FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Living together (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Living together
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sax, I'm not going to disagree with you.
I appreciate that. [Smile]

It sounds to me like you have a good marriage, and that's a wonderful thing. I hope no one thinks that I am against marriage, because in fact I am married, and I like being married, and I love my wife.

Maybe I'm just being naive, but I don't believe in "odds" when it comes to relationships. For one thing, statistics don't really apply to individuals, they apply to aggregates. And they don't really speak to causes at all. But more than that it just doesn't appeal to the romantic in me. I know that relationships take work, but I want to believe that, at the core, my marriage works because my wife and I are compatible, because we love each other. That we interact with each other in the way that we do, not because we want to avoid divorce, but because it makes our lives better. That we are together not because we want to make our marriage last, but because we want to be. That we are married not because we want to be married, but because we want to be married to each other.

Relationships take work, and I work at mine. But talking about it in terms of odds just makes me depressed.

Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That we are together not because we want to make our marriage last, but because we want to be.
In my way of thinking, part of making a marriage work is staying together even when you don't want to be together, and then working on it so that you get back to the point where you both want to be.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
Mike, I hope I didn't leave you with the impression that my wife and I worked on our differences just to avoid divorce. We did it because, down deep, we did still love each other very much and wanted it to work. We were married because of that love and our commitment to each other. We got married when we decided that we wanted that commitment.

I guess it keeps coming back to what marriage means to a person. To me, marriage IS that commitment.

Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
Suneun, the greatest problem with defining marriage as less than "for life" is the effect it has on children. It's very convenient to say "do whatever you think suits you", but there are people who are affected by those decisions, most especially any children of that union.

I have a real problem with people, whether they married for life or not, who discard their marriage thinking "Oh, kids are resilient, they'll get over it." (and to make sure we know I'm not being a hypocrit about this -- I was such a person...I told myself the same lie, and yeah, my son seems to do fine, but he'll never "get over" that he doesn't know his dad as a Dad. Having learned the hard way, I try to be very clear with parents I know who are considering divorce. It is a lie.)

Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Suneun
Member
Member # 3247

 - posted      Profile for Suneun   Email Suneun         Edit/Delete Post 
But not every marriage consists of children of impressionable age. I'd say a large percentage of marriages consist of couples without children, or couples with children past 18.

And not every child is better off with their parents still together. It's not a blanket statement one can make lightly.

Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile] Saxon. I think I talk about "raising the odds" because I am intrinsically a very lazy person, and knowing that the odds are against my marriage working gives me the kick in the butt I need. For whatever reason, making my life better just doesn't seem to be the motivator that potential failure is. When I perceive that I'm slacking off, hanging on to a grudge, in general being a pain to live with, I remember how awful divorce is. Suddenly picking back up, letting that grudge go, and forcefully improving my attitude seems a lot less effort.

I think it's wonderful that you don't have to stick yourself with a cattleprod to get motivated. I wish I were the same way.

Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
Zan, no, definitely not. No one in this thread has left me with that impression. If I came across otherwise, I apologize.

-----------------

quote:
he'll never "get over" that he doesn't know his dad as a Dad
You know, my parents got divorced when I was quite young, and even though my Dad has always been around, he has never really filled the "Dad" role in my life. And even though I'll never "get over" it, in the sense that some day I will know him as a real father figure, at the same time, I don't view this as some huge tragedy. I like who I am, and I am that person in large part because of the way I grew up. I love my dad, and I'm comfortable with the relationship I have with him.

I know this is not the scenario you were talking about, either, but I really believe that divorce is sometimes better for kids, even if it doesn't involve actual abuse. One of my best friends in college had parents that to all outward signs hated each other but were still married and I think a lot of his problems stemmed from growing up in that environment.

Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
celia60
Member
Member # 2039

 - posted      Profile for celia60   Email celia60         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know that I could have gotten married without the living together first bit. I think of marriage as a BIG thing, one so big my parents failed at it more than once each. It was a commitment I didn't know if I could make ever. I certainly have issues with trust. I certainly am not an easy person to live with.

The whole living together thing was because I was taking marriage so seriously. I wanted him to have every opportunity to run before him doing so would leave each of us with that label of divorce, before I let myself commit all of me, and before I let him commit all of him. To me at least.

