'm currently CPMJMK (I'm potentially adding a middle name to amuse my mother.)

Barms you're talking crap , but so am I, why do I insist on chocolate before bedtime?

 

Frankly, I'd doubt any advice she has in this regard, for she's not the average woman.

Or if she is, I'm going gay(er).

Yeah, yeah, ad hominem - it works against anecdotal evidence!

@Barmy:
My problem is in the "meet people", for I'm stuck in a village of 8000 (and 10 people per square kilometer) until I get my medical issues fixed!
... admittedly, I'll be utterly insufferable until I do, so eh.

 

Smooth.

I'm not average so I'm completely incapable of knowing anything about normal people. Nice work there.

It's been two years, I don't think there's any need to put me down anymore.

 

You managed to sum up my feelings, sarcastically criticize me and copy Chev's argument in two sentences. Nice work, I'm actually impressed. About what, I got no clue.

Also, yes, I think in this particular case you just might be too far off the normal range. Kinda like me trying to guess if a normal person thinks an idea is good or bad.

Unrelated to this, actually.

Also, I've just read my backlog of two pages, and it makes me shake my hand like an old man trying to get kids off his lawn.

Uytuun: You know better than to get Chev started.
Chev: Brevity is the soul of wit.
DotW: You're about as far from most people as I am - that is, as far as you can get.
Self: Get therapy already, you're beginning to sound like your parents.

 

that comment was both kinda unneeded and a bit mean there, don't you think Taz? See, things like that just makes you seem, I dunno... a little bitter. Bitterness with a thinly spread veil of faux-indifference and self pity. Whereas, I for one prefer to not veil my feelings at all; a mincing of words only serves to misguide a clear point.

In regards to the current topic (and in an attempt to get this thread back on track), there isn't so much marriage going on nowadays because marriage has lost it's status. Before it was a target to be achieved; a title, a badge of honor. The realistic goal of the 50's woman. Now the focus has changed, and women are setting their sites higher, and rightfully so. Men are more or less the same as they were; lazy, bar the exception of the few cavalier guys who go the whole 9 yards.

Having said that though, I actually read Barmy's post and thought 'I agree.' Then read the bit about him being drunk. So really, this post is written by someone who agrees with a drunken Northerner - make of that what you will.

 

Aw cheers 8people, I need telling!

I'm a bit intruiged to know what this prevo is with 8chaps and Taza though! I like 8 though, so I'm in her camp, got your back sister!

Salamander, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with Northerners! The further north you get, the more sense people talk!

I'm quite horrendously hungover this morning.

 

I think that too, but, so what? It's hardly an argument to sway a woman that has her own ideas right now.

With Chev's rigidity on this I see a practical problem: However correct he is, he is well advised to keep it to himself for a while when he enters a relationship as he just might scare women away. Being right doesn't mean that everybody or anybody wants to hear it. Imagine my borg line as a pick-up line. I am confident that woman don't want to hear sophisticated, rational, logical, correct and in-depth pontifications about what they want and don't want. Insisting on such elaborations insinuates that he doesn't take the woman and her wishes serious, after all, 'in the end, when they're 70 they will know better' It will be read to mean 'whatever she says now is just confused babble'. That's a very likely 'deal breaker', Chev. And that does neither mean they can't be Mrs. Right nor does it mean that then they aren't worth it.

I also propose to Chev to be more open minded because I see him at risk of refusing honest offers as 'not good enough'. Tongue in cheek, in my view it is a folly to believe that an amour fou isn't worth it.

 

Hehe.

And I'll have to echo what's been told so far -- it's good you know what you want, chev, but that unflinching rigidity will be more of a hinderance than anything else. Best of luck in finding Mrs Chev, though.

 

I am bitter. However, I'm bitter for reasons unexplainable and quite frankly, unrelated to 8. I posted it because I think she's both wrong and someone who would have trouble knowing. And because I'm terrified of dating someone like her.

You wouldn't be in 8's camp - or heck, mine - if you knew the whole story. Sufficient to say, 8's the reason why I keep a safety zone of a hundred miles from English women.
Frankly, I think you'd take the side of "you both need more booze". I know I do. Mmm, vodka.

 

The solution to all lifes problems is found at the bottom of a bottle. Fact!

 

I'm not advocating the tenets of the position opposite yours, chevalier, I just commented on some stuff that I see as problematic in your reasoning. You, on the other hand, seem to want to make it a court case. Almost everything you wrote in there seems potentially logically unsound to me, twisted until it fits into your rhetorical scheme. Many of the things you accuse me of are painfully ironic in that they seem typical of your own discours.

