What do you think of people who never marry?

Azure_sky

They are the great sages and philosophers of our era, unappreciated as they are. :pac:

Love2u

Karsini wrote: »

Surprisingly I didn't take the rejections too badly at all at the time, I remembered feeling good that I had the guts to do it in the first place. I think the reason I stopped asking was just that I stopped caring.

There's a great quote from Vince Lombari " it's not how many times you get knocked down that count, it's how many times you get back up that matters"!!

Greentopia

Addle wrote: »

I also admired their rumoured set up, but HBC has admitted that it's really not the case.
Though they do live in a really big house so each have their own space.

They did actually have 3 adjoining former artist studio houses (one for her, one for Tim and one for the kids according to the Torygraph with doors connecting them but last year had renovation work done and moved in together temporarily while one house was being renovated. They really just now live in one big house but have divided it up into her half and his half. They main reason she says is because he snores loudly and she needs her own bedroom to get a proper nights sleep!

Eight minutes into this interview on Graham Norton she says:

"We did have little ones (houses) but now they just look a big house which has no interior design constancy whatsoever":

So there you have it.

Sorry, this is going OT :pac:

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

In short, you probably have more agency over those other life goals than you do whether someone wants to be with you because it's all down to the choices you make and not contingent on someone making a similar choice to be with you.

Not sure I recognize the difference, or that there is a difference. Rather.... it is the same thing over a longer period of time.

In that... quite often it is down to the choices you make... over a long period of time.... that makes you the person that others want to be with.

In other words, im not sure it is a case of agency v. no agency. Rather "short term agency" v. "Long term agency".

But my point still remains that just because someone has not attained what they want in their life this is no reason to feel sorry for them - rather it is just cause to acknowledge certain "unfortunate" facts about the human condition - which is that many of us simply never end life having attained some - most - or even all of our goals.

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure I recognize the difference, or that there is a difference. Rather.... it is the same thing over a longer period of time.

In that... quite often it is down to the choices you make... over a long period of time.... that makes you the person that others want to be with.

In other words, im not sure it is a case of agency v. no agency. Rather "short term agency" v. "Long term agency".

But my point still remains that just because someone has not attained what they want in their life this is no reason to feel sorry for them - rather it is just cause to acknowledge certain "unfortunate" facts about the human condition - which is that many of us simply never end life having attained some - most - or even all of our goals.

Fùck, me... Can you dumb that down any small bit at all? :pac:

beks101

trickymicky wrote: »

To be honest i dont have any problem with anyone that doesnt marry. In my opinion all it is is a ring on the finger and an expensive day out and it wouldn change how much i loved the person. Saying that i will more than likely end up getting married as the other half really wants that ring and the dress and that expensive day out and to have all eyes on her for that so called "special day"

And they say romance is dead

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

Fùck, me... Can you dumb that down any small bit at all? :pac:

I try to aim at all levels

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure I recognize the difference, or that there is a difference. Rather.... it is the same thing over a longer period of time.

In that... quite often it is down to the choices you make... over a long period of time.... that makes you the person that others want to be with.

In other words, im not sure it is a case of agency v. no agency. Rather "short term agency" v. "Long term agency".

But my point still remains that just because someone has not attained what they want in their life this is no reason to feel sorry for them - rather it is just cause to acknowledge certain "unfortunate" facts about the human condition - which is that many of us simply never end life having attained some - most - or even all of our goals.

An employer may need to fill a job by a particular date and you may be the best candidate available; the same does not apply in relationships. Also, there are pretty objective things employers look for regarding their employees; punctuality, education etc. but again the same does not apply to attraction. We all know people in the office we don't really like but we am have to admit that they do their job. In short, some goals are more pliable to the amount of effort you put in.

When you say that the choices you make over a long time make you into the kind of person someone would want to be with you're missing the point which is that everyone is attracted to different things; you might spend time keeping in shape, climbing the ladder in work, and becoming a funny guy only to find out the girl you're attracted doesn't really value those things highly. The criteria for success in other spheres of life is usually far more clear cut.

Which is all still the result of all the choices you made over a long period of time, which was what I said.

But as I said the core point still remains - which does not seem to have been addressed in either of your replies to me - which is that none of this is really grounds for "feeling sorry" for someone. Some people get what they want - some people do not - what do we mean by saying we "feel sorry" for such people exactly?

