[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Stinkfist wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
How can they know they didn’t just get lucky?[/quote]
Because marriage is a pain in the ass. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
My money is on strapons.
And they dont have the common courtesy for a reacharound either.
[/quote]
Now, that’s just rude 
Regarding AC’s excellent post:
I think women generally give guys more room to show insecurity, self-doubt, shame, etc than men give themselves. Women move through that world more easily than we do and they speak that language. A lot of women will feel closer to you when you do disclose what’s going on with you; it enhances the emotional connection they feel.
Women crave authenticity and vulnerability appears very authentic to them.
I’m not talking about about whining or sniveling or texting her every 15 minutes when she’s out with friends. I’m talking about things like, “Hey, I’m really worried about work right now. We lost a big account and rumor is there’s going to be some layoffs” or “It really hurt when Joe picked his cousin to be his best man. We had been best friends since second grade.” or even, “I’m feeling a little uncertain about us lately. Why don’t we take some time this evening to reconnect.”
The great thing about statements like this is that it separates the really good women from the so-so women. A woman who loses respect for you when you make yourself vulnerable is not a woman you want to spend the rest of your life with. I would even go one farther and say that you should admit your neuroses to a woman. Fuck it, we’re all a little crazy, you may as well own it. Then, when you find someone who can laugh with you about your particular brand of crazy and not throw it back in your face…well, you found yourself a keeper.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It comes down to the dynamic and setting boundaries. In relationships, the old phrase “familiarity breeds contempt” is SOOOOO true. The “oxygen” for “the spark of attraction/infatuation” is mystery. If a man “get’s comfortable” with a woman and stops doing the things that trigger attraction, then she will fall into the “comfort zone”. If he makes the effort to keep the spark going, it can be maintained indefinitely.
You can’t alter the fundamental dynamic of respect. If a man fails to LEAD (earn respect, show leadership/dominance) the woman won’t respect him. If a man “confesses” his shame, insecurity, fears, neuroses, etc… to a woman, she won’t respect him. If a man allows a woman to see him when he is weak (not physically, I’m speaking of integrity, inner strength, etc…) she won’t respect him. When a woman doesn’t respect her man, then she loses attraction/infatuation. This is different from allowing a woman to comfort you in times of great distress (death in the family, etc…) I’m speaking of things that SOME people over react to and get all bent out of shape about. Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “IF” sums up the qualities of a man quite nicely. If you stray from that and allow your woman to see you in that “diminished” state, she can’t help BUT to lose respect for you.
So to sum it all up, it’s really up to the man to BE a man worthy of keeping the flame of attraction alive for. Women are fickle creatures driven by evolutionary forces stronger than they realize. If they lose respect for you, it’s done - and even THEY won’t realize it. They’ll just “wish” that they felt “that feeling” again. But it is up to US as MEN to spark that feeling, nurture that feeling and protect that feeling (even from themselves) by showing strong leadership, setting firm boundaries and never letting them see your shadow side (or better yet, ELIMINATE your shadow side and just be awesome).[/quote]
I like the poem, very much. As is often the case, I think it holds true for women as well.
My father once said that you could always tell when one of the women at the office was divorcing because all of a sudden she’d start losing weight and change her hairstyle. He noted: “Maybe if they’d done that while they were married they wouldn’t be getting divorced.”
My father was a chauvinist, but I believe the statement is entirely true, and for both sides. I was a teen when he said it and it’s strongly influenced me. I take care of myself, obviously, but I also try to keep focus on behaving as I would if I broke up and was now dating. My ex-husband would take my car to put gas in on yucky days. As frustrated as I often was with him, I knew that if I were alone and someone did that for me, I’d be thrilled. So I kept my sights set on things like that. I think it prolonged a marriage that should have ended long since, frankly, so I’m not sure it was really best in that case, but overall I think people take partners far too much for granted. I don’t think familiarity breeds contempt, I think sloppiness - physical and moral - breeds contempt. The more familiar I am with a stellar human being, the more I admire them, because it takes courage and effort to be “awesome” long term. Also, the more I trust them, which allows me to be less inhibited in my adoration, both emotionally and physically.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Regarding AC’s excellent post:
I think women generally give guys more room to show insecurity, self-doubt, shame, etc than men give themselves. Women move through that world more easily than we do and they speak that language. A lot of women will feel closer to you when you do disclose what’s going on with you; it enhances the emotional connection they feel.