I'm not desperately trying to prove you wrong, I was just offering you a different perspective. You might benefit from pondering some of my bizarre what ifs. I know that I have pondered and will continue to ponder some your standpoints.

It's very hard to take you seriously when you claim that 70 year old women who do not comply with your opinion are by default irrational or suffer from a mental disturbance, or that polygamous cultures have died out (mormons) or that a culture in which an unmarried and childless woman is most highly regarded is bound to only last a couple of generations. Lower women do the breeding in that scenario. The question is whether they want to. And how they look upon their children and husbands when the revered man-less/child-less woman goes by. You can think two steps further than what is literally written down on the page, for you not to do so because it might have you question your ideas, that's just...saddening. What about your own religion's fascination with unmarried and child-less women...stories about the amazons...these invoke questions that require a more nuanced and decidedly more open-minded approach than your theories and especially your usage of them provide.




On another note (not addressed to chev): good luck finding that elusive concept that is "the average woman".

 

'cept alcohol is a depressant. It just makes your problems hurt more. Unless you get blackout drunk and drown in your own vomit. Then you're dead, so.... I guess you don't have to worry

 

Though believing alcohol will make you feel better may work as a self-fulfilling prophecy... and you will feel better.



The other way you feel better is that if you are around a bunch of drunk people they tend to be more prone to self-esteem boosts, or whatever you want to call it.

And as for the other stuff, I don't think any guy really knows what a normal girl is like, and sometimes the girls themselves don't either. Probably the same the other way- though with less degree, blokes are simple.

 

q.e.d.

 

Part I: Occy

Yes, pills are hormonal. They do not merely mechanically block the egg cells. They affect the flow of hormones in the organism. Hormones affect personality. They affect the mood to a large extent.

You concede part of my point. Further, a normal family - marriage and children - is not just biologically seen procreating as in merely prolonging a species. Most people want a stable, loving, warm and safe environment, a home to make and/or a home to come back to.

It is not a theme that people are not born in glass vessels or metal tanks. It is not a cultural theme that people are male and female and are mutually different.

It does not necessarily equate that - there is no such proximate logical relationship. However, most men are also more traditional than they think. Everyone is more traditional than he thinks. Wild years typically end at some point. In this day and age, later than before, but they still do. Especially in real life, as opposed to soap operas and the world of show business.

Everyone wants a relationship built on trust, respect, love. Not a relationship built on cumpulsion, necessity and abuse. People remain in bad relationships because of compulsion, addiction or some other disturbance - or they think they can't get any better. This is, however, not an informed choice and alternative way of living, but an effect of abuse and something which needs therapy, not affirmation.

Occy, I realise that my posts are long, but I did say rather clearly and openly that Mr or Miss Right is not the same as Mr Perfect or Miss Perfect. Some people are keepers, some are not. This is not "perfect", but neither is it a "will (grudgingly) do". Besides, it would take a hypocrite to demand a perfect person without being perfect oneself and none of us is perfect. By extension, if we aren't perfect, we shouldn't expect a perfect relationship. That means there won't likely be perfect compatibility. Mr Right or Miss Right is an attainable standard and a realistic, albeit high, expectation.

And by the time they are 30, they have already spent time thinking about starting a normal family because no one can live a student's live indefinitely.

The biggest achievements are usually a life's work. Scoring 1000 lovers is not an achievement. Getting promoted, earning a prize, becoming listed by an encyclopaedia, winning an election, running a programme, educating a crowd of students, fixing an uncountable number of pipes, those are achievements.

Marriage and parenthood does in no way prevent equality.

Soon you are going to tell me that gender is a mental concept.

Part II: Ragusa

Rags, the relationship I describe is not ideal. Most people who are not dysfunctional at some point find this relationship in their lives. They bicker, they quarrel, they fight, maybe some of them at some point threaten divorce or move out for a month or even cheat, but ultimately come back to each other and try again. I repeat, I am not talking about a perfect relationship. This is not a relationship in which there is never any abuse or selfishness or rude behaviour. Far from that. What I am talking about is an attainable relationship of grown-up people who take each other seriously, who are kind to each other and who respect each other. This is no utopia: people can respect each other, can be kind, can even be selfless and can make sacrifices for the other. A mother can do that for her child, so can a father, a child for his parents as well. And so can a husband for a wife or a wife for a husband - and, by extension, one romantic partner can respect and be kind to the other, without abuse, cheating, violence and the rest.

And this has nothing to do with tunnel vision. This has to do with not sticking with the guy who beats you or cheats on you.

