Just Wondering

[ThisIsMe123]

There are women that we aren't going to click with. I've meet those. Now that I'm old enough to never have babies any more and its all about relationship and enjoying wither other's company, that's what I make sure the relationship is. I tell women up front I'm not interested in monogamy or marriage. I am interested in commitment, love, intimacy and doing things together. Clearly, by commitment I don't mean marriage and separation from other friends. An example of commitment is a past GF who is not just a friend. I've been there for her helping her with things for over 6 yrs since we brook up.

NOT interested in monogamy? What kind of Christian doesn't believe in monogamy?

I am interested in commitment, love, intimacy and doing things together.

Can't have this without the monogamy, sorry to break it to you.

 

[dayhiker]

Well, I failed at monogamy for decades so that is why I don't try to do that any more. ... Well, you say I can't have intimacy without monogamy but I have now for well over 5 yrs. So experience tells me your wrong.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Well, I failed at monogamy for decades so that is why I don't try to do that any more. ... Well, you say I can't have intimacy without monogamy but I have now for well over 5 yrs. So experience tells me your wrong.

So....friends with benefits.

 

[dayhiker]

Nope .. I separated intimacy from sexuality years ago ..

 

[ThisIsMe123]

Nope .. I separated intimacy from sexuality years ago ..

I didn't say anything about sex.

 

[dayhiker]

The way I hear friends with benefits used with to describe a friend one is having sex with.

 

[ThisIsMe123]

The way I hear friends with benefits used with to describe a friend one is having sex with.

I guess I'm going to have get specific here.

Other than sex, are you making any kind of non-sexual romantic physical contact? Holding hands. Kissing, etc?

How do YOU personally define "intimacy"?

It's 2018, so now it appears people have their own definitions.

 

[dayhiker]

Intimacy for me is spending time with someone, often has a conversation where we share deeply what is going on in out life. Intimacy would include a hug and eye gazing. Beyond that I prefer cuddling and caressing and a massage to be with a woman. For me kissing can as above or also can be sexual if that is where things are going. But I'm very content after talking about boundaries we have to not have intimate activities go into sexuality.

 

[blackribbon]

Is it really?

I see half the people I meet in relationships that are so bad.... I can't see why anyone would want it.

I've met so many couples, where the two people do NOTHING together at all. Where they literally schedule their respective jobs, to avoid being home at the same time, as much as possible. Having a roommate is way less troublesome, and they pay rent. (just saying).

I had guy sit there, and complain about his insulting, complaining wife, for 15 minutes non-stop. At the end of break, when we're all about to head back to work, I said this is why I'm single... and he stopped.... paused for a moment.... and then said "well... I wouldn't trade anything for being married".

Really? What am I missing? What is the big 'plus' that makes it all worth while?

I must just be missing it. The number of couples I've met that had a relationship that I even thought was worth having, I can count on one hand.

It wasn't always easy but I easily go back to my marriage "as is" because the good certainly outweighed the bad and we had gotten to a point where it where the good was the majority of time too... (and then he upped and died)

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

I'd be sitting at home saying "I don't want to kick no damn football and there won't be a Lucy holding a football anyhow."

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Marriage today is so removed from its historical context. Up until the past 200 years or so most people married as teens. Formal education usually ended around the age of 13 by which time most were reaching puberty. You were considered an adult. Young men would go to work perhaps apprenticing and young women would be looking to get married and start a family. Life expectancies were much shorter than today and medical care far from what it is today so it was wise to start a family young.

