Relationships, marriage and traditions.

[Serious Paul]

How do you view your role in the world, how does it compare to traditions in your region, and does it ever bother you if you don't fit into the mold?

[Angel]

How do you view your role in the world, how does it compare to traditions in your region, and does it ever bother you if you don't fit into the mold?

My role is a single lesbian wanting to live life happily. I doubt many people in my area of the world would consider any aspect of my relationship with my girlfriend as traditional, I live in a strict Catholic country, and when I say Catholic I mean like European Catholic, not that low-fat artificial flavor stuff you guys have in the States ( ) , but even though my way of life might be in direct opposition to what many here might call "normal" I have surprisingly few problems.

So I guess I could say that yes, Austria is a traditional Catholic country, but at the same time it's also populated with people that respect privacy, personal choice and diversity amongst themselves.

The mold. As far as I can tell, here in Austria "the mold" is someone who can appreciate Austrian culture and neutrality, in that respect I fit in wonderfully.

[crone]

I am not married to my partner, though we have been together for 14 years, and have two children. I never wanted to make that promise to always love someone. Most people here tend to get married, especially when they have kids, so I was prepared to be defiant about it. It has never been an issue, though. It hardly ever even comes up. I usually talk about my 'partner' or 'boyfriend'. 'Boyfriend' always sounds a bit wrong. A lot of people will call him my husband, even when they know we are not married. If I point it out, they just wave away the difference. It's really a non-issue. It would be more of a big deal to me than to anyone else.

[TLM]

My role in the world: I'm here to do whatever it is that I get into my head at the moment, and hopefully along the line I'll have fun and lead a life I can look back at and go; "Yeah, I'd do it again." I don't really have any great causes to champion, or that kind of stuff, but I do have a lot of issues I'm involved in. At the moment, I'm looking forward to becoming a fully qualified teacher/librarian. I love books. Books are civilization.

Traditions in my region and the mold: Pretty much what Angel said.

[Iantha]

Paul, I think I would like a more structured question... I could write novels on this so could you narrow it down a bit?

[MissTeja]

I concur. I wanted to reply, but didn't know where to start, so left.

[Adam]

Tradition only exists until we figure out a way to evolve beyond it. Next question!

[Bethyaga]

Tradition only exists until we figure out a way to evolve beyond it. Next question!

Which implies that tradition is typically a bad thing (i.e. something we wouldn't have/want/need if only we were more advanced). I think that implication is wrong and misguided.

[Crazy Elf]

Seeing this is in regards to relationships, having just been to a wedding I can say that sometimes it bugs me that I'm without someone when the bulk of my associates are. Then again, it would take a very very special woman to be able to hold my interest.

Until then, I'm just going to have to be satisfied with this bunch of average ones.

[jo_alex]

sometimes it bugs me that I'm without someone when the bulk of my associates are. Then again, it would take a very very special woman to be able to hold my interest.

Change woman into man in the last sentence and I can relate.

Raised also in a strict Catholic country I probably should have been married or be getting married by now by their standards. The fact that I don't fit that particular mold doesn't bother me, though. It's even nice from time to time to be the object of envy of my friends - since as still single I get to live my life much more than they do. However much I enjoy my freedom, though, I have this traditional streak in me and the need to share my life with this one special person. Problem is that usually after enjoying the first date, I start to have doubts during the second, and am getting bored during the third one. What can I say? I make up my mind fast. And when I find someone very special who doesn't have troubles holding my interest, I cannot keep him. Life sucks in this respect for me.

[Serious Paul]

Paul, I think I would like a more structured question... I could write novels on this so could you narrow it down a bit?

Well what role does gender play in relationships? And marriages? Are there and should there be gender based roles in marriage and relationships? (I.e. The man takes out the trash, the woman does the dishes.)

Is sex important? Why? Is there an emotional connection with out sex? Is there emotional connections with sex? Is monogamy essential? Is sexual monogamy essential?

Is serial monogamy a bad thing?

We can start from there.