It totally has nothing to do with my personal life, either. I can only confirm that yes, it is difficult to find someone who will be kind, polite, respectful and at the same time will have similar or compatible interests and will be attractive. But we have a number of years to find that person and we don't need to stick with someone who we can't agree with or someone who insults, beats or cheats on us. Somehow we all understand the need to skip people who are not that attractive to us but we don't understand the need to skip someone who mistreats us. People don't have a problem skipping an ugly person, but they often have a problem skipping a violent or rude person. Some conscious thinking helps a lot here.

Finally, once again. Not talking about perfection here. I'm talking about something comparable to the "reasonable person" standard in law or the "lady or gentleman" standard in behaviour. And by this I don't mean being a rationalist or a master of etiquette.

Part III: Occy revisited

Part of a reason women stay with abusers or men who can't bathe or have a normal conversation. Large part of a reason why people generally stay in mediocre relationships for the sake of just having someone so they can avoid being lonely.

I have been through that as well, believe me. Thing is, once you get over the fears of finding no one, you are more confident, less affected by issues and can have normal interaction with people. Once you get over the "not my league" thinking, then no leagues exist for you, either. Once you finally arrive at a conclusion that it's better to be single than in an unhappy relationship, and that you don't desperately need to be in one (any one), then you can actually have very normal and healthy interaction with people, leading to healthy relationships.

Yes, that is true. Also, most people were more religious back in the time, so they wanted a religious marriage. Today, less so. And some of those who only wanted a secular, legal marriage, these days go without marrying, but generally the majority of people go for marriage and a family and some of the rest, while not married, generally prefer to stay with a long-term partner.

Beaurocracy is a frequent excuse but infrequent real reason of avoiding marriage. I have no statistics, so I don't know how exactly many, but I think few people who would otherwise be ready to commit to a single partner - especially in a relationship that's supposed to be permanent and exclusive - would skip marriage just because of paperwork. After all, people comply with one time formalities to make their situation better for a longer time, such as getting a bank account, buying a house, registering a business, marrying. Besides, marriage is not that much bureaucracy, actually. Most of this myth is caused by the fear of signing away one's freedom of dating.

Part IV: Taza interjects

Brevity is the essence of wit but also the mother of questions.

Part V: Salamander3 chimes in

Fewer people marry than before, but I think most still do. Later than before, not so often once in a lifetime as before, but generally most do. Of those who don't, many would like to.

Somehow, educated, smart, accomplished women still marry and they don't necessarily marry less intelligent or accomplished men to try and rule them.

Of the career people, many don't marry because they don't have the free time to interact with people. Imagine you work 12-14 hours a day 6 days a week in a huge law firm or some other such corporation. Where's time for family in that, or even the ability to meet people? I worked more like 10 hours (sometimes 14, granted, but not so often) and 5 days a week, plus doing my Ph.D. course at university, and one of my workmates put it this way: "you'd have to marry me or her or some other girl from here simply because you wouldn't have the time to meet anyone else." That's how the business world affects family. Doesn't, however, mean business people don't want one. Many take fewer days or fewer hours at some point, some change their line of work.

Part VI: Ragusa revisited

I'm glad we understand this one.

HALP!!1

Whew...

Depends. Sometimes the folie is just despair making you stick with a person who's not right for you because he abuses you, cheats, lies and so on. That kind of folly isn't my kind of fun, even though I have been through it a couple of times. Well, or because of that. Getting swept off your feet is fine. Getting brainwashed into believing abuse is acceptable behaviour is not.

Nah, I don't see people like that. Many of them are my good friends or valued acquaintances and the fact a relationship wouldn't be a good idea doesn't mean the person is bad. Sure, ultimately the relationship wouldn't be good enough, but the perspective is different. You know, it's your life and you don't owe to anyone to put yourself in a not so fortunate relationship just so you are more accepting. That can lead to misery.

Part VII: DoTW joins in

Thanks, DoTW. I take that in good faith. However, we aren't really talking about a Mrs Chev. Obviously I'm much harder to put up with than most people are, as evidenced by this conversation.

Part VIII: Uytuun retorts

Yes, Uytuun, I'm a jerk sometimes, especially when I debate. And with you I was especially hoping to keep it as kind as possible... at least in the beginning, before I got to debating point vs point. However, no matter if I'm a jerk, the fact stands that gay people don't make more than several percent of the population or that many of them would like to marry (even if a person of the same gender, which I do not believe to be a marriage) or that people going wild at age 70 are more characteristic of soap operas that real life.

