Can Long-Term Marriage Retain Its Spark?

[JasonRox]

\
Just because you want to study physics doesn't mean you are going to be a hermit or nerd or some bull****. \ \

People do this because of conformity amongst something they think is true. They think that Physicists and Mathematicians are loners and do nothing but study all day. Therefore, to be in the "in-group" you must conform to the customs of the group. Although these customs are not true, but if they are in your mind, you will conform to it because it is what you believe.

I see everywhere at school amongst the 4th years at school. Whether they know it or not, it kills their character and personality they may have once had (and probably did have).

 

[Lisa!]

"Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction."​

 

[JasonRox]

Why is love always associated with one special person?

There are no signs of a limit on our mental capacity to love more than one person.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is love always associated with one special person?

There are no signs of a limit on our mental capacity to love more than one person.

No, but there is a limit on our emotional capacity to be loved by less than a whole person.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction."​

It would be so more more poignant if written grammatically correctly.

 

[JasonRox]

No, but there is a limit on our emotional capacity to be loved by less than a whole person.

Yes, so we need atleast one person.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It would be so more more poignant if written grammatically correctly.

Looks good to me. Is the problem 'consists in/consists of"?

 

[chemisttree]

Or replace 'consist in' with 'mean' and, frankly, I think love means so much more than just looking somewhere...

 

[Evo]

I think love means so much more than just looking somewhere...

 

[Evo]

Can we get to stupid love quotes that irk me?

If you love somebody, let them go, for if they return, they were always yours. And if they don't, they never were.

by Kahlil Gibran.

In real life, if you love somebody and let them go, they will be hurt and confused and not understand why you let them go. They're most likely to assume you don't care and never return. I've always thought this was the worst advice.

Another line I hate - "love means never having to say you're sorry".

 

[turbo]

Or replace 'consist in' with 'mean' and, frankly, I think love means so much more than just looking somewhere...

Some time ago, there was a seemingly hokey country song (may have been by Clint Black) about his wife and him facing opposite directions (one line was "back to back we face each other") and the premise was that they had different world-views, and saw different stuff coming, and watched out for each other. Not such a bad view of marriage. My wife picks up on familial/social stuff that sometimes flies under my radar, and I've got my own "antennae" out for things of a more pragmatic nature and I have a keen sense the distinction between the concepts of "important" and "urgent". We refuse to live any important parts of our lives in a reactive mode. That way lies weakness, helplessness, and dependence (did I mention unhappiness and conflict?)

 

[turbo]

Can we get to stupid love quotes that irk me?

by Kahlil Gibran.

In real life, if you love somebody and let them go, they will be hurt and confused and not understand why you let them go. They're most likely to assume you don't care and never return. I've always thought this was the worst advice.

Another line I hate - "love means never having to say you're sorry".

Oh, man! The most hurtful, damaging, crap can come out of such mindless trash. There was some great stuff happening in the '60's, but neither of these works qualified.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, so we need atleast one person.

More to the point, most people need to be loved by no less than 1.0 persons (0.5 love is not enough). This is a dumb way of saying, we need to have our love be returned exclusively - that the person loving us cannot divide that love amongst other people.

You, see it is not the lover that has a problem with multiple partners (as you pointed out) - it's the lovee.

 

[DaveC426913]

Can we get to stupid love quotes that irk me?

If you love somebody, let them go, for if they return, they were always yours. And if they don't, they never were.

I have always preferred this version:



If you love something, set it free
If it comes back, it's yours
If it doesn't,
Hunt it down and kill it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Looks good to me. Is the problem 'consists in/consists of"?

Yes.

 

[Math Is Hard]

THE ORIGINAL VERSION: If you love something, Set it free... If it comes back, it's yours, If it doesn't, it never was yours...

THE PESSIMIST VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she ever comes back, she's yours, If she doesn't, well, as expected, she never was.

THE OPTIMIST VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... Don't worry, she will come back.

THE SUSPICIOUS VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she ever comes back, ask her why.

THE IMPATIENT VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she doesn't comes back within some time limit, forget her.

THE PATIENT VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she doesn't come back, continue to wait until she comes back ...

and my favorite..

THE PLAYFUL VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she comes back, and if you love her still, set her free again, repeat.


Swiped from: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/7729.htm

 

[Moonbear]

Can we get to stupid love quotes that irk me?

If you love somebody, let them go, for if they return, they were always yours. And if they don't, they never were.

by Kahlil Gibran.