To him, it was all so much simpler. To him, he already knew he could spend the rest of his life with me, but I couldn’t believe that without seeing it. I certainly tried to hit him with everything I had, just to see. But he stuck around.

I don’t think it’s for everyone. I certainly know people who’ve totally messed up relationships by doing just that. I just don’t think it could have worked any other way for me. Even if I'd married him, having not lived together, I would always have been waiting for him to leave.

----

saxy, i love every post you've made in this thread.

Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
celia, I actually completely and utterly agree with your post. I also agree with the other people. I have little doubt that if I hadn't been born into the family I was, I'd have lived with someone before marrying them.

It certainly wouldn't have been right for everyone, and I doubt I'd advocate it. But it would have fit my own slow-to-trust personality.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
celia, it sounds like he did commit all of himself to you before you married.

Do you think you are more fully committed to the relationship now than when you were living together?

Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
celia60
Member
Member # 2039

 - posted      Profile for celia60   Email celia60         Edit/Delete Post 
By the time we got around to the married part, we were both already there. I would say we are more committed now than we were when we started living together, but we were just as committed the day before the wedding as we were the day after as we are today.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zgator
Member
Member # 3833

 - posted      Profile for zgator   Email zgator         Edit/Delete Post 
Isn't it funny how "celia" and "committed" go together so well?

I'm not sure whether I would say my marriage is more committed now. It's definitely stronger and I love her more now than before, but I don't know if I would say more committed.

We just celebrated our 5 year anniversary. She gave me a new wedding ring since we got very plain bands when we got married til we could really decide what we wanted. We were at an outdoor concert when she gave it to me. I lost it within 2 hours. That's how committed I am.

Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
I think that living together is a logical outgrowth of the casual attitude toward marriage which is generally held in Western society today. With no-fault divorce etc, there really isn't all that much difference between living together and getting married with the option to dissolve the marriage any time either party feels like it.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
Sax, the difference is in perspective. You, I think, have a wonderfully healthy attitude from the perspective you have. I genuinely hope that my son has the same outlook someday.

How do I say this? I'm really struggling with it, because I think it's important.

*grumble* *drums fingers* Okay...





See, you're looking at it from the child's perspective. You're a forgiving, thoughtful kind of person, and the way you grew up didn't devestate you down to your shoes so you can't see that it's so bad, really.

Look at it instead from the parent's perspective. In the name of justifying what we want, we can go through amazing mental gyrations to say it's better for the children that we seperate. The one I used was "I don't want my son to grow up thinking that this is what marriage looks like." My solution was divorce rather than working to make it into a marriage worth modelling. In all honesty, it never even occurred to me that the second option even existed as a way of resolving that supposed imperative. Really, I wanted divorce because I hated my life, I felt hopeless, and everything my husband did made me crazy. When he left, I didn't feel any of those things anymore, so when he wanted to come back, the entire idea was unthinkable. Do you see that ultimately, it was all about me, not about what was best for my son?

When we start blurring the definition of "better for the kids", the temptation to use that as a "legitimate" excuse for divorce becomes overwealming. Who gets divorced saying "I am doing it because it's what I want. I don't care that it will hurt my kids. It won't kill 'em"? No one. Instead we think of reasons why getting divorced is better for the kids, to not only mask the fact that we couldn't be bothered to really work at it or figure out a different solution, but to assuage our own guilt.

Sure, they might turn out okay, but except in cases of abuse (and it sounds like in your friend's case, it was abuse, even if it wasn't physical), how can we possibly say with certainty that they were "better off"?

Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think that living together is a logical outgrowth of the casual attitude toward marriage which is generally held in Western society today.
The problem with the arguments in this thread is that y'all are assuming that we hold marriage in the same sacred regard as you. And you look upon it as immoral and irresponsible and immature if we don't.

That doesn't lead to understanding on either side's part, does it?

Personally, I don't see marriage as a sacred commitment. I see being in a relationship with my significant other, and promising to myself and to him to be faithful and honest and work through our problems for life as the heart and soul of any good couple. I think looking to marriage to provide that "ultimate commitment" as unecessary in my world, in my life, and i think treating it as a final relationship goal is foolhardy and encourages couples to wait to work on serious problems until that "serious" commitment is made.