Earthhorse

I didn't address that because it's not really the part of your post I disagree with; I disagree that the choices hold equivalent weight.

I'm not sure I would say I "feel sorry" for them either as the phrase doesn't really fit; I would probably have more sympathy for them than someone who had failed in their career (say) because I believe it is more fundamentally fulfilling experience to have missed out on and, for the reasons I've already stated, less inside their control.

dd972

What do I think of people who never marry?

Losers, idiots, the scum of the earth,..... why can't they be like the rest of us with our random luck, chance encounter partners that prove our supreme mastery of our fates.

narddog

Being married, or in a relationship, is the not the be all and end all of happiness. Some people are just happier on their own. Nothing wrong with that. To each their own I say. IMHO there is nothing sadder than a couple who have stuck it out together for years, but in their heart detest their other half. What a waste that is.

Don't think I was suggesting an "equivalent" weight between individual choices either. I think you are mis reading me. Rather I am saying some choices have short term effects while some have long term while still others are the amalgamation of a series of choices over a period of time.

All of which - as I pointed out - is tangential to the main point I was making.

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't think I was suggesting an "equivalent" weight between individual choices either. I think you are mis reading me. Rather I am saying some choices have short term effects while some have long term while still others are the amalgamation of a series of choices over a period of time.

We can slice choices up that way too, of course, but you were saying that it is "the same thing over a longer period of time". I don't think it is though.

Again, to use the career analogy, you may need to pass a series of exams to be come a lawyer and this might take several years. The short term choices you make - going out vs studying - will affect how quickly you reach that goal but once reached it's reached; you pass the exams and you're qualified.

In pursuing romance, there is no equivalent hard goal that can be aimed at, as everyone is attracted to different things.

Deleted User wrote: »

All of which - as I pointed out - is tangential to the main point I was making.

Which I addressed in my last post.

fishy fishy

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I just think that's incredibly sad that someone never experienced all the amazing/wonderful/horrible/mad feelings that come with a relationship. I guess we never miss what we've never come to know though so it makes little difference.

being single certainly does not mean that people don't have relationships. More than likely it is because they don't believe the claptrap that in order to have a "meaningful" relationship you must have a piece of paper.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

We can slice choices up that way too, of course, but you were saying that it is "the same thing over a longer period of time". I don't think it is though.

More power to you - but I think that the person you are is made up a lot by the choices you have made over a long period of time and hence that is going to influence who is attracted to you. Theres nothing complex - or controversial - in that.

If you're reading any more into it than that then you are just talking past me.

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

More power to you - but I think that the person you are is made up a lot by the choices you have made over a long period of time and hence that is going to influence who is attracted to you. Theres nothing complex - or controversial - in that.

There isn't; but outside the context of how that effects your ability to attract someone you are attracted to it adds nothing to the debate. I'm not having a go, it just seems you don't want to take the next step with what you're saying, which is how it leads to success in the sphere of relationships, and if you're not going to take that next step then it isn't really relevant to the topic.

^ The only steps I want to take in a conversation is to make my own points - my way. I do not make points I do not hold just because someone else wants me to. As for "relevant to the topic" I already made my point that was relevant to the topic - going off tangentially to that point is what is not relevant to it. You're welcome to of course. I am neither the OP nor a Mod so I will not dictate where the topic can or can not go - but I will not be following you on the tangent myself.

Earthhorse

I'm not asking you to make points you don't hold; I'm making counterpoints to the ones you have made, which is a perfectly normal part of discourse. I don't believe you've made your points relevant to the topic at hand is what I'm saying; you're not obliged to of course but you seem to be taking the whole thing a little sensitively for some reason so I'll it be.

As I said I do not see any counter points here. Perhaps they are there and I am simply missing them. The counter points appear to be either about something I have not actually said - or something you feel is the logical conclusion of something I _have_ said but that I do not share that conclusion with you.

Certainly however not understanding what youre trying to say - and engaging in a clarification process - is not equivalent to being "sensitive" about it. You are imputing your own choice of tone and emotion to posts that do not contain them. Though in my experience "I will let it be" tends to translate to "I will be right back posting again in a moment" on forums