we lived together before marriage though, another good thing in my book. Again, opinions may vary.
Oh, well if you include living together than we were 22 and 23. Practically babies. I agree, marrying later in life seems like a good idea. Darn that biological/reproductive nature of ours.
LFL
Yes. Babes, the lot of you.
I'm still mulling over stuff but don't have time to write down my Grand Concept right now. Popping in and out due to work. But yes, it is hard to reinvent yourself in front of someone who thinks he knows all your lines.
And even harder to do so in front of someone whose lines you think you know by heart.
We all like to think the script isn't written yet, we can make wild and exciting changes at any time we please, but when they happen we tend not to like them.
Oh, well if you include living together than we were 22 and 23. Practically babies. I agree, marrying later in life seems like a good idea. Darn that biological/reproductive nature of ours.
If your culture's strategy for success involves having fewer children and having them later in life, don't expect to see an abundance of successful people over the next several generations. Or at least an abundance of people achieving success with that particular strategy.
I got married at 20, had my first kid at 21, and will be 44 when the last kid turns 18. I'm glad we did it that way, overall. Even with the troubles we've been through, I seriously doubt either of us would have been any happier or better off if we'd been apart during any of that time.
Originally Posted By: SouthernGirl
But yes, it is hard to reinvent yourself in front of someone who thinks he knows all your lines.
Yes it is. Until I learned a bit of improv and played off of the inevitable eye-rolls I got as I tried out the "new me". Enough of that and the sarcastic sneers that usually followed didn't happen, and then I could see that I had my audience eating out of my hand.
Now I just gotta keep my act fresh for the next 50 years...
Originally Posted By: SouthernGirl
We all like to think the script isn't written yet, we can make wild and exciting changes at any time we please, but when they happen we tend not to like them.
That's because someone else is writing them, don'tcha know?
a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm.
If your culture's strategy for success involves having fewer children and having them later in life, don't expect to see an abundance of successful people over the next several generations.
This reminds me of a witty line I heard in a 1940's movie the other night. The setting was Victorian England (I think). The heroine made some comment about the value that the empire placed on virginity. A wise older man corrected her: "You mean 'chastity'-- no empire could expand very far on virginity" or something like that. Very cute.
If your culture's strategy for success involves having fewer children and having them later in life, don't expect to see an abundance of successful people over the next several generations. Or at least an abundance of people achieving success with that particular strategy.
Well said. I was thinking something along the same lines. Your not going to change biology, youll just have more single moms with their culture justifying the reasons.
Marriage is about family and children, according to what most here have said, and the reasons they have given. We are meant to have children between 15- 30. I read an interesting article on adultolescence and the 'freedom' and lack of responsibility and multiple choices that we have as the culture pushes us towards older marriage's and wealth before M.
I remember Martelo made mention of too much choice one time as well. Sayonaro Martelo, you will be missed.
Southern Girl, I was thinking of ephesians 5: 20something and 30something, and the counsel on how men should treat their wives and wives should treat their H's, when I said traditional M Vows. Thanks.
Denominational doesnt work for me. In general I dont care what 'you' believe, or what makes 'you' happy. I care what the truth is. I dont care what is 'right' (subjective), I care about what is correct (quantifiable). I dont even care if "I" am right or I am 'Happy'. I just want to know the truth. Ill suffer A LOT to find out what it is. I guess that means its my passion and purpose. Damn mojo you are a good older sister. {{hugs mojo}}} [snoopy dance]
Did she take him back? Did she tit for tat him w/ the OM? Did they decide to work on this? Any chance his current unattractive behavior has her looking for justifications to get away from him? Is he abusive? Is he an addict? Is she part of the problem? Did she work on her part that caused him to want to get away?
But it was he who first broke that most fundamental of all promises. First? Really? How do you know he didnt want to get away becasue she wasnt respecting him and caring from him how he wanted? But HE should 'MAN UP'. Right? we could do the chicken and egg thing all day long. thats not going to get anyone anywhere.
The attraction thing isn't the core problem imo, it's that LFL has a mended tear in the fabric of her marriage, and isn't sure the thread won't unravel on her again.
I completely unequivocally disagree wholeheartedly. She knows he isnt going anywhere again. She is icked out by him. Its all about the attraction.
Southern Girl, I was thinking of ephesians 5: 20something and 30something, and the counsel on how men should treat their wives and wives should treat their H's, when I said traditional M Vows. Thanks.
Interesting. I had to go look that up. I don't find "cherish and protect" there, myself. What I did find is that wives are supposed to "submit" to their husbands (or obey them)... the Greek word Paul uses is hupotasso, which means
1) to arrange under, to subordinate
2) to subject, put in subjection
3) to subject one's self, obey
4) to submit to one's control
5) to yield to one's admonition or advice
6) to obey, be subject
and husbands are supposed to "love" their wives. The Greeks had many words for the different flavors of love, the one Paul choses is agapao, meaning
1) of persons
a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly
2) of things
a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing
Later that chapter, it is also mentioned that she should "reverence" her husband (Paul uses "phobeo", the root of our word "phobia" and is much closer to fear, imo, but I will defer to Young's.)
