All for Love?

Yeah I would....long as they give me space and i get some once a week Im good

paisleypark4 said:

Yeah I would....long as they give me space and i get some once a week Im good

Only once a week? you are not very overindulgent are you?

I don't find this surprising at all. It's really only in the last 50 years or so that marrying for love was reality for the majority of couples in the US.

And love isn't enough to sustain a marriage. There's so much more.

As my bf and I talk through the decision to get married with each other, it's all about practical stuff and very little about romance. I love him and I know he loves me. And there are butterflies and lots of tenderness and all of that kinda stuff. But right now we're working through stuff like what are our life goals and do they line up well enough for us to remain compatible and make it work forever.

So yeah, I can see plenty of people (men and women alike) marrying for all kinds of practical reasons.

historically, romantic love hasn't historically been much of a motive for marriage, other than in fiction. common interests mutual economic benefit, politics and religion have always played a much stronger role.

XxAxX said:

historically, romantic love hasn't historically been much of a motive for marriage, other than in fiction. common interests mutual economic benefit, politics and religion have always played a much stronger role.

Who you tellin?! I have never been married because being in love with me wasn't enough... nor was having his kids.

paintedlady said:

XxAxX said:

historically, romantic love hasn't historically been much of a motive for marriage, other than in fiction. common interests mutual economic benefit, politics and religion have always played a much stronger role.

Who you tellin?! I have never been married because being in love with me wasn't enough... nor was having his kids.

it's not for the faint of heart

ZombieKitten said:

Yup. I'm one of those chumps.

You're not a chump, he is

XxAxX said:

historically, romantic love hasn't historically been much of a motive for marriage, other than in fiction. common interests mutual economic benefit, politics and religion have always played a much stronger role.

Does that explain why over 50% of marriages end in divorce because romantic love belongs in story books? I think many people, especially women expect romantic love to play an factor or role in marriage.

CarrieMpls said:

I don't find this surprising at all. It's really only in the last 50 years or so that marrying for love was reality for the majority of couples in the US.

And love isn't enough to sustain a marriage. There's so much more.

As my bf and I talk through the decision to get married with each other, it's all about practical stuff and very little about romance. I love him and I know he loves me. And there are butterflies and lots of tenderness and all of that kinda stuff. But right now we're working through stuff like what are our life goals and do they line up well enough for us to remain compatible and make it work forever.

So yeah, I can see plenty of people (men and women alike) marrying for all kinds of practical reasons.

It's good to have mutual realistic goals, and talk about them before marriage, so you wouldn't be in for a surprise when the honeymoon is over.

if i were 2 marry again it would only b 4 sex

ZombieKitten said:

Yup. I'm one of those chumps.

No, just different expectations, I believe.

I'm willing to bet it's much higher than that.

Romantic love should absolutely be a factor in marriage. Yes, not the only one but it definitely should be unless it's really only about an agreement to raise kids, share expenses, etc.

And if that's the case you should be free to go find romantic love elsewhere while being in your 'business arrangement'.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

XxAxX said:

historically, romantic love hasn't historically been much of a motive for marriage, other than in fiction. common interests mutual economic benefit, politics and religion have always played a much stronger role.

Does that explain why over 50% of marriages end in divorce because romantic love belongs in story books? I think many people, especially women expect romantic love to play an factor or role in marriage.

I think divorce rates have skyrocketed over the last few decades because of feminism. Once upon a time women couldn’t reliably support themselves and so had to stay in loveless and even abusive marriages. Around about the 60’s things started to change and by the 70’s it was becoming more commonplace. Alimony and child support laws also progressed so a women who wasn’t in the workforce because she was supporting her husband and kids could walk away and not be destitute, she’d still have a means to support herself and her children. By the 80’s, both parents were usually in the workforce and now it’s downright expected that both folks in a couple will work.

I think part of the problem is getting married far too young and only for love, not taking all the other stuff into account. If you look at statistics, the older you get married, the more likely you are to stay together. Also, the more educated the couple the more likely they are to stay together. I think both of those lead to choosing better partners. I was in love when I was 17 but I knew the guy wouldn’t make a great husband.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

XxAxX said:

historically, romantic love hasn't historically been much of a motive for marriage, other than in fiction. common interests mutual economic benefit, politics and religion have always played a much stronger role.

Does that explain why over 50% of marriages end in divorce because romantic love belongs in story books? I think many people, especially women expect romantic love to play an factor or role in marriage.

i think so too. if women were not lured into marriage by shiny diamond rings and promises of romance, which of us could be bothered?

i mean seriously, men say they get married because they want someone to cook for them, do the housework and keep them sexed up. aside from the sex, which part of this is a shiny brass ring for the woman in question? more housework? a part-time job preparing food after a long hard day at work? sound like fun? not to me....