Women crave authenticity and vulnerability appears very authentic to them.
I’m not talking about about whining or sniveling or texting her every 15 minutes when she’s out with friends. I’m talking about things like, “Hey, I’m really worried about work right now. We lost a big account and rumor is there’s going to be some layoffs” or “It really hurt when Joe picked his cousin to be his best man. We had been best friends since second grade.” or even, “I’m feeling a little uncertain about us lately. Why don’t we take some time this evening to reconnect.”
The great thing about statements like this is that it separates the really good women from the so-so women. A woman who loses respect for you when you make yourself vulnerable is not a woman you want to spend the rest of your life with. I would even go one farther and say that you should admit your neuroses to a woman. Fuck it, we’re all a little crazy, you may as well own it. Then, when you find someone who can laugh with you about your particular brand of crazy and not throw it back in your face…well, you found yourself a keeper.[/quote]
I so agree with this. I don’t need mystery or invulnerability in order to maintain respect, I just need there not to be grim adherence to self-destructive or hurtful behaviors.
[quote]Stinkfist wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Stinkfist wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
How can they know they didn’t just get lucky?[/quote]
Because marriage is a pain in the ass. [/quote]
Why?[/quote]
My money is on strapons.
And they dont have the common courtesy for a reacharound either.
[/quote]
Now, that’s just rude :([/quote]
[quote]Severiano wrote:
I actually know of a couple successful long term marriages where the guy is an introvert, and he balances out his wife. It’s not always the guy that has to bring the spark, a lot has to do with understanding who the other person is and what they bring to the table for your relationship.
Usually if one person is extremely outgoing it’s good for the other to be able to temper that person. And vice versa from what I’ve seen. It’s about how you can compliment one another and make one another better in the end… But, we usually don’t figure that out until we have already maybe had some kids. [/quote]
I don’t know about this. Once upon a time I thought so, opposites attract and all, but not so much anymore. I think they don’t so much balance each other as wind up forced to take turns having their needs met, and one will wind up less satisfied as the other’s preferences come to dominate. Most likely the extrovert lives a dull, quiet life so the introvert doesn’t get grumpy.
Much nicer to enjoy going out and staying in at the same rate. Sucks to be someone who likes to have parties and never can, or someone who hates crowds but has to tolerate them.
[quote]nkklllll wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]nkklllll wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t ever have sex with anyone I won’t want to spend time with afterward, so I don’t have to worry about that part. I’m more asking about the long term of these feelings. If you’ve made a good match, does the adoration just go on and on?
Tim and I were together off and on for a little over two years, and I feel like I actively adored him right up until I realized that he wasn’t just complicated, he was broken beyond repair. And even then it took me a while to process that I was heartsick over someone I’d largely created in my imagination.
So if you find someone who is genuinely worthy of adoration, do you get to keep that moonstruck/infatuated feeling forever?
[/quote]
My great grandparents say they are more in love now than when they first met, and they’ve been married for 72 years. (92 and 89)[/quote]
Wow! Not to take us all in a direction no one wants to go, but . . . do you think it’s passionate love? Or friendship? [/quote]
If you mean passionate as in sexual . . . I have no idea. I know my great grandfather seems to be a spry old man, but my great grandmother, while still very much in control of her mental faculties, has had some health problems over the last 5-7 years. She now uses oxygen just about 24/7, just recently fell and I think broke a bone in her arm? But I wouldn’t be surprised if they occasionally engage activities that I do not want to imagine them doing. [/quote]
I suppose at their ages, and viewed from your perspective, I’m talking about passionate as in drawn to one another and indicating physical intimacy - standing close, lots of eye contact, displays of affection, laughter, that sort of thing. Being passionate about each other.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
With all due respect to my friends who’ve posted here, what’s the longest successful marriage / cohabitation you’ve experienced?
Are you really qualified to be “revealing the truth?”[/quote]
I don’t think there was a question about successful marriage or cohabitation asked… The question was how to avoid passionless familiarity.
To answer your question, I’ve had several year+ cohabitations, some while married, some while not, some with the same people but different times.
And with all due respect, how long you can stand living under the same roof as someone else (often times reenforced by legal contracts that can strip you of your wealth and livelihood) has VERY LITTLE to do with avoiding passionless familiarity.