[ April 08, 2004, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]

Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And not every child is better off with their parents still together.
Well, I can say that I was better off with my parents divorced than together.

But, I would have been FAR better off if they had cared enough about each other to actually work their problems out instead of abusing each other and me the way that they did.

So, I guess I'm saying that divorce may end some of the terrible things that a child is going through, but in the end that still isn't the most desired outcome.

Just making a commitment to "stay together" isn't good enough. You have to love each other enough to be respectful and caring as well.

Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The problem with the arguments in this thread is that y'all are assuming that we hold marriage in the same sacred regard as you. And you look upon it as immoral and irresponsible and immature if we don't.
I don't assume this at all. What I do assume is that in the past it was much more difficult to get a divorce, though you are no doubt right that the reason for this was the view of marriage as a sacred institution.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
celia60
Member
Member # 2039

 - posted      Profile for celia60   Email celia60         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, Jacare, that was exactly what my post meant. In fact, I'm thinking next month, I'll trade Bill in for a younger, blonder woman.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jacare Sorridente
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Jacare Sorridente   Email Jacare Sorridente         Edit/Delete Post 
Celia- ???
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
celia60
Member
Member # 2039

 - posted      Profile for celia60   Email celia60         Edit/Delete Post 
Did I need sarcasm tags?

quote:
I think that living together is a logical outgrowth of the casual attitude toward marriage which is generally held in Western society today. With no-fault divorce etc, there really isn't all that much difference between living together and getting married with the option to dissolve the marriage any time either party feels like it.
If I honestly had your opinion of what my opinion is, why wouldn't I just marry him on the first date? Or why would I ever bother to get married at all?

quote:
The whole living together thing was because I was taking marriage so seriously.
And I know I shouldn't take a sweeping generality personally, but I do. Especially when it's 5 after possibly the most personal post I've ever made.

[ April 08, 2004, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]

Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post 
Celia, don't do that! Let me cancel the purchase of a ring I ordered the other day first! I can be casualler than you! [Wink]

-Bok, living with significant other first, and a fornicator to boot, kind of guy

EDIT: Consistent tense is good.

[ April 08, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]

Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Sure, they might turn out okay, but except in cases of abuse (and it sounds like in your friend's case, it was abuse, even if it wasn't physical), how can we possibly say with certainty that they were "better off"?
We can't say with certainty that our children will be better off if we get a divorce. But we also can't say with certainty that they will be better off if we stay married. I don't mean that children should not be a factor in deciding whether or not to stay together, but since we can't say with certainty what the outcome will be either way I don't see how it can logically be a deciding factor either way. Not that relationships or the way they end have much to do with logic.

quote:
See, you're looking at it from the child's perspective.
Yes, I am looking at it from that perspective. I can hardly do otherwise at this point in my life, not having kids and all. I think that in most cases, divorce is, as you say, all about the couple, with kids being a secondary concern or a rationalization. And people should own up to that. But even if people shouldn't use their kids as an excuse, it doesn't change the fact that it sometimes is better for them, and even if it's not "better," that doesn't mean it's bad. A person who legitimately doesn't like or love his or her spouse is not necessarily doing his or her kids any favors by staying married.

I hope I'm not out of line, and maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems like you're carrying around a lot of guilt. From what I can tell you're a good mother and a good wife. You can't go back and change what happened, and even if you could you don't know that things would have been better for anyone. All you can do is try to make the best of the situation as it is, and it sounds like you're doing that. I'm sure your son will be alright.

----------------------------

quote:
But, I would have been FAR better off if they had cared enough about each other to actually work their problems out instead of abusing each other and me the way that they did.
The thing is, though, that you can't make people care about each other. Sometimes people get married and have kids who shouldn't have, but that doesn't change the fact that they did, and that no amount of counseling or other work will give them a happy or even tolerable marriage. It's easy to say that these people are irresponsible and shouldn't have gotten married, but they did, and people will always do this. You're right when you say that divorce is not the most desirable outcome, but sometimes it may be the most desirable outcome that is possible.

[Edit: Well what do you know, that was my 3000th post.]