I try to consider everything, but consideration of exceptions does not change a general rule, nor does consideration of opinions change facts. I am fully aware of the many kinds of people like you describe and in fact, in a different discussion, you might find me saying there's many and even too many of those people (not as in they should be isolated or something, but as in too many people act like that). However, they don't add up to >50%, no matter how we look at it. So essentially most people will at some point in life arrive at the conclusion that their way is marriage and parenthood. Not all people and not specific people, but most. Who knows, maybe one day you'll be a grandmother and I'll be the first cardinal to play Fallout, but ultimately most people marry and have children and they do so as a result of their decision, not because of some compulsion breaking their wills into obedience.

Uytuun, I am in some way appreciative of your trying to be compassionate and justify people as rational or reasonable no matter how bizarre it seems what they do. However, people who at age 70, after siring some grandchildren, decide it's time for hookers or gigolos, are not rational. Call me judgemental, but that is not rational behaviour. As for mental disturbance, yes, that can be a form of dementia. Being 20 once again.

I never said that. Polygamous cultures have lived on for thousands of years. I said that cultures in which people do not breed, die out. Where most women decide they want no breeding, the population growth shrinks and there's no going around this fact. It's as basic as the laws of physics.

Not true. In mediaeval Europe there were many more nuns than now and they typically commanded more respect than a married woman. Did they die? Nope. And population shrunk because of disease and sometimes wars, not other factors. But the key is that even if celibacy was so highly regarded, it was not the way of everyone. People would not die out for appreciating celibacy. People would die out if they suddenly started believing procreation was not for them. They would shrink generation after generation until dying out simply because well, no one would be around to breed. I think few countries in Europe had more than 3% population serving as celibate clerics or members of religious orders, even though that was a higher calling than marriage. They didn't die out. Had "most women" in such a culture decided they didn't want marriage - and most of the women of each subsequent generation - their population would quickly reduce to such a level that cities would become depopulated.

Told you - that's never really been more than 3% women, these days probably less than 1%. And also about 1% men might be priests. That's not a number to threaten the population's survival. Now 20%, or 30%, but especially "most people" would be a whole different thing. Note that I'm not pronouncing any moral judgement here. I am just stating a prediction near as likely as a fact: where more than a half of the population suddenly decide not to breed, the population shrinks. Unless, say, those who do breed breed more - but such a presumption wouldn't be covered here. So yes, a culture in which most women would decide not to breed would die out, barring something to offset this.

Uytuun, let's be clear. When I talk about what people want, I'm at least partly theorising because I'm interpreting observations rather than noting down simple facts. However, facts are not theory. The fact that if most samples of a species stopped breeding that species would shrink in number is not theory. The fact that the majority of people have married and had children, which is less so but still a majority today, is also a fact and not theory. The prediction that in our generation or the one to come after it most people will still marry and have children, is not theory, either.

To bring this further, an approach more open-minded and more nuanced but in turn rejecting certain facts of life would be wrong and wouldn't lead to any reliable results. The first principle of science is adherence to facts. Social sciences or arts are more lax in this regard, but we still cannot discard some facts of life - the obvious things we see in the world - just to be nicer to people, nor should we pretend that very obvious things are not true unless they are somehow evidenced by running an extensive research. Science may create more problems than it solves, but nuance per se is not a good thing to be strived for because science doesn't thrive on ambiguity. A good point is one that is true and one that works, not one that is flexible enough to avoid hurting the feelings of some people while talking about rather factual matters.

So yes, I may sound like a jerk pointing out that most women will eventually want to marry and have children, but even if I am a jerk and far from nuance, that doesn't make what I say false.

Hard to do. The average person is a statistic and doesn't really exist per se. We can still get a gist of it, however. But we must consider the whole populace, rather than what life looks like in soap operas, books, TV. If you judged by those, you'd come to the conclusion that minorities were far more represented than in real life. You hear a lot about many of them and it may seem that if you add them up, the sum total is overwhelming. But the majority of people are actually normal folks like you or I.

Part IX: Ragusa Strikes Back

You were talking about me taking someone seriously, she was talking about someone taking me seriously. It goes in two opposing directions.

 

Playing the martyr of truth doesn't exactly become you.

You mention that the majority of people make the decision to marry and have children. Indeed, but making that decision does not mean that what they have decided on encompasses the entirety of what they *want*.

Apart from that, I see that you go on steamrolling over people without seriously considering the perspective they provide. Your concern seems to be with defending your own position at all costs, not with learning (how you go from a divorce and a cruise to hookers or gigolos would be one example). That's your good right, but I'll have no part in it.

No doubt you are familiar with the concept of the pyrrhic victory.