[Iantha]

Well what role does gender play in relationships? And marriages? Are there and should there be gender based roles in marriage and relationships? (I.e. The man takes out the trash, the woman does the dishes.)

I think that gender roles are outdated. I know that in years past they have had their uses but today there are few instances where they have real relevance. I don't mind taking out the trash, and I don't mind working like a mad woman to support the family. Basically, I think it comes down to whoever is better at something, then they should do that particular job. For example, Paul is great at organizing the house. I can't do it for shit. But, I am a really good cook. So if we divide and conquer based on our strengths don't we both come out winning?

Is sex important? Why? Is there an emotional connection with out sex? Is there emotional connections with sex? Is monogamy essential? Is sexual monogamy essential?

Sex is extremely important. If one day Paul were cut in half and managed to survive, leaving me with nothing below his waist, I would still love him. Would we need to figure out a way to keep us both happy sexually? Absolutely. I don't know that there is ANY aspect of a relationship that can be neglected and left by the wayside without it having a detrimental effect on the whole. And I guess I just answered your next question, is there an emotional connection without sex. Of course there is. But sex has a great impact on emotional connection and I see them as parts of a whole.

Monogamy is not essential for me. For some it is. I don't equate sex with love. I don't expect my partner to be monogamous either, but I do expect full disclosure and safe play. Always.

Is serial monogamy a bad thing?

Nah, it's just like saying being christian or atheist is a bad thing, like saying liking apples or disliking asparagus. It is a matter of personal preference.

[jo_alex]

Gender doesn't play a role in dividing chores - it should be all about partnership and sharing duties. Of course, if you enjoy doing something more than your partner does or are better at something, you will probably end up doing it more often.

Sex in my opinion is one of the crucial elements of a relationship. Lack of sexual compatibility leads to frustration on one or both sides which means only trouble on the long run. Of course, if you love someone the emotional connection is there even without sex, but sex makes it stronger.

For me monogamy is essential. And it's not that I equate sex with love. It's just that I believe if you love someone and are happy in your relationship you should make that extra effort and not give in to other temptations. But that's my point of view. And I don't think you can call serial monogamy bad or good. For some it works out, for some it doesn't.

[Serious Paul]

For me monogamy is essential. And it's not that I equate sex with love. It's just that I believe if you love someone and are happy in your relationship you should make that extra effort and not give in to other temptations.

I see this in a different light. Do you stop having friends when you get married, or commit to a relationship? Of course not right? Because event hough your relationship meets some of your needs, it can't and shouldn't meet all of your needs.

For instance I love to role play, and although Iantha enjoys watching and listening to us game, and even on occasion joining us-she just doesn't want to play the game at the level I do.

She enjoys playing her violin. I couldn't play a musical instrument to save my life.

Admittedly these aren't the most serious needs, but they are essential parts of who we are. And since we can't meet those needs for each other we find help from outside our relationship.

Now currently we meet out sexual needs but should there come a point where one of us incapable of doing so, for whatever reason we try to ensure that we're communicating properly so we can, one, communicate our needs, and, two, decide what to do about them.

Being married doesn't make you blind. Or stop having urges. From my perspective, which isn't to say it would work for you, or is better than your perspective (It's just that-mine.), you need to be secure enough in your relationship to understand it, and the needs your partner may have.

Not everyone could operate like us. Nor do I expect them to.

[Brasky]

My family is weird in that we seem traditional but weird at the same time. When people find out I have seven kids that are homeschooled, they assume I'm a mormon or some kind of evangelical. In a way we're considered traditional because we're a married couple with a big family-- but then when you find out that we're atheists and homeschool our kids because we think we're smarter than the public and private systems out there-- that's when people start thinking we're just weird cultists.

I like it. I'm an attention whore anyways, so I like the fact that we get gawked at or become a spectacle when the family goes out.

[jo_alex]

Being married doesn't make you blind. Or stop having urges. From my perspective, which isn't to say it would work for you, or is better than your perspective (It's just that-mine.), you need to be secure enough in your relationship to understand it, and the needs your partner may have.