Yeah, whenever I'm not in relationship,
I find that my expenses for maid services & hookers tend to increase dramatically.

And I also tend to eat out alot more often, but not in the manner that I used to.

looking back, i notice my post up there comes off as a bit cynical. just a ps: love is grand. makes even marriage worthwhile.

Visionnaire said:

Yeah, whenever I'm not in relationship,
I find that my expenses for maid services & hookers tend to increase dramatically.

And I also tend to eat out alot more often, but not in the manner that I used to.

i love your posts. where do you get this stuff?>?????

that's so...medieval

JustErin said:

XxAxX said:

Visionnaire said:

Yeah, whenever I'm not in relationship,
I find that my expenses for maid services & hookers tend to increase dramatically.

And I also tend to eat out alot more often, but not in the manner that I used to.

i love your posts. where do you get this stuff?>?????

TBH XxaxX,
the comments that I post,
I pull them all out of my ass.
Seriously.

Just right straight outta my ass.
That's why, for courtesy's sake, I also try to keep 'em as short as possible.
The bigger the post, the bigger the stank.

Rightly said:

JustErin said:

I'm willing to bet it's much higher than that.

Romantic love should absolutely be a factor in marriage. Yes, not the only one but it definitely should be unless it's really only about an agreement to raise kids, share expenses, etc.

And if that's the case you should be free to go find romantic love elsewhere while being in your 'business arrangement'.

Justerin, You really are sorted! (As they say in England) Your man sho'is lucky.

I have no man now. He entered a "business arrangement" with a suitable partner.

JustErin said:

JustErin said:

Rightly said:

JustErin said: Justerin, You really are sorted! (As they say in England) Your man sho'is lucky.

I have no man now. He entered a "business arrangement" with a suitable partner.

so then, make sure he arranges with his spouse to have playtime outside

ZombieKitten said:

JustErin said:

I have no man now. He entered a "business arrangement" with a suitable partner.

so then, make sure he arranges with his spouse to have playtime outside

I don't think that will be allowed.

But whatevs, we no longer have any contact at all so even if he does it won't be with me.

Rightly said:

JustErin said:

I have no man now. He entered a "business arrangement" with a suitable partner.

Forget it honey You're just too far away.

D'Oh! Took a minute but I get the joke now.

[Edited 9/28/12 5:21am]

CarrieMpls said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Does that explain why over 50% of marriages end in divorce because romantic love belongs in story books? I think many people, especially women expect romantic love to play an factor or role in marriage.

I think divorce rates have skyrocketed over the last few decades because of feminism. Once upon a time women couldn’t reliably support themselves and so had to stay in loveless and even abusive marriages. Around about the 60’s things started to change and by the 70’s it was becoming more commonplace. Alimony and child support laws also progressed so a women who wasn’t in the workforce because she was supporting her husband and kids could walk away and not be destitute, she’d still have a means to support herself and her children. By the 80’s, both parents were usually in the workforce and now it’s downright expected that both folks in a couple will work.

I think part of the problem is getting married far too young and only for love, not taking all the other stuff into account. If you look at statistics, the older you get married, the more likely you are to stay together. Also, the more educated the couple the more likely they are to stay together. I think both of those lead to choosing better partners. I was in love when I was 17 but I knew the guy wouldn’t make a great husband.

Good points, especially about feminism.

XxAxX said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Does that explain why over 50% of marriages end in divorce because romantic love belongs in story books? I think many people, especially women expect romantic love to play an factor or role in marriage.

i think so too. if women were not lured into marriage by shiny diamond rings and promises of romance, which of us could be bothered?

i mean seriously, men say they get married because they want someone to cook for them, do the housework and keep them sexed up. aside from the sex, which part of this is a shiny brass ring for the woman in question? more housework? a part-time job preparing food after a long hard day at work? sound like fun? not to me....

I remembered so many years ago, I was walking passed this couple talking about marriage. Only a earshot away from them, the woman tells the man if she can't have a two carat diamond ring, there will be no wedding. She's not marrying him. I think many people's expectations and ideas about love nowadays are too overboard, and convoluted.

Cooking and cleaning for your man and children is one thing, but she needs companionship, to be appreciated and loved, not treat her as a maid and a sex toy. To me, that's too robotic.

ThisOne said:

if i were 2 marry again it would only b 4 sex

You were married before? Interesting.