[ April 08, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]

Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The thing is, though, that you can't make people care about each other.
You cannot force others to, but you *can* force yourself to. It seems to me that in many cases saying "we just don't love each other anymore" might as well be saying "we don't want to love each other anymore".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jeniwren
Member
Member # 2002

 - posted      Profile for jeniwren   Email jeniwren         Edit/Delete Post 
[Smile] Saxon, congratulations on 3000.

You're not out of line, and I could see where you might read "still carrying guilt" into what I wrote. I'm really not. Every once in a while, I take a trip down memory lane and find I don't like what I see. But for every pain I caused someone else where I learned from my mistake, I became the sort of person who didn't continue causing the same pain for other people. I think I'm a better wife now because I wasn't such a good wife before.

It's hard to tread the line of seeing the mistakes of the past as clearly as possible without having it come out sounding like guilt. I made mistakes, I own them, I've done what I could to make it better, and now I try to help others see those mistakes so *they* don't have to make them too.

It doesn't work very well, I admit, but it's better that watching a slow train wreck in motion, without at least *trying*.

My whole point in refuting "it's better for the kids" is that WAYYYYYY too many people think they're doing it for the kids when the kids just want Mom and Dad to get along and quit fighting. It becomes an almost ironclad excuse to give up on the relationship when the feelings that held it together have faded.

I've got two girlfriends right now who are seperated from their husbands. No question, there are issues there, ones that existed before they married and that have now grown to gargantuan proportion. In both cases, the kids are really suffering. In both cases, I, albeit from the outside, cannot see any true impediment to reconciliation, except that the parties involved are too tired, too fed-up, and too hurt to do the hard work it takes to fix the relationship. I'm empathetic -- I remember how it felt very clearly -- but I encourage in whatever way I can that they keep working at it, become more selfless, figure out what the communication problems are, see where they are hurting themselves by not letting stuff go, etc. I try to encourage them to be a better partner. Usually they're so focussed on what is wrong with him they can't even start to see what their contribution to the problems are. In that state, they really can't see what is better for the kids. I have no doubt at all that the kids would be better off if they work out salvaging the marriage.

OTOH, there was a couple in our step-family group that had I been asked, I'd have told them "get divorced". (My husband disagreed, btw...he's even more of an optimist than I am that people *can* work things out when they really want to.) Their kids (7 between the two) were suffering because they got married. They're seperated now, and I seriously hope they do not get back together without becoming healthier people as individuals first. Their kids had already suffered so much, suffering a new spouse and step-siblings was beyond capability.

Hmph. Okay, now I can see one additional reason where it could be "better for the kids" outside outright abuse. Both parents being so unhealthy they shouldn't even be parents, let alone married with kids.

Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mackillian
Member
Member # 586

 - posted      Profile for mackillian   Email mackillian         Edit/Delete Post 
sex when neither party is married is fornication.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kamisaki
Member
Member # 6309

 - posted      Profile for Kamisaki   Email Kamisaki         Edit/Delete Post 
It seems that a lot of people are pointing out exceptions to try to prove that the rule is wrong. That's not how it works. There are exceptions to every rule, especially when we're talking about generalities, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from what is generally true. And taking general statements personally is also counterproductive, as someone pointed out.

Just because divorce is sometimes the best option does not mean that it usually is. Just because kids can and do grow up without being screwed up from a divorce doesn't mean that it's usually the best thing to do. Jeniwren doesn't think that it's never the best thing to divorce, just that a lot of people are much too quick to think of it as a solution. And given current divorce statistics, does anyone really disagree? When nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, is anyone really going to say that this is a good thing? I repeat, just because in some instances divorce may be the best option doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make it less necessary for most people.

And as far as Jacare's statement:
quote:
I think that living together is a logical outgrowth of the casual attitude toward marriage which is generally held in Western society today. With no-fault divorce etc, there really isn't all that much difference between living together and getting married with the option to dissolve the marriage any time either party feels like it.
I think the arguments against it are another case of taking a generality personally. He did not say that everyone who lives together has a casual commitment towards marriage. But I think that it's fairly self-evident that our society in general does have a more casual attitude towards marriage than it did 50 years ago. He did not say whether this was good or bad. You guys(Leonide and celia) made your own assumptions in thinking that he looked down on you for living together.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
celia60
Member
Member # 2039

 - posted      Profile for celia60   Email celia60         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think the arguments against it are another case of taking a generality personally. He did not say that everyone who lives together has a casual commitment towards marriage. But I think that it's fairly self-evident that our society in general does have a more casual attitude towards marriage than it did 50 years ago. He did not say whether this was good or bad. You guys(Leonide and celia) made your own assumptions in thinking that he looked down on you for living together.
Um, didn't I say I was taking a generality personally? (Sometimes I wonder why I bother to post at all.)