In real life, if you love somebody and let them go, they will be hurt and confused and not understand why you let them go. They're most likely to assume you don't care and never return. I've always thought this was the worst advice.

It's not about just breaking up randomly with someone you love and crushing them, it's about not hanging on and stifling them when they need to do something that you can't do with them. I think it best applies to the long-distance relationship scenario. If your partner needs to move away for college, or a career opportunity, especially when you know it is only temporary, rather than stifle them and insist they stay close to you, let them go. If you have a great relationship, it'll survive the distance and they'll return to you. If the relationship really wasn't meant to be anyway, you'll both just eventually drift further apart and won't get back together again.

 

[Curious3141]

THE ORIGINAL VERSION: If you love something, Set it free... If it comes back, it's yours, If it doesn't, it never was yours...

THE PESSIMIST VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she ever comes back, she's yours, If she doesn't, well, as expected, she never was.

THE OPTIMIST VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... Don't worry, she will come back.

THE SUSPICIOUS VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she ever comes back, ask her why.

THE IMPATIENT VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she doesn't comes back within some time limit, forget her.

THE PATIENT VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she doesn't come back, continue to wait until she comes back ...

and my favorite..

THE PLAYFUL VERSION: If you love somebody, Set her free ... If she comes back, and if you love her still, set her free again, repeat.


Swiped from: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/7729.htm

Don't forget the psychopath version : "If you love something, set it free...If it comes back, it's yours. If it doesn't come back, HUNT IT DOWN AND KILL IT!"

 

[Astronuc]

Can we get to stupid love quotes that irk me?

[QUOTE by Kahlil Gibran]If you love somebody, let them go, for if they return, they were always yours. And if they don't, they never were.

In real life, if you love somebody and let them go, they will be hurt and confused and not understand why you let them go. They're most likely to assume you don't care and never return.[/QUOTE] I think Gibran was referring to not being possessive of someone, and perhaps the case where one's partner leaves. It's not that one pushes the other away.

I want my wife with me because she WANTS to be with me as much as I want to be with her. It wouldn't work if she felt forced to stay in the relationship.

Another line I hate - "love means never having to say you're sorry".

I agree - bad advice.

Why is love always associated with one special person?

There are no signs of a limit on our mental capacity to love more than one person.

One can 'love' many people. But what does 'to love' mean in that context?

I can love several or many women in the sense that I can care about them as fellow human beings, as colleagues, as friends . . . . , BUT I can only be a husband to one.

The relationship of marriage requires a huge investment that really can only be effective in a monogamous (exclusive) relationship.

 

[JasonRox]

The relationship of marriage requires a huge investment that really can only be effective in a monogamous (exclusive) relationship.

I feel as though society makes it that way.

But one thing for sure is that if you spend 3 years with someone, break up, then 3 years with another, then break up, and so on and so on is definitely not an easy way to go. Everyone knows break ups aren't the best. So, if you want a real relationship, aim for one with no break ups.

 

[Astronuc]

I feel as though society makes it that way.

Well that is the predominant culture in the west though. There is an expectation on the part of one's partner that he or she is THE one special person. If there is another person, then there is bound to be jealousy.

Even in societies with polygynous/polygamous marriages, there is often a primary spouse and there are jealousies. I couldn't see myself divided among two or mores spouses.

But one thing for sure is that if you spend 3 years with someone, break up, then 3 years with another, then break up, and so on and so on is definitely not an easy way to go. Everyone knows break ups aren't the best. So, if you want a real relationship, aim for one with no break ups.

I didn't get married with the expectation of bailing out if it got rough - and there were times when it did get rough. I stuck it out and so did my wife. I would have liked to have avoided that - but we are closer because of it.

Certainly there are those who practice serial monogamy - which is really a form of polygamy according to some sociologists/anthropologists. I've seen male and female friends go from relationship to relationship of tens or scores of relationships - and just never finding a satsifactory long term relationship. Certainly there is a problem there.

 

[JasonRox]

I didn't get married with the expectation of bailing out if it got rough - and there were times when it did get rough. I stuck it out and so did my wife. I would have liked to have avoided that - but we are closer because of it.

I didn't mean that towards you, but more towards the idea of someone not seeing themselves with only one person forever. For example, wolram talks about just simply getting together with another person one after the other.

Marriage on the other hand is rough, but that person is there with you. It's a different kind of rough spot. I guess you can call it a rough love spot or something.

