Children have to be in the equation for the nurturer to actually have a defined role.
I’ve seen one relationship where the wife works and the husband stays home to raise the kids and they’re still going strong after 15 years.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Children have to be in the equation for the nurturer to actually have a defined role.
I’ve seen one relationship where the wife works and the husband stays home to raise the kids and they’re still going strong after 15 years.[/quote]
One, huh?[/quote]
Yes.
What are you not agreeing with? The female as head of the houseful? Or the traditional family unit itself?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]CLINK wrote:
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Marriages that I’ve seen where couples were “best friends” or “soul mates” before rarely last unless both grew up together.[/quote]
My wife and I are the exception… if that indeed is a rule.
[/quote]
I wasn’t going to say anything, but that statement had me scratching my head too. Maybe the soul mate portion (does anyone actually think that?), but the best friend part is strange to me. I can’t imagine not being married to my best friend. [/quote]
I wrote what I’ve seen and heard. I’m always to go to guy when friends (both male and female) have marital problems because I’m perceived as the most stable guy with a marriage devoid of any drama. Plus my wife has no problem with me going out late at night to drink with them and hear all the sob stories.
I cannot give you a reason why. All I can say is the ones that had the closest “best friends” relationship when married are the ones that spew the most hate for their spouse a decade later, and shit usually starts because they start misinterpreting one another’s intentions behind their actions when times get rough.
As I wrote on the previous page, I hate hearing about all this crap in real life. If you have a successful marriage of a nature contrary to what I’ve written, please do share it here.[/quote]
I hope you didn’t interpret that as me saying you’re wrong or anything along those lines. I didn’t mean that at all.
I’ve been married to my best friend (and I mean that) for going on 8 years. To me, if your spouse is really your best friend, major shit just doesn’t get between you. Don’t get me wrong, a male best friend, I’d punch square in the dick if need be, but you always end up having a beer afterwards. To me fight (not physically, I ain’t Ray Rice) with your BF wife is the same things, basically. At least to me it is. [/quote]
No, not at all. I wrote what I wrote also hoping to find examples contrary to what i’m seeing in real life.
I’ve treated my wife as a traditional housewife and not a friend and we’ve had no problems for 9 years. This past year we’re developing a more “friendlike” relationship as I have more free time on my hands from work, and my youngest brother has grown up and gone to Uni so she doesn’t have much to do at home. We’ve been going to the gym together among other things and she’s squatting rather heavy weights lol.
The thing is, I’m not too sure this “friend” thing is going to work out for us in the long run. So I’m looking to find examples of such relationships that others have. It’s either that or plan to have kids.
Anyway thanks for sharing details of your relationship and I wish you both the very best of things.[/quote]
What are the risks you see, dt?
[/quote]
Well, first it’s the fear this kind of relationship not working out in the long run based on what I’ve seen in real life.
Second, it’s the breakdown in the traditional roles in the family unit. We give each other a special kind of respect because of the roles we have within this unit. I do not behave the same way at home as when I’m at work or out with friends because I have to behave as the “head of the household”. And I know her behavior is in line with her role as well. If we were both friends, I think that mutual respect will be gone and chaos will ensue lol.
Do understand that this is not an issue of a woman “knowing her place”. It was how I was brought up and at the time of marriage I chose to model it after that of my parents.
[/quote]
I think traditional roles are a fine choice if both people are happy with that setup. I’m not sure I see the danger for you if a respectful friendship is added to the mix. You have your roles and those can remain. You as protector and friend, her as nurturer and friend. [/quote]
Does that mean that, inversely, a non-traditional role with her as protector and him as nurturer is a “fine choice” too?
[/quote]
Sure, I think it’s a fine choice if people can make it work. I think there are steady loving relationships wherein the female is the leading partner and the male somewhat dependent. Not my cuppa tea, but if it works why not? Not all men are masculine and not all women are soft and feminine. If they find one another and fall in love who is harmed?[/quote]
The family dog that has to observe it daily?[/quote]
I question this, too. You find it sickening, obviously, but why? I get it not being for you - it is similarly not a relationship that would work for someone with my nature. But why does it bother you? You DO realize there are unassertive, pliant men and bold, decisive women, right? Why shouldn’t they find one another and live happily ever after?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Keep it rare, like seeing a solar eclipse or a comet.