And you're assuming I think he's looking down at me, when I'm more concerned with being misunderstood and unintentionally marginalized.

If you look at Mama's Divorced Kids thread and read the first link, you'll see a bit about the only way to end the effects of divorce are to decide to pursue healthy relationships. For all of my bits of personal insanity, that is what I am trying to do. Having people sweep my motivations into generalized statements is exactly the opposite of helping me acheive my goals. It is propogating an attitude that failure is inevitable, which only supports more divorce.

Honestly, is it so hard to say "statistically likely" or even "the majority of" when you make a generalization? Is it so impossible to acknowledge the exceptions? Discussion in terms of inevitability instead of high probability are more than a little demoralizing.

Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You guys(Leonide and celia) made your own assumptions in thinking that he looked down on you for living together.
I live with celia?

No wonder I'm feeling so evil today

[Evil Laugh]

Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
celia60
Member
Member # 2039

 - posted      Profile for celia60   Email celia60         Edit/Delete Post 
[ROFL]

Totally missed that!

Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kamisaki
Member
Member # 6309

 - posted      Profile for Kamisaki   Email Kamisaki         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Um, didn't I say I was taking a generality personally?
Yes, I know you said you did that, and I said I think it's counterproductive.
quote:
And you're assuming I think he's looking down at me, when I'm more concerned with being misunderstood and unintentionally marginalized.
Okay, thanks for clarifying, that's not the sense I got from reading your posts. Leonide did make that assumption, however.

quote:
Having people sweep my motivations into generalized statements is exactly the opposite of helping me acheive my goals. It is propogating an attitude that failure is inevitable, which only supports more divorce.
You're doing it again, taking it personally. Nobody swept your motivations into a generality, he just stated a generality. And you totally lost me with the logic of that last line. How does saying that divorce is too high make divorce inevitable? We were arguing that people shouldn't get divorced as much as they do.
quote:
Honestly, is it so hard to say "statistically likely" or even "the majority of" when you make a generalization? Is it so impossible to acknowledge the exceptions? Discussion in terms of inevitability instead of high probability are more than a little demoralizing.
Is it so hard to assume that most people on this board are intelligent enough to understand when a generality is being discussed? When did anyone say there were no exceptions? And who exactly was discussing this issue in terms of inevitability?

I'm really not trying to be offensive here. I just don't see what it is on this thread that's putting you on the defensive so much. Maybe you can point out specifics.

The reason for my first post was that the effect of refuting every statement of a generality with an exception leads to the impression that you're arguing that the generality is not true at all. Maybe that's not what you're trying to do, but that's what it seems like.

And here is a part of my post that you can take personally: I think it's great that you do value your own relationship so much, I don't think you're a bad person and I do think you may be a tad bit touchy about this issue. But then, you probably have your reasons, so I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Edited after seeing Leonide's post:
I missed that too. Good catch! [Smile]

[ April 08, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Kamisaki ]

Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Leonide
Member
Member # 4157

 - posted      Profile for Leonide   Email Leonide         Edit/Delete Post 
I take generalities personally because, believe it or not, that's how they are "generally" meant on this board. If someone starts a topic about wanting to go jump off a bridge, someone else is probably going to say, "you know, statistics say that 85% of people who jump off bridges die..." And they mean: "yeah, don't do that, because chance are you're going to die."

You don't bring up statistics just for the sake of pretty numbers. People bring them up to say "Hey, look, generally this thing doesn't work out for people, so if you were smart you wouldn't even attempt it."

I'd love to see what would happen if i pointed out the "1 in 3 relationships have to deal with infidelity at some point" statistic. Why even bother dating anyone at all, if chances are they're going to cheat on you? Statistics Shmatistics. They work in persuasive essays in college, but they, like (saxon?) pointed out earlier, do NOT apply to individuals

[ April 08, 2004, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]

Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kamisaki
Member
Member # 6309

 - posted      Profile for Kamisaki   Email Kamisaki         Edit/Delete Post 
Leonide, the topic starter asked for reasons why people thought that living together was bad in general. So people stated statistics and generalities.