 

[Astronuc]

I didn't mean that towards you, but more towards the idea of someone not seeing themselves with only one person forever. For example, wolram talks about just simply getting together with another person one after the other.

I didn't take your comment personally, but I was reflecting on my personal situation.

I received my views of marriage from my parents and grandparents. I have first hand experience of what constitutes a good marriage. In contrast, I had various friends who came from families in which the parents had divorced, and some of those cases the parental relationship had involved domestic violence.

All I can say is that children are very sensitive to the relationship of their parents. Most friends from families in which the parents had a bad relationship (including divorce) have themselves had problems with relationships.


The other point concerning societies in which polygamy is practiced, one usually finds that women (wives) are subservient to men. I just cannot accept that.

My wife is my partner.

 

[JasonRox]

The other point concerning societies in which polygamy is practiced, one usually finds that women (wives) are subservient to men. I just cannot accept that.

My wife is my partner.

Yeah, that's what I noticed too and that's something I don't like. I even noticed that in "open" relationships around here.

I like the idea that women are becoming more independent. I feel as though I get to know who they are in the real authentic way.

 

[rewebster]

"THE ORIGINAL VERSION: If you love something, Set it free... If it comes back, it's yours, If it doesn't, it never was yours..."


THE REALITY VERSION: If you love something, Set it free... If it comes back, it's yours, If it doesn't, sell their stuff at the next garage sale...

 

[Astronuc]

In real life, if you love somebody and let them go, they will be hurt and confused and not understand why you let them go. They're most likely to assume you don't care and never return.

I've been pondering this matter further, and one must realize that it's not so simple - and neither are human interactions because humans are inherently complex.

I suppose the person leaving leaves because he or she doesn't feel wanted (or feels taken for granted), and then feels worse because the other partner doesn't make an effort to come after him or her.

Remedy - find ways to tell the other person how grateful one is that the other is a part of one's life (or expression appreciation for the other). The remedy is simply straightforward, open and honest communication. Leave nothing to chance - and don't be ambiguous.


Then there is the case where one partner feels hurt and leaves, with the hope that the other will come, but then the other doesn't.

I can see the point Evo makes with these two scenarios.

Occasional passion and prolonged romance are part of a good marriage. And the romance is about little things that indicate care and thoughtfulness concerning the other.

 

[Artaxerxes]

If you can't get what you want, settle for what you can get

The best thing about being married is knowing that there's someone who likes being with you more than they like being with anyone else.

Well, you are a little naive if you think your spouse married you because she liked you more than anyone else - possibly she married you because she, at the time, liked you more than anyone else of those she could get...

 

[Artaxerxes]

Actually, the most useful function of a legal marriage rather than cohabitation is to protect you when you split up. The legal divorce proceedings are in place to help you figure out how to divide up your shared assets and disentangle your liabilities. It would be very difficult to have any sort of long-term cohabitation arrangement that kept both of your assets entirely separate and wouldn't lead to a real mess if you decided it was time to head your separate ways. Legal marriage has nothing to do with commitment and love, and everything to do with protecting property and income and determining how to fairly divide it should you be unable to stay together any longer. It provides other legal protections as well (i.e., medical decision-making in the event one or the other partner is incapacitated to make decisions for themselves).

I agree with you that there will be difficulties when you split up from a cohabitation (as from any partnership, e.g. business, that's life), but it's when you split from "legal marriage" that things get really messed up and ugly.

Underneath I have copied some lines from news articles about the divorce between Paul McCartney and Heather Mills. All of the fortune comes from the talent and work of Paul McCartney - why should "this woman, Mrs Mills", have $102 million in her pockets when they split after four years? Marriage should have no legal implications, only social. I think engagement has no legal consequences and it should be the same for marriage.

"Heather Mills has issued an ultimatum to Sir Paul McCartney - agree to a £50 million ($102 million) divorce settlement by tomorrow (19.10.07) or fight her in court."
"Heather has been saying it is not in Paul's best interest to go to court by reminding him of the cards she is holding. A lot could come out in court and she could publicly destroy his reputation."
"The Beatles legend - who split from Heather in May 2006 following a four-year marriage - was advised to initially offer the tiny slice (£3 million, $6 million - tiny?) of his £825 million fortune, but Heather's legal team "laughed off" the sum and demanded £25 million."

 

[Urvabara]

Avoid grandma at all costs, Urvabara, it makes a bad first impression.

Grandma? What do you mean?

 

[J77]

My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher.