Ask men why they do things the way they do and maybe you'll get an honest answer

meaning that you either don't believe the relationship will last, don't trust your partner not to fuck you over on purpose, or both
Ngl I disagree, I think it's less that you already believe these things about your relationship and moreso that you're worried about the possibility, small as it may be.

It's like handing your partner a loaded gun pointing directly at your head that they could fire at any time for any reason. You could love and trust this person more than anyone else in the world, but the fact that they have the power to destroy you on a whim and there's a 95% chance you could do nothing to stop them is a terrifying idea to grapple with.

No matter how close you are to a person there's always a chance that they aren't who you thought they were and putting 100% trust into another person is a big ask in a world where over 40% of first marriages fail.

I wish people would commit more but I do get it.
 
Ngl I disagree, I think it's less that you already believe these things about your relationship and moreso that you're worried about the possibility, small as it may be.

It's like handing your partner a loaded gun pointing directly at your head that they could fire at any time for any reason. You could love and trust this person more than anyone else in the world, but the fact that they have the power to destroy you on a whim and there's a 95% chance you could do nothing to stop them is a terrifying idea to grapple with.

No matter how close you are to a person there's always a chance that they aren't who you thought they were and putting 100% trust into another person is a big ask in a world where over 40% of first marriages fail.

I wish people would commit more but I do get it.
If you're unable to bring yourself to trust for whatever reason (even though, assuming your statistic is correct, you have a better chance of succeeding than not AND you're presumably not one of those types who get married on a whim instead of after careful evaluation) and equate (maybe) losing property in a failed marriage to a gun to your head, so be it. Please make sure she knows, in no uncertain terms, that your relationship will not go anywhere - and, for the love of God, do not start a family. If it's not worth fucking up your finances, it absolutely isn't worth fucking up your kids (which, by the way, was the broader context - impregnating people out of wedlock).
 
If you're unable to bring yourself to trust for whatever reason (even though, assuming your statistic is correct, you have a better chance of succeeding than not AND you're presumably not one of those types who get married on a whim instead of after careful evaluation) and equate (maybe) losing property in a failed marriage to a gun to your head, so be it. Please make sure she knows, in no uncertain terms, that your relationship will not go anywhere - and, for the love of God, do not start a family. If it's not worth fucking up your finances, it absolutely isn't worth fucking up your kids (which, by the way, was the broader context - impregnating people out of wedlock).
Mkay, well whenever they invent the De-Homofication pill I'll be sure to remember that.

I'm just saying that's the perspective on it I've heard from other people. The trust isn't already broken, there's just more risk and less reward associated with it now so people are more hesitant.
 
Mkay, well whenever they invent the De-Homofication pill I'll be sure to remember that.

I'm just saying that's the perspective on it I've heard from other people. The trust isn't already broken, there's just more risk and less reward associated with it now so people are more hesitant.
To clarify, the 'you' was intended as a general you, not you specifically. Such is the folly of English (:_(

That being said, how is that actually different from the idea of lacking trust? Whether you actively don't trust her or don't trust her not to change, either is a form of distrust, regardless of its origin.
 
To clarify, the 'you' was intended as a general you, not you specifically. Such is the folly of English (:_(

That being said, how is that actually different from the idea of lacking trust? Whether you actively don't trust her or don't trust her not to change, either is a form of distrust, regardless of its origin.
I mean active distrust and passive distrust are very different things. One is specific to the relationship at hand and the other is just general wariness and isn't actually based on what's affecting you personally.

Thankfully the latter is (theoretically) much more easy to solve, just be in a good relationship until the paranoia gets beaten out of your little brain and you stop worrying about abstract worst case future scenarios and think about the now.

(This is all assuming that it's one of the people that genuinely want the relationship to work but is reasonably skiddish and not just a dickhead that wants to avoid responsibility or commitment ofc. :punished:)
 
I mean active distrust and passive distrust are very different things. One is specific to the relationship at hand and the other is just general wariness and isn't actually based on what's affecting you personally.

Thankfully the latter is (theoretically) much more easy to solve, just be in a good relationship until the paranoia gets beaten out of your little brain and you stop worrying about abstract worst case future scenarios and think about the now.

(This is all assuming that it's one of the people that genuinely want the relationship to work but is reasonably skiddish and not just a dickhead that wants to avoid responsibility or commitment ofc. :punished:)
All of life is a gamble, to a degree. You can live, or you can hide away - where your future is guaranteed and wholly under your own control, sure. You can also carefully and smartly evaluate a prospective mate, love them wholly, give your all, and still wind up in a bad situation. It happens. That's why marrying is a big deal - because there is a risk to it. But you're pledging to proceed in good faith and with good intentions. It's the embodiment of a leap of faith. And sometimes it doesn't go well.

But if you're a doom-seer or a doom-seeker, you're not ready to marry, or even to date.