Yeah, they don't 100% apply to individuals, but that doesn't mean that they're entirely useless. Using you're bridge analogy, it would be entirely logical to deduce from that statistic that, in general, it's not a good idea to jump off a bridge. Of course there can always be exceptions, once again, it is an exception. Expecting people to never use statistics and generalitites is expecting them to ignore every observation of the world around them.

If someone here has ever said that there are no exceptions to any general rule, please point it out to me. Most of the people who have been arguing that living together or divorce is bad have also stated that there are some cases where that is not true.

Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
celia60
Member
Member # 2039

 - posted      Profile for celia60   Email celia60         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yes, I know you said you did that, and I said I think it's counterproductive.

Um, we're stopping the

celia: I know I shouldn't take it personally
Kamisaki: You shouldn't take it personally
celia: I said that
Kamisake: You shouldn't take it personally

train right now. It is not productive.

quote:
You're doing it again, taking it personally. Nobody swept your motivations into a generality, he just stated a generality. And you totally lost me with the logic of that last line. How does saying that divorce is too high make divorce inevitable? We were arguing that people shouldn't get divorced as much as they do.

When he does it 5 posts after mine, he is. But that's a conversation to have with Jacare, not you. And the last line is more with reference to the last time celia got upset over a sweeping generalization that included her than to this thread, but it's the same principle. Assigning a motivation to my actions that is totally wrong in order to support a premise that sets me up for failure. (and don't tell me i'm doing it again, i'm just trying to answer your question). I don't think I'm reading too much into this when I say that the generalization breaks down to:

- marriage is less valued than it has been
- people who live together don't value marriage
- people who don't value marriage get divorced

Which is to say that people who live together will get divorced. That's a lovely stigma to have to live with.

quote:
Is it so hard to assume that most people on this board are intelligent enough to understand when a generality is being discussed? When did anyone say there were no exceptions? And who exactly was discussing this issue in terms of inevitability?
I can't tell you how much I love having my questions answered with questions. Yes it is. It that those exceptions aren't acknowledged. That is how a rule works.

I'm not trying to argue that a generality isn't generally true. I am trying to point out that it isn't true of me, and that I, a real actual individual as opposed to a statistical majority, am hurt by it when the ability for exceptions to exist isn't acknowledged. Reguardless of whether or not you think I should be, I am.

I'd prefer to not continue to argue the intent of one poster with another. I would prefer that intent be addressed by Jacare.

If you'd like to have a discussion about the actual topic of this thread, please feel free.

Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post 
I know it's a little late in the thread to go back to the original question, but I'm going to do it anyway. Almost every argument that I've heard against living together implies that there will be sex. Yet, I have 2 friends that currently live with their boyfriends without having sex and have known people that lived together without having sex while they were engaged. So, I'm curious, are there any moral, ethical, religious objections to living together with no sex?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
About the same problem as wearing a swimsuit, getting an lounger on a pool on a 100 degree day, and resolving to not get wet.

You sure you're not being had?

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chungwa
Member
Member # 6421

 - posted      Profile for Chungwa   Email Chungwa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm curious, are there any moral, ethical, religious objections to living together with no sex?
I'd say that depends completely on the people involved. If both parties argee, than no. But then, I also don't think there are any moral or ethical objections to living together with sex before marriage (I'll also say that my religious beliefs have no problem with that either).

And, about your friends, I'd congratulate them. If I believed that living together with sex before marriage was wrong, I think my only solution would be not to live with that person until after marriage.

[ April 09, 2004, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Chungwa ]

Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm curious, are there any moral, ethical, religious objections to living together with no sex?
My only answer to that is that *I* would never do that. Maybe it's part of that whole "avoid even the appearanc of evil" thing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
m_p_h

I have so many personal issues about the
"Avoid the appearance of evil"
bit that I don't know where to start.

I know they are personal issues. But sometimes I can't divorce my logic from them.

Let's just say that I have heard the "avoid the appearance of evil" statement used to justify that men and women should never have friendships with the other gender outside of the person they are married to.