Today most people wait 10+ years after reaching puberty before marriage. That's a long time to deal with the affects of all those hormones without a spouse. 200 years ago they were marrying not long after hitting puberty. College educations were rare back then whereas today they are fairly common. Many careers today require degrees. The mantra today is "get your education, get established in your career, then think about marriage." While extended family stayed close in older times today we tend to scatter. Young couples used to have a lot more support from family. They also lived in harsher times where death during childbirth was much more common. Childhood was brief and often filled with work in a largely agrarian society. Not only did today's distractions (cell phones, TVs, XBox, ...) not exist then but kids had little time for such things between schooling and helping around the house or farm. Today we have far more disposable income, more to spend it on, and far more leisure time. Now many young adults want to put off marriage not only for education and careers but to have more time to enjoy life before the responsibilities of marriage and family start.

Marriage in the past was as much for practical reasons as love. Most women had few prospects for security outside of marriage. Divorce was rare and frowned upon.Today women are increasingly getting good educations and pursuing careers (a good thing) but between marrying later, having more leisure time, more income, women being more independent, a higher divorce rate, etc, marriage has changed so much. The NT talks a lot about taking care of orphans and widows. Both needed the church's care. Widowers could still work. They did not have large numbers of divorced in their churches. Getting remarried at an older age is so much different than getting married when young. You have a lifetime of experiences (some good, some bad) influencing you and you are more set in your ways. So much about today's world works against marriage.

I think the football is getting pulled out from under everyone.

 

[exitstageright]

Marriage today is so removed from its historical context. Up until the past 200 years or so most people married as teens. Formal education usually ended around the age of 13 by which time most were reaching puberty. You were considered an adult. Young men would go to work perhaps apprenticing and young women would be looking to get married and start a family. Life expectancies were much shorter than today and medical care far from what it is today so it was wise to start a family young.

Today most people wait 10+ years after reaching puberty before marriage. That's a long time to deal with the affects of all those hormones without a spouse. 200 years ago they were marrying not long after hitting puberty. College educations were rare back then whereas today they are fairly common. Many careers today require degrees. The mantra today is "get your education, get established in your career, then think about marriage." While extended family stayed close in older times today we tend to scatter. Young couples used to have a lot more support from family. They also lived in harsher times where death during childbirth was much more common. Childhood was brief and often filled with work in a largely agrarian society. Not only did today's distractions (cell phones, TVs, XBox, ...) not exist then but kids had little time for such things between schooling and helping around the house or farm. Today we have far more disposable income, more to spend it on, and far more leisure time. Now many young adults want to put off marriage not only for education and careers but to have more time to enjoy life before the responsibilities of marriage and family start.

Marriage in the past was as much for practical reasons as love. Most women had few prospects for security outside of marriage. Divorce was rare and frowned upon.Today women are increasingly getting good educations and pursuing careers (a good thing) but between marrying later, having more leisure time, more income, women being more independent, a higher divorce rate, etc, marriage has changed so much. The NT talks a lot about taking care of orphans and widows. Both needed the church's care. Widowers could still work. They did not have large numbers of divorced in their churches. Getting remarried at an older age is so much different than getting married when young. You have a lifetime of experiences (some good, some bad) influencing you and you are more set in your ways. So much about today's world works against marriage.

I think the football is getting pulled out from under everyone.

Two of the reasons that millennials are putting off marriage are the cost of housing and the cost of education.
For example,the median cost of a home,in the San Francisco, California Bay Area is $1.3 million dollars.

"The combination of rising interest rates and escalating home prices has been a double-whammy for many first time home buyers. For example, a buyer in Santa Clara County looking at a house with the area’s $1.3 million median price would need to save $260,000 for a 20 percent down payment. They would then also need a household income of nearly $300,000 to qualify for a loan and make a $5,600 monthly mortgage payment, according to Wei."

The second example is. The outrageous cost of education,with these student loans,are keeping young college graduates in debt.

In 1978,after I got honorably discharged the the U.S. Navy,my educational benefit (the GI Bill) was $342 dollars per month,if I had been taking 12 units or more(Full time). It cost me $106 dollars a semester,not $106 dollars a unit, a semester. Now it cost over $300 dollars a unit.I really feel for the millennials.

