DivingDuck wrote: » Yes, I included things that covered both bad relationships (which are obviously abundant-- you only need to consider the Ashley Madison hack or look at the Relationship Issues forum to see that) as well as normal/healthy relationships. However, while only a bad partner will be constantly complaining about things, the core concepts and issues are still relevant even to a healthy relationship. Browsing history is a contentious issue for many couples. Some people feel threatened by their partner looking at porn, and some people like to engage in casual flirtation with zero intention of follow-up which could harm their partner if they found out. It doesn't require a paranoid screwball with issues on either side for this to be a problem in the relationship. Physical changes can impact upon a couple's sex life, intimacy, and general happiness levels. Even if the other party isn't whining because their partner lost or gained a lot of weight, they may still feel less attracted to them as a change has occurred. If you are making big changes to how you look, it's going to have an impact on your partner. If you yourself are a good partner, this is something you should consider. (I am not saying you shouldn't still be able to make the changes you feel you need to make, but you do need to be aware it can upset the balance of your relationship.) I never said anything about one person "hogging" the bathroom, but if one party is having their perfectly reasonable pre-work shower while the other person is having uninvited digestive convulsions from a bad probiotic yoghurt, it's still going to be a problem. It is rare that a couple will have the exact same initial expectation of how much time they'll spend at home, out independently, and out together. This is something which has to be discussed and hashed out. While a good partner will not complain about you seeing your friends, you will likely have to enter into negotiations about it, and be prepared to give and take. It's also reasonable and fair to give notice so they're not sitting at home with dinner on the table while you're on the lash with the boys. It's not as simple and carefree as it is when you are single. A good partner will not force you to justify your expenditure, but in a long-term relationship with shared finances, this is often an issue. You spent how much on a car?! We could have had three holidays for that! Those shoes cost how much?! That was a weekend in Galway! It is only fair to think about your partner when you are spending money if your finances are pooled-- and if they're not joint, you still need to think about it. Can they afford to partake in the activity you're planning? Can you afford to partake in the things they'd like to do? If one party pays for the other, will it create dissent and tension? If one party has to decline opportunities for the sake of their partner's finances, will it lead to resentment? When you share your life with someone, you owe it to them to be considerate on all fronts. When you are single, this is never a concern. A good relationship will always require more effort from both parties than either would ever have to expend as a single person. While this trade-off is worth it to some people, it will never be a good deal for others because the what you have to give will never exceed what you would take.
Earthhorse wrote: » Worst. Libertarian. Ever.
Miley30 wrote: » Or a poke in the bum :pac:
bluewolf wrote: » I have the freedom to want cocopops but also be too lazy to get them right now! Get outta here with your police state cereal!!
Candie wrote: » It's ok, I don't need a lecture. I get it, you don't want a relationship. That's grand. I won't be proposing.
DoYouEvenLift wrote: » Has there been a thread like this but for not having children?
Earthhorse wrote: » Libertarianism is about eating cereal and stamping on the poor. Have you even read Atlas Shrugged?
DivingDuck wrote: » I think what you might need is an understanding of the difference between a lecture and a rebuttal, but considering that you're not proposing, I'll leave that task to someone else.
Miley30 wrote: » Not necessarily, some people just settle for someone for the sake of having someone in their life, which is wrong.
efb wrote: » keep telling yourself that
Miley30 wrote: » You think that anyone over 25 who isn't in a relationship is not good looking ?
Deleted User wrote: » all of them are. it's kinda naive imo to posit "deep and meaningful love" as something magical that exists outside of and/or overrides personality, expectations, reality, attraction, compromise, shared experience, etc, etc, etc
_Whimsical_ wrote: » One of the happiest couples I know were definitely people who "settled" for each other. She wanted kids, desperately and unashamedly to the point of tears when the subject came up, he was done with dating after some really bad experiences and wanted someone to want him now. They met and were engaged within 2 months, he'd often say "she doesn't have the best sense of humour now... but we can work on that" among other rather shakey things. Now they've kids, a lovely home, a whole load of common ground and the things that once were important to them like admiring someones wit and intelligence etc are obviously not as necessary to creating a great life as you'd think, for them at least! They admire each others parenting skills now and what each of them brings to making the life they have. It definitely works really well sometimes!
Candie wrote: » That is the result of shared values and realistic expectations. There's a lesson there for most of us.
Filmer Paradise wrote: » An old soldier described it perfectly.... 'At 25, the idea of standing waist-deep in a river with full kit can seem like a bit of fun. At 35 you can just about bear it & at 45 it's the last place you want to be!' That sums up single life for me & most others in my experience
Miley30 wrote: » Is there any ?
DivingDuck wrote: » Or a relationship, for others. When I was younger, being in a relationship seemed like the best thing ever. The older I get, the more I see it as an effort. I have plenty of older relatives (60+) who seem to feel the same way.
Filmer Paradise wrote: » 20 years ago I'd horrified at the idea!:eek:
Timothy Cold Carpenter wrote: » I can't ever see myself in another relationship. Conventional relationships are just not for me and I generally see almost everything about being single as an advantage for me. To me the only disadvantage to being single is not having someone to share living costs with, but since I wouldn't be willing to live full time with a partner anyway it's irrelevant really. Perhaps I will find the right person one day whose lifestyle is compatible with mine, but I doubt it. I thought I had once but eventually they wanted a closer relationship and it just didn't work for me.