To use a rebuttal inside the Bible itself. Were the Israelite spies wrong for visiting Rahab a prostitute while in Jericho? And if they were why did God honor Rahab and put her in the line of Christ?

Sorry I know this doesn't quite belong on this thread, but I just have a real problem with the 'avoid the appearance of evil' statement used out of its own context in most other contexts. While not "scripture" and realizing you are LDS, St. Augustine said "Fear God and sin boldly." This whole ball of wax creates nice little moral dillemas like, if you were hidig Jewish friends, would you lie to the Nazis since lying is wrong?

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
You use the word "justify" as though it is obvious that it is a stupid/evil thing to do. I disagree. I don't think that it is generally a good/smart/appropriate thing for a married person to have a close, personal friendship with a member of the opposite sex. That's how I feel, and that's how I live.

About your situation with hiding Jews from the Nazis -- if I had decided to hide Jews, it would mean that I had already decided that hiding them was better than obeying the Nazis.

And yeah, Augustine saying something gives it no more weight to me than if anybody else had said it. It's a guy that believed something, just like everybody else, and his thoughts need to be examined according to what they said, not according to who said them. But I do not understand at all what Augustine could have meant by that saying.

[ April 09, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
saxon75
Member
Member # 4589

 - posted      Profile for saxon75           Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think her use of the word "justify" implies what you say it does. To me it looks more like her use of the word "justify" implies that she thinks it is obviously not bad or evil for people of the opposite sex to be friends, but that some people do think that and use the concept of "avoiding the appearance of evil" to support their position.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
UofUlawguy
Member
Member # 5492

 - posted      Profile for UofUlawguy   Email UofUlawguy         Edit/Delete Post 
"avoid the appearance of evil" doesn't mean what almost everybody who says it thinks it means.

One of my pet peeves.

Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
celia60
Member
Member # 2039

 - posted      Profile for celia60   Email celia60         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, someone should start a thread or something....
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
BTW, the reason that I don't think that close, personal friendships with a married person of the opposit sex is a good idea isn't because of the "appearance of evil" -- it's more about the avoidance of evil/problems.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and about the word "justify" from what you said, it *does* mean what I think it means, although I probably didn't express myself too well. You say that somebody had to "justify" something that you think is wrong. It seems that AJ was implying that that action (avoiding those friendships) is not good. You seem to agree with me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
ching ching.

That's me throwing my two cents in.

As a person who only lived with his wife before he was married for a few days when her house was washed out in the flood, and we were at my parents house, and I slept on the couch, I can't tell you the good or bad of it.

I can tell you the biggest abuse of this phenomenon. It is when one person in the couple believes that the relationship is more stable and deeper than the other. Joe gets Jane to move in. There is lots of sex, but there is also the splitting of assets, the division of labor in the home, and the usual sharing of stuff. Then one day Joe leaves, cleaning out the bank account, taking the TV, and the Dog.

What can the broke Jane do? The rent money is gone with Joe. Jane has been royally---put out. She has no legal recourse but to suffer.

Or, as has happened to a coworker, Joe comes home and finds Jane is turning tricks in the living room. Since the apartment is in Jane's name, Joe must either move out or learn to endure Jane's new occupation. (Of course, when you date a stripper, things like this happen)

If the relatioship is stable and deep, then moving in together is not a problem. Jumping in too quickly can be.

Now, as far as this whole idea that we don't take marriage as seriously as they did 50 years ago--Ha!

Every couple that has commented here has decided not to rush into marriage because they hold that institution at a higher level than just casual sex and live in maid service.

50 years ago marriages were more often family arrangements where the husband was shopping for a good breeder, and house frau. The woman was looking for security. After the wedding, the woman's place was to be servant and obediant follower of the husband. The husband was happy that she followed his orders, made his dinner, and if he wanted some extra affairs, well she would forgive him or be kicked out of the house pennyless.

While the divorce rate is higher than it was in the 1950's the amount of abuse allowed to be inflicted on wives and children is down per capita.

With the emancipation of women in the past 100 years, the role of Wife has only grown and become more integral in modern marriage.

Finally, for the idea of "not even the look of sin."

My wife worked for a while making glasses at Lenscrafters. One of her co-workers was a devot muslim. One day he got jostled while working on a machine and cut his thumb nearly off.