It definitely does not make you blind or stop having urges. And the temptations are out there most of the time. Still, I prefer to believe that I would be able to meet the sexual needs of my partner and he would meet mine. If that would change at certain point in the relationship in a permanent way... well, I will think about crossing that bridge when I come to it. But I am all for full disclosure in a relationship so I am sure I would be able to handle it.

[Jestyr]

Do you really think you'd find a Bulldrekker who'd say gender-based roles _are_ relevant in relationships, when it comes to stuff like taking out the trash or doing the dishes?

[Serious Paul]

Do you really think you'd find a Bulldrekker who'd say gender-based roles _are_ relevant in relationships, when it comes to stuff like taking out the trash or doing the dishes?

I'm not sure. I know people here tend to say one thing on line, but a lot of people have some small differences in real life. (A few have major differences.) It's easier to sit in front of the screen with our persona's than it is to look past that and into who we really are.

Does that make sense?

[Jestyr]

Oh, certainly.

[Ampere]

Do you really think you'd find a Bulldrekker who'd say gender-based roles _are_ relevant in relationships, when it comes to stuff like taking out the trash or doing the dishes?

I'm not sure. I know people here tend to say one thing on line, but a lot of people have some small differences in real life. (A few have major differences.) It's easier to sit in front of the screen with our persona's than it is to look past that and into who we really are.

Does that make sense?

Good point.
Nobody really knows whether we're really like what we portray online. Well...some of us have met in-person, and some know each other well in-person...but those are the exception I believe, not the rule.

[Instant Cash]

We are not married, and never really plan too.

She makes more than I do, and I do a lot of the house cleaning.

Much different than "traditional" households.

50/50 is kinda the way I describe our relationship, sometimes you give m a little more, sometimes you get a little more.

It all works out in the end.

[Jeff Hauze]

I see this in a different light. Do you stop having friends when you get married, or commit to a relationship? Of course not right? Because event hough your relationship meets some of your needs, it can't and shouldn't meet all of your needs.

Except a number of married folks that I've met are exactly that way. They seem to have absolutely no life outside of the "other half." And if they have kids? Forget it. I can't say if that is really that common, but it has been common in my limited experience.

[Serious Paul]

Except a number of married folks that I've met are exactly that way. They seem to have absolutely no life outside of the "other half." And if they have kids? Forget it. I can't say if that is really that common, but it has been common in my limited experience.

I agree. Which is why their relationships fail.

[Szechuan]

Except a number of married folks that I've met are exactly that way. They seem to have absolutely no life outside of the "other half." And if they have kids? Forget it. I can't say if that is really that common, but it has been common in my limited experience.

I agree. Which is why their relationships fail.

Are you referring to their level of involvement with the kids or the whole codependency thing?

[Serious Paul]

Are you referring to their level of involvement with the kids or the whole codependency thing?

Both. Having kids doesn't mean life ends. I know, I have three. Yes, it requires a little work. yes it means some sacrifices. But it's not impossible.

I also think relying on your spouse to be responsible for everything is a recipe for disaster. You should have your own time, your own hobbies, your own friends, your own work, etc... Grinding your life to a stop because you got married is stupid.

[Adam]

Couples that "do everything together" bother me in the same way that people who introduce themselves as "Bob's Wife" or "Dirk's Brother" or "Anne's Mother" do.

[TLM]

Well what role does gender play in relationships? And marriages? Are there and should there be gender based roles in marriage and relationships? (I.e. The man takes out the trash, the woman does the dishes.)

Your mileage may vary, really. If the relationship falls into those roles I don't think that's a bad thing as long as both parties are comfortable with it. Personally, I don't think it matters. I do what needs doing and I don't care much about the gender-roles associated with the task.

Is sex important? Why? Is there an emotional connection with out sex? Is there emotional connections with sex? Is monogamy essential? Is sexual monogamy essential?

Yes, sex is very important. Of course there can be an emotional connection without sex, but I think it becomes deeper and more lasting with sex than without. Sex in and of itself doesn't need to be very emotional, though I doubt anyone would go to bed with someone they didn't at least like on some level. I consider a healthy relationshp (whatever that means these days) to be one where both (or more) partners enjoy having sex with each other, in addition to the emotions tying them together.