I’m not “qualified” to give anything other than electrical advice. Everything else is decidedly “unqualified” LOL 
I know MY “truth” from MY experience…
[/quote]
The question was “how long can feelings of adoration/infatuation* last in a good long term relationship?”
Chushin, why didn’t you answer? You’re supposed to be representing for the happily coupled people!
*Infatuation is, by definition, a short term experience. But I don’t know what other word represents that euphoric feeling you get early on in a relationship. Adoration is defined as “deep love and respect,” which partly covers it but leaves out the mad attraction part.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
*Infatuation is, by definition, a short term experience. But I don’t know what other word represents that euphoric feeling you get early on in a relationship. Adoration is defined as “deep love and respect,” which partly covers it but leaves out the mad attraction part.[/quote]
The “honeymoon period”?
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
*Infatuation is, by definition, a short term experience. But I don’t know what other word represents that euphoric feeling you get early on in a relationship. Adoration is defined as “deep love and respect,” which partly covers it but leaves out the mad attraction part.[/quote]
The “honeymoon period”?[/quote]
But is it limited to that? That’s my question.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
The “honeymoon period”?[/quote]
I’d call that very unfortunate timing.
OK, Em.
Infatuation = sexual attraction.
Agree or disagree?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
OK, Em.
Infatuation = sexual attraction.
Agree or disagree?[/quote]
No. For me there are other components. Admiration, for one. Liking for another. So passionate feelings generally; being passionate about the person as a whole.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
OK, Em.
Infatuation = sexual attraction.
Agree or disagree?[/quote]
I’d have to disagree with that. There have been people I’ve been sexually attracted to that I would not say I’m infatuated with.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]nkklllll wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]nkklllll wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I don’t ever have sex with anyone I won’t want to spend time with afterward, so I don’t have to worry about that part. I’m more asking about the long term of these feelings. If you’ve made a good match, does the adoration just go on and on?
Tim and I were together off and on for a little over two years, and I feel like I actively adored him right up until I realized that he wasn’t just complicated, he was broken beyond repair. And even then it took me a while to process that I was heartsick over someone I’d largely created in my imagination.
So if you find someone who is genuinely worthy of adoration, do you get to keep that moonstruck/infatuated feeling forever?
[/quote]
My great grandparents say they are more in love now than when they first met, and they’ve been married for 72 years. (92 and 89)[/quote]
Wow! Not to take us all in a direction no one wants to go, but . . . do you think it’s passionate love? Or friendship? [/quote]
If you mean passionate as in sexual . . . I have no idea. I know my great grandfather seems to be a spry old man, but my great grandmother, while still very much in control of her mental faculties, has had some health problems over the last 5-7 years. She now uses oxygen just about 24/7, just recently fell and I think broke a bone in her arm? But I wouldn’t be surprised if they occasionally engage activities that I do not want to imagine them doing. [/quote]
I suppose at their ages, and viewed from your perspective, I’m talking about passionate as in drawn to one another and indicating physical intimacy - standing close, lots of eye contact, displays of affection, laughter, that sort of thing. Being passionate about each other.[/quote]
Definitely. I have some pictures of them together and they appear to be absolutely in love with each other. If they’re sitting next to each other and she’s telling a story about the two of them (he’s usually a quiet guy) then she’ll grab onto his arm. I’ve seen him give her a kiss. They don’t travel much, but they do travel together. The went to Rome maybe a decade ago. They just went to Texas to visit some of their children, I think a two weeks ago.
I think I could say they are still very passionate about each other.
[quote]nkklllll wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
OK, Em.
Infatuation = sexual attraction.
Agree or disagree?[/quote]
I’d have to disagree with that. There have been people I’ve been sexually attracted to that I would not say I’m infatuated with.[/quote]
Of course.
But have you ever been infatuated with anyone you haven’t been sexually attracted to?
I think many people have it exactly backwards. They say, “oh, the infatuation died off so the sex diminished”, when what really happened was, the sex diminished and therefore the infatuation died and withered away.
The sex dries up because people stop putting effort into it. They take their partner for granted, they bring laptops and tablets into the bedroom, the stop showering as often, stop going to the gym…
Kill the sex and infatuation goes away. Keep a healthy sex life and you can keep that thrill for as long as you want.