1) to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)
a) to put to flight, to flee
b) to fear, be afraid
1) to be struck with fear, to be seized with alarm
a) of those startled by strange sights or occurrences
b) of those struck with amazement
2) to fear, be afraid of one
3) to fear (i.e. hesitate) to do something (for fear of harm)
c) to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience
So to sum it up: Wives, obey and reverence your husbands, and husbands, love your wives.
Denominational doesnt work for me. In general I dont care what 'you' believe, or what makes 'you' happy. I care what the truth is. I dont care what is 'right' (subjective), I care about what is correct (quantifiable). I dont even care if "I" am right or I am 'Happy'. I just want to know the truth.
Sorry to interject. This was too interesting to me to pass up.
I'm going to wish you luck on that quest of yours... and I'm not being sarcastic in saying that. Lots of people have dedicated their lives to that very thing. Wish I could remember the details of the story, but there was an Egyptian pharoh who supposedly figured it out and told everyone that he'd reveal his secret the day he died. Here is what he revealed: "As above, so below. As within, so without."
Moses had the 10 commandments. Jesus: "Love thy neighbor as thyself."
Buddhism has some interesting takes on the matter of Truth.
I don't believe that a subjective thing such as Truth can have an absolute answer. But even if it did, how it applies to things is never absolute.
I understand the quantifiable part of your statement... but all that could possibly leave you with is... mostly true. So you still aren't left with THE truth.
I'm not sure what it has to do with marriage or relationships... still... it is an extraordinarily interesting undertaking.
I haven't read this thread, but only the first post. Here is a question my C asked about XH once when I was complaining about our sexless M:
"What are his fantasies? What does he masturbate to?"
I had no idea, nor did I give it much thought.
My guess now is that he gets off on being taken (thereby absolving him of responsibility for sin) and at the same time being called a bad little boy.
But, when C asked, I didn't even have a guess. Who knows if my current guess is correct... It made sense years ago when I was consumed with thinking about XH right after the bomb. I certainly don't care what gets his rocks off. But my point is that I SHOULD have cared when C asked. I SHOULD have had a clue.
Not to say I SHOULD have tried to realize his fantasies for him. If I'm correct about what they are, they'd be a huge turn-off for me. No problem with kink, it is simply not my kink. No thank you. So, if I had had a clue, the M probably would have ended sooner. I wouldn't have bought sex book after sex book in a futile effort to end the platonic aspect of that R.
But there was NO WAY we could have ever made progress on the sex issue when we both had no clue about each other's authentic sexuality.
So, ask yourself: What makes H hard? What makes him yearn to be alone so he can jack-off because he is so horny?
H probably isn't asexual. You probably just aren't part of his sexual world. (Yuck.)
If you really want to save your M, try to find his authentic sexuality, probably through trial and error, and then see if it is something that works for you.
SG. Well done, with the greek. It sounds much better coming from you.
Paul was never married. It shows.
Its alwasy curious to me when the people start acting like a cat on a hot tin roof at doing what works. There have been a couple of women here who have had much success with looking for the positive and respecting there H, even when he was icky. Many women have said they want to respect their H and trust his judgement. We even had a discussion about a book around here... the surrendered wife I think it was....
It may be easy for you to respect your H, and I am happy for you. Its intrinsically linked to your attraction for him. The women in my life show there appreciation quite effectively for the fact that I require respect.
Are men more culpable for controlling there attraction when it fades then women are? From your comments on disrespecting men who appreciate you for your visual appearance, it would appear so. I understand, I would not trust women who appreciated me for something (like say...money) that could quite possible disappear, and got all ga-ga after testing their reaction to its prescence. After all its not 'who I am'.
Quote:
I would hazard a guess women dont FEEL why they have to show respect and honor.
I didnt say this well and I thank you for pointing it out.
What I should have said, was I would hazard a guess that women dont know why they should show respect when they dont FEEL it. After all its no fun and a lot of hard work, owning our feelings. Its much easier blaming them on OP actions.
(Paul uses "phobeo", the root of our word "phobia" and is much closer to fear, imo, but I will defer to Young's.)
There are two aspects of this fear, it could be in terror of, or it could be in awe of.
Being In awe of... would closely approximate how women respond sexually to men of power and or fame.
If you want men to be in charge of their M/W tendancies as you and I have so plainly discussed previously, and you applauded me for, you certainly wouldnt expect any less of a woman being in charge of her tendancies. Would you?