With monogamy, again, your mileage may vary. Some (possibly most) peopl are dependent on it, since it's been decided that that's the way things should be. Others are fine with open relationships, and apparently capable of loving more than one person. Sexual monogamy follows the same lines, really. Some prefer having one partner, others are fine with open relationships. It's up to them, really.

Being married doesn't make you blind. Or stop having urges. From my perspective, which isn't to say it would work for you, or is better than your perspective (It's just that-mine.), you need to be secure enough in your relationship to understand it, and the needs your partner may have.
.

Couldn't agree more.

[Liniah]

Being married to someone from another country is really hard (unless you're independtenly wealthy). I'm very frustrated with countries controling my private life. I am happily married and am having trouble living my life because everyone has a say in who can live where, when, etc (and translated documentation to prove it!).

I am a very social person and tend to go out with friends a lot. Veed prefers to hang out at home and play computer most of the time. This works out ok for us.

[Serious Paul]

Being married to someone from another country is really hard (unless you're independently wealthy). I'm very frustrated with countries controlling my private life. I am happily married and am having trouble living my life because everyone has a say in who can live where, when, etc (and translated documentation to prove it!).

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that the paper work is a bitch? (In which case I don't feel much sympathy for you as this is something you agreed to upon taking on this sort of relationship), or that someone in the government (Here or there?) has specifically singled you guys out? (Which would be fucked up.) Or something else entirely that I'm just missing. (I admit to being dense.)

[Ampere]

I think I would be a bit more sympathetic. Nobody really knows what they are getting in to with an international marriage. I mean, yeah, you think you do, but it's usually a bigger ass pain than expected. It's easy to underestimate that, and for that...yeah, I'd be sympathetic.

[Serious Paul]

Nobody really knows what they are getting in to with an international marriage.

Then their idiots for doing it. Marriage isn't something you pick up at the corner store. Like any investment it should be done with a little brain power, and research. Any one who half asses it gets what they deserve.

(Which despite my remark somewhere else does not mean Liniah did that. I have no idea how they came to be married or what sort of steps they took, so I could not possibly comment on how their marriage was entered. In fact I sort of assume she's smart enough to have done some leg work first.)

[Ampere]

Nobody really knows what they are getting in to with an international marriage.

Then their idiots for doing it. Marriage isn't something you pick up at the corner store. Like any investment it should be done with a little brain power, and research. Any one who half asses it gets what they deserve.

(Which despite my remark somewhere else does not mean Liniah did that. I have no idea how they came to be married or what sort of steps they took, so I could not possibly comment on how their marriage was entered. In fact I sort of assume she's smart enough to have done some leg work first.)

Nah. I disagree. Even with legwork, the words on the pages saying what it is like often don't register fully when you are contemplating marriage. You've got to realize, normal humans, the ones not as adept at compartmentalizing their emotions, they have those emotions turned on most the time, and those emotions can cloud perceptions and affect judgement.

It's not idiotic, just human.

[Serious Paul]

Nah. I disagree. Even with legwork, the words on the pages saying what it is like often don't register fully when you are contemplating marriage.

For which I blame our society.We've placed emphasis on all the wrong parts of commitment, marriage and contracts.

It's not idiotic, just human.

Maybe, but facilitating this sort of behavior is what we do, instead of recognizing it (Not like it's the first time it's happened right?) and trying to educate our children. There are no real courses offered in this sort of thing, and I think that's wrong.

[Ampere]

Yeah, Marriage, doesn't seem like a "contract" so much till you want to get out of it.

[Serious Paul]

Yeah, Marriage, doesn't seem like a "contract" so much till you want to get out of it.

I think that's part of our problem these days-we approach things from the wrong vantage. (Mainly a Judeo-Christian vantage when it comes to marriage.)

I think if we backed up off it, and thought about it Marriage could become a much more reasonable thing.

[TLM]

Yeah, Marriage, doesn't seem like a "contract" so much till you want to get out of it.