My father,in San Francisco, California, was truly the bread winner in my family. My mother did not work outside of the home.There were six of us children. In 1965,our house cost $16,000.My father made only $13,000 year,yet he was still able to take good care of us.
Now,there is no way that I could afford to take good care of a non-working wife, and six children in this Bay Area. Yet,I made more money in one hour,than my father made in one day!
Now,there is something wrong with that.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Two of the reasons that millennials are putting off marriage are the cost of housing and the cost of education.
For example,the median cost of a home,in the San Francisco, California Bay Area is $1.3 million dollars.

"The combination of rising interest rates and escalating home prices has been a double-whammy for many first time home buyers. For example, a buyer in Santa Clara County looking at a house with the area’s $1.3 million median price would need to save $260,000 for a 20 percent down payment. They would then also need a household income of nearly $300,000 to qualify for a loan and make a $5,600 monthly mortgage payment, according to Wei."

The second example is. The outrageous cost of education,with these student loans,are keeping young college graduates in debt.

In 1978,after I got honorably discharged the the U.S. Navy,my educational benefit (the GI Bill) was $342 dollars per month,if I had been taking 12 units or more(Full time). It cost me $106 dollars a semester,not $106 dollars a unit, a semester. Now it cost over $300 dollars a unit.I really feel for the millennials.

My father,in San Francisco, California, was truly the bread winner in my family. My mother did not work outside of the home.There were six of us children. In 1965,our house cost $16,000.My father made only $13,000 year,yet he was still able to take good care of us.
Now,there is no way that I could afford to take good care of a non-working wife, and six children in this Bay Area. Yet,I made more money in one hour,than my father made in one day!
Now,there is something wrong with that.

I totally agree with all you wrote but I'm wondering out loud if those things should more put off having children as opposed to marriage itself? Unless both singles are living at home then they are likely already living in an apartment with roommates to be able to afford to live there. In that case by marriage they can become married roommates. There should be some savings through shared costs over living apart. Now forget about buying a house. At those prices you are better off moving out of the area. I started out in the Bay Area out of college but within a year had moved to the Sacramento area. I saw no future there due to the high expenses. Education is horribly expensive but if you are fortunate enough to live near a university then you can commute and actually get a degree for as little as $25-$30K total. Not cheap but not a lifetime of servitude.

Our country needs to get is priorities straight. We can't spend $700+ billion a year on defense and have free public education. How many kids could get a 4 year education on the $20 billion we could spend building a wall with Mexico? I'm not trying to be political just pointing out that we could do something about this but it's yet to be a priority. Unless we do something about the debt though, we will soon have bigger problems...

 

[blackribbon]

I totally agree with all you wrote but I'm wondering out loud if those things should more put off having children as opposed to marriage itself? Unless both singles are living at home then they are likely already living in an apartment with roommates to be able to afford to live there. In that case by marriage they can become married roommates. There should be some savings through shared costs over living apart. Now forget about buying a house. At those prices you are better off moving out of the area. I started out in the Bay Area out of college but within a year had moved to the Sacramento area. I saw no future there due to the high expenses. Education is horribly expensive but if you are fortunate enough to live near a university then you can commute and actually get a degree for as little as $25-$30K total. Not cheap but not a lifetime of servitude.

Our country needs to get is priorities straight. We can't spend $700+ billion a year on defense and have free public education. How many kids could get a 4 year education on the $20 billion we could spend building a wall with Mexico? I'm not trying to be political just pointing out that we could do something about this but it's yet to be a priority. Unless we do something about the debt though, we will soon have bigger problems...

You also have to figure in the number of illegals that we are educating in K-12 if we don't enforce our borders. I don't think most people value what is given to them for free. K-12 is free but there is a huge number of people that don't value it...it is more a babysitter than a priority for kids to get a good education. The fact that so many 4 year colleges have remedial classes that don't even count toward graduation requirements...they are teaching high school stuff to prepare a college aged person to be ready to take college level work.