[/quote]
Fixed again.
[/quote]
Don’t mess with me Steely.
Here’s some solid marital advice for all of ya’ll. From a woman’s point of view.
See if you can orchestrate a barroom brawl at least once a year. Men love the opportunity to go all barbarian and defend your honor. It will make him feel like a hero. If he gets arrested, you can always follow up with some “prison break” role playing after you bail him out. You get to be the sadistic warden in this deal. “I hear there’s been a prison break and the maximum security facility over the ridge. You’re gonna need to turn around and keep your hands above your head while I check you for weapons…” You get the idea.
Also, they love it when you run the credit cards up to an obscene amount that you can’t afford. Nothing gives him an adrenaline rush like seeing all those zeros on the Visa bill. He’ll decide to go for that promotion at work, and he’ll thank you for it later. Trust me on this.
A little dishonesty helps keep the sense of mystery alive. It doesn’t have to be anything big. Just stuff like bring a napkin home from his favorite restaurant and leave it on the kitchen counter. Then when he gets home he’ll see it and ask, “Oh, did you go to Javier’s for lunch?” You just say, “Nope. Huh, I wonder how that got there.” These sort of little mind games keep things fresh.
And last…The most important piece of marital advice from TN…I can’t believe nobody has said this yet… GPS his car.
[/quote]
Don’t forget to “Ray Rice” your spouse every now and again. Does wonders for the relationship![/quote]
For sure. Anything that involves me getting clocked, then having my unconscious self dragged out of an elevator while the whole country gets treated to a view up my skirt… That’s a lot of passion going on. 
[quote]dt79 wrote:
Children have to be in the equation for the nurturer to actually have a defined role.
I’ve seen one relationship where the wife works and the husband stays home to raise the kids and they’re still going strong after 15 years.[/quote]
I have two friends that are in this role and have been married 25 and 27 years.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
Is the ultimate goal of every relationship marriage? [/quote]
No. And I think it is dangerous to always (sometimes you should, other’s you shouldn’t) define yourself or your relationship on other people’s terms, and marriage may very well be other people’s terms to you. (Proverbial You here.)
However, the appeal of marriage is the very reason coupling has been celebrated and engrained in our social norms for quite a while now. It doesn’t have to be marriage, recognized by the government or anything “official” beyond the word and bond of the coupling, but the point being couples tend to produce children, stable children that go one to improve the world around them.
So no. Marriage isn’t the end all and be all, but it is a very clear and easy way to define the celebrated coupling society values.
No. But if something doesn’t kill you, you aren’t in prison forever, and you learn from it, it was never really a failure in any sort of permanent sense anyway.
There are a lot worse things that you can do while married than what you describe here while not.
[quote]Is it harder to maintain a strong relationship the later in life you meet the other person? Are you better prepared for what may come because you have more experience or does the baggage you bring from previous relationships drag you down?
[/quote]
I’d say the older you get, irrelevant, the better you get, generally speaking, at relationships. Life has beaten its hard lessons into you and you learn not to sweat the small shit, and enjoy the good.
At least I do…
. Quoted myself below somehow.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
Is the ultimate goal of every relationship marriage? If a relationship ends without a marriage, is it a failure? If you spend 5 years of happiness with a person and then find that the two of you have grown in different ways and want different things, is it fair to classify 5 years of happiness as a failure? Is a man who has never been married considered less successful at relationships that a man who has been married and divorced?
I don’t have any answer for these, but these are the types of things I think about. This site is often debating the virtues of marriage and whether it is in a guy’s best interest to get married. I would be curious whether those guys who are opposed to marriage are also of the opinion that a relationship must get to that point to be legitimized.
Is it harder to maintain a strong relationship the later in life you meet the other person? Are you better prepared for what may come because you have more experience or does the baggage you bring from previous relationships drag you down?
[/quote]
These things seldom involve just two people in a vacuum. If kids are involved, you end up with step-dad figure number 1, number 2, number 3… And serial LTR’s have an effect, even if the couple is older and the kids are all grown.