I think that's part of our problem these days-we approach things from the wrong vantage. (Mainly a Judeo-Christian vantage when it comes to marriage.)

I think if we backed up off it, and thought about it Marriage could become a much more reasonable thing.

What makes you say this? I'm genuinely interested to hear why and how you think marriage is looked at from the wrong vantage.

[Serious Paul]

What makes you say this? I'm genuinely interested to hear why and how you think marriage is looked at from the wrong vantage.

I can only speak from the perspective I know, so forgive me if this isn't science:

As we grow up we learn from our parents and our peers, and more of course, certain types of behaviors. Little girls play with dolls and it's practice for life. Little boys learn their gender roles too. Marriage is all too often no different.

Too many people look at marriage from a stand point that doesn't exist: there is no picket fence, no small house, no until death do us part. Not for everyone. But the problem is our laws, our values have generally been set up around the Judeo-Christian system-which is slowly changing (Faster in some areas than others.)

Marriage, in the traditional sense, isn't for everyone. In fact it's not even for most of us. I think we should approach marriage from the same stand point we approach business of all sorts.

Contracts can be set up to expire, or to have clauses in which the other party is found in breach of contract. Why would we treat marriage any differently? I think that we limit the way contracts can be handled by age, and education and more. It's certainly worth entertaining the thought that we've approached marriage wrong for years.

Look at our divorce rates. Look at how many people list themselves as being unhappy with how their marriage is, and why the got married. Look at all of these things and realize that marriage sanctioned by the government and marriage sanctioned by the church wonder why I think these should be separated.

I think at a base level we should have little involvement on the governments part. The government marriage license should entitle you to a few set benefits, and be governed by a few rules.

If you want to have religious strictures as well, then that's on you. Getting married by the church then becomes your personal business. Abiding by those rules or strictures becomes your worry, and your churches worry. Not the governments worry.

Does any of that make sense?

[3278]

To expand, the idea on which we've settled - after many discussions about marriage - is basically that people should be free to marry or not marry as they see fit: marriage should simply be a religious or social institution, and the government should not be involved at all.

However, there is a place for the benefits the government gives those to whom you are married: medical decision-making powers, automatic bequest of some portion of your estate, shared insurance coverage, and so on. So why not simply allow those benefits to be contracted to anyone? For instance, if two women are best friends, perhaps have lived together non-sexually for many years, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to say to each other, "Hey, you should have the ability to make medical decisions for me," and then sign some papers to make that possible.

And here's the great bit: gay marriage ceases to be an issue. If the government gets out of the marriage business, but allows increased civil contract power, all the benefits [save the social ones, which would not be barred to them] of marriage would be theirs, without sexuality or gender entering the picture at all. You're married in a ceremony which has no force of law: that's the social contract. Then you go write up your civil contract [or choose from some generic legal templates] and you have all the rights and benefits you seek, without the church or churchy government types getting in your way.

[TLM]

Paul: Yes, I think what you're saying makes perfect sense, and overall I agree with you. Marriage wasn't always something you entered into 'for love', after all, although that's certainly played a part. Go back a century or so and marrying someone was very much a question of entering into a business contract of sorts. It was a way of knitting families together and pooling economic resources. Outside the west, that is still one of the most common reasons to get married (witness the customs of arranged marriages through most of the world). And while I don't necessarily think that having your parents pick your partner for you is a good idea at all, given all the shit that it opens for, I certainly believe that such arrangement can be much more lasting as opposed to the romantic notion of marrying 'for love'.

So why not simply allow those benefits to be contracted to anyone? For instance, if two women are best friends, perhaps have lived together non-sexually for many years, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to say to each other, "Hey, you should have the ability to make medical decisions for me," and then sign some papers to make that possible.

There's no good reason why not, really, except to protect the special status that marriage has in most western societies. There are ways, though, to a certain extent, at least here. You can enter a contract for co-habitants, giving you some (though not all) of the benefits from being married. I'm unsure if that applies to friends as opposed to gay couples/lovers, though. I'll see if I can find something on that later.