My wife was the only one on site with a car. There was an emergency room a couple miles away. The wrapped up his hand and started to drive him to the doctor.

He refused.

He would rather loose his thumb, risk his own life, than get in a vehicle alone with a woman other than his wife.

I think that "Not the appearance of sin" can be taken a bit too far.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
Porter and I both believe in avoiding situations that lead to trouble where the dangers outweigh the benefits. We both interact with men and women, but I don't think either of us would seek to become "close buddies" with someone of the opposite sex. We might both be friends with them, though.

Here is just an example: We have a couple of friends who married each other. Porter has known both of them for a long time. He and she were talking on the phone once, talking about the summer jobs they had gotten. The places of work were close enough to each other that she suggested they might carpool together. Porter thought about it, and declined saying that he didn't think it would be wise. Both of them knew what he was talking about, too much time alone together. She agreed that it probably wasn't a good idea despite the convenience. I felt very proud to have such a wise, trustworthy husband. [Smile]

Basically, we try to avoid situations that (we think) make it easier develop feelings for someone else. Is this what you mean about "avoiding the appearance of evil"? I don't think either of us has missed out on anything significant living this way. And since we both feel the same way, it hasn't come up much as an issue between us.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
50 years ago marriages were more often family arrangements where the husband was shopping for a good breeder, and house frau. The woman was looking for security. After the wedding, the woman's place was to be servant and obediant follower of the husband. The husband was happy that she followed his orders, made his dinner, and if he wanted some extra affairs, well she would forgive him or be kicked out of the house pennyless.
Wow, that is an amazingly cynical view of life 50 years ago! I suspect if we had a flux in the time continuum and there were people on the board from 50 years ago, they would be as offended as celia and Banna are by this discussion.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSI Teleport
Member
Member # 5545

 - posted      Profile for PSI Teleport   Email PSI Teleport         Edit/Delete Post 
Dan, do you even know any women that have been married for fifty years? Go talk to some old ladies. Some of them might say that they were abused, but not most.

quote:
50 years ago marriages were more often family arrangements where the husband was shopping for a good breeder, and house frau. The woman was looking for security. After the wedding, the woman's place was to be servant and obediant follower of the husband. The husband was happy that she followed his orders, made his dinner, and if he wanted some extra affairs, well she would forgive him or be kicked out of the house pennyless.
This is PAINFUL. I'm sure all the elderly women would be disturbed to know that you think their husbands treated them like cattle and slept around whenever they felt like it.

[ April 09, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]

Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BannaOj
Member
Member # 3206

 - posted      Profile for BannaOj   Email BannaOj         Edit/Delete Post 
beverly part of the reason (on the other thread) why I have such a major problem with this, is because I don't think automatically limiting your friendships to 50% of the population is healthy. Plus I am a female (as is celia) in a "man's profession" if we didn't make friendships with men at both a professional and personal level we would be completely worthless at the jobs we do.

To tell me that I can't make friends with the guys in my calculus class, when I'm the only female in said class, seems rediculous and excessively prohibitive.

AJ

Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kamisaki
Member
Member # 6309

 - posted      Profile for Kamisaki   Email Kamisaki         Edit/Delete Post 
celia,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it so hard to assume that most people on this board are intelligent enough to understand when a generality is being discussed? When did anyone say there were no exceptions? And who exactly was discussing this issue in terms of inevitability?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't tell you how much I love having my questions answered with questions. Yes it is. It that those exceptions aren't acknowledged. That is how a rule works.

Sorry for not conforming to your preferred debating style. [Roll Eyes] I think this just comes down to different assumptions about the people on this board. You and I disagree as to how pure their motives are in general.
quote:
If you'd like to have a discussion about the actual topic of this thread, please feel free.
Good point. I've said all that I need/want to about this.

As far as "avoiding the appearance of evil," of course it can be taken to extremes, as can everything. But that's not to say that there's no virtue in the concept. Really, at the core, it's just the idea of protecting yourself. Is it a good idea to have an open beer bottle in the car if you're driving, even if you're not drinking it? No, it just adds to the evidence against you if you're pulled over. You weren't really doing anything wrong, but it sure looks like you were. As long as you have some common sense and know when the exceptions are justified, it's a good principle to keep.

Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2