My oldest brother and his wife split up. He’s ten years older than me. Unfortunately he developed a substance abuse problem, so there were valid reasons for the divorce. No kids involved. But, his wife was like a very cool older sister that I had idolized since I was 12. My parents loved her like a daughter, and so they lost someone they were emotionally attached to, and who potentially would be there for them as they age. My kids lost an aunt who loved them, so forth. Other people were effected.
I’ve often thought about some of these questions. Particularly when people are older and there are no kids involved, or kids are grown. We don’t live in a perfect world, but if everyone moved toward serial LTR’s… Less back up in terms of family support in general. It would have an effect for both the younger and older generations.
Part of this comes down to your view of marriage or LTRs as simply a relationship that involves two adults, or something that involves families in a larger sense. [/quote]
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
Is the ultimate goal of every relationship marriage? If a relationship ends without a marriage, is it a failure? If you spend 5 years of happiness with a person and then find that the two of you have grown in different ways and want different things, is it fair to classify 5 years of happiness as a failure? Is a man who has never been married considered less successful at relationships that a man who has been married and divorced?
I don’t have any answer for these, but these are the types of things I think about. This site is often debating the virtues of marriage and whether it is in a guy’s best interest to get married. I would be curious whether those guys who are opposed to marriage are also of the opinion that a relationship must get to that point to be legitimized.
Is it harder to maintain a strong relationship the later in life you meet the other person? Are you better prepared for what may come because you have more experience or does the baggage you bring from previous relationships drag you down?
[/quote]
These things seldom involve just two people in a vacuum. If kids are involved, you end up with step-dad figure number 1, number 2, number 3… And serial LTR’s have an effect, even if the couple is older and the kids are all grown.
My oldest brother and his wife split up. He’s ten years older than me. Unfortunately he developed a substance abuse problem, so there were valid reasons for the divorce. No kids involved. But, his wife was like a very cool older sister that I had idolized since I was 12. My parents loved her like a daughter, and so they lost someone they were emotionally attached to, and who potentially would be there for them as they age. My kids lost an aunt who loved them, so forth. Other people were effected.
I’ve often thought about some of these questions. Particularly when people are older and there are no kids involved, or kids are grown. We don’t live in a perfect world, but if everyone moved toward serial LTR’s… Less back up in terms of family support in general. It would have an effect for both the younger and older generations.
Part of this comes down to your view of marriage or LTRs as simply a relationship that involves two adults, or something that involves families in a larger sense. [/quote]
[/quote]
I would also say, and I could be wrong, that the ring, the oath, etc, will lead you to try harder to keep things good than without it.
If “breaking up” is easier than “fixing this shit” people will tend to just break up more often than not.
Ehh, maybe I’m full of shit.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would also say, and I could be wrong, that the ring, the oath, etc, will lead you to try harder to keep things good than without it.
If “breaking up” is easier than “fixing this shit” people will tend to just break up more often than not.
Ehh, maybe I’m full of shit. [/quote]
I agree
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would also say, and I could be wrong, that the ring, the oath, etc, will lead you to try harder to keep things good than without it.
If “breaking up” is easier than “fixing this shit” people will tend to just break up more often than not.
Ehh, maybe I’m full of shit. [/quote]
I agree
[/quote]
QFT~
Pic Unrelated
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I would also say, and I could be wrong, that the ring, the oath, etc, will lead you to try harder to keep things good than without it.
If “breaking up” is easier than “fixing this shit” people will tend to just break up more often than not.
Ehh, maybe I’m full of shit. [/quote]
I agree
[/quote]
Yes.
Although, I do see some really committed people closer in age to me and older who choose not to remarry since they will not be having kids together. Also pragmatic reasons like estate planning, the desire to keep assets separate, or even to not mess with college financial aid for kids of previous marriages. I’ve seen a couple of real train wrecks where older people married and merged assets and then the adult kids went nuts over the estate when one of them died.
I have a friend who has been living with her LTR for several years now. They even wear rings, but they are not marrying in part because he is financially very successful. Her two college-age kids would no longer be eligible for financial aid if she were to marry him. They do look at the step parent’s income even if he has no real obligation to educate her kids. So, things get complicated.