And no, it's not about thinking about "the now" (rookie mistake); it's about treasuring and valuing the now and recreating that everyday by working together to build a future.

If somehow it makes you feel better, women lose as much as men in divorces - usually more, when you weigh things appropriately. Divorce sucks, and it is expensive - for everyone. Sure, it's a risk. So all the more reason to think carefully and then commit with your whole heart. You can improve your chances that way. So sure, maybe you will still lose. But also maybe you have a lifetime of love, companionship, mutual support, and strong union.
 
If somehow it makes you feel better, women lose as much as men in divorces
It does not.
laying-down.gif
 
But if you're a doom-seer or a doom-seeker, you're not ready to marry, or even to date.
Thing is, dudes will read this and think themselves 20 dates and 20 years away from their first serious relationship, while your average confident dateoid femanoid tittyswinginaloid will use relationships to learn what works and what doesn't. Like reading up how to do something versus just trial and error going on 5 years. I just had my first real office job and I thought I knew the lingo and the mindgames but I didn't, but hey, now I've got that experience despite 9 months of misery, and that's how dating is - and why those who may have 2 relationships in their entire life feel behind and unloveable. But hey, if you find a good partner, it don't matter you're a virgin. You're adults who communicate and soon you know how to make her toes curl and it doesn't matter whether that apply to other people or not, cause it hopefully shouldn't have to.
If somehow it makes you feel better, women lose as much as men in divorces - usually more, when you weigh things appropriately.
The prospects and potential of hubby's future promotions. :(
 
The prospects and potential of hubby's future promotions. :(
No. The loss of assets built when you are the equal or higher earner, plus the loss of tenure and perception and promotion prospects because of having been pregnant and being known as a mother, and the post-divorce impact of supposedly 50-50 that manifests as 80-20 at best. Extra bonus if you paid off your spouse's debt from before marriage before your own because you thought it was in the best interests of you as a couple/ unit.
 
after those initial inordinately horny young years, your average woman really only gets sexually needy once a month, right around ovulation.
This simply isn’t true.
People enjoy good sex. If you’re married to someone and they don’t want to have sex, it’s because they’re not enjoying the sex. If they wanted to and there was an issue they’d work to solve the issue and tell the guy what it was.
Women enjoy sex as well, but they don’t enjoy crap sex. I think men probably enjoy sex regardless, I don’t know, I’m not a man, but if a woman doesn’t want to sleep with you, sleeping with you is not enjoyable,
If a woman keeps her schedule busy 27 out of 28 days of her cycle, it's the man's fault for not doing enough to blow her mind on the one day she gives him to inspire her to change her habits,
It means she doesn’t want to have sex with him. ‘Why’Good sex is enjoyable. Bad sex isn’t. Everyone enjoys enjoyable things. If she’s refusing like that the sex is bad. Either she’s struggling with a medical issue, or she doesn’t enjoy sleeping with him. So yeah, maybe it’s her. Or maybe that’s all she can bear and maybe it’s him. You don’t know unless you’re in that situation I suppose. But the idea that women are never horny just isn’t true.
Why would you even enjoy making someone who didn’t want it sleep with you? Surely the approach is ‘what’s wrong? Why don’t you want to, let’s fix that’ not sulking until he gets laid. The latter will see her see it as a chore at first and gradually, something extremely unpleasant and invasive and that really is divorce territory. Sex should be good for both of you. It doesn’t have to be some mind blowing performance every time but it needs to be enjoyable.
Pretty much everyone loses out on divorces, unless you’re a childless gold digger with a billionaire centarian husband with a dodgy ticker.
 
Every man reading that paragraph just heard the following in their head:

YOU SHOULD JUST KNOW!
ANYWAY I'M FINE.

Doesn't just apply to sex of course.
Well that’s not on either. You can’t expect anyone to read your mind. But sex should be enjoyable and if someone you’re married to doesn’t ever want to have sex with you, they aren’t finding it even bearable/tolerable, never mind enjoyable.
Housework should be fine at ‘vaguely clean and hygienic’ levels, nobody wants to live in a pit and white glove standards aren’t reasonable either.
Why is nobody just reasonable?
 
Housework should be fine at ‘vaguely clean and hygienic’ levels, nobody wants to live in a pit and white glove standards aren’t reasonable either.
Why is nobody just reasonable?
Yeah ok, what if the ants infesting my house are my friends? I don't want to get rid of them, much less kill them, but you are making me choose between them and you, I want to sustain them, I feel paternal to them, and also after a certain point ants help you clean because they eat the stuff I drop on the floor, it's symbiotic.
 
I think men probably enjoy sex regardless, I don’t know, I’m not a man, but if a woman doesn’t want to sleep with you, sleeping with you is not enjoyable
Nah. Some women are horrible at sex. They barely participate, and in that case, I would genuinely be having more fun with my right hand; because in that case she's really nothing but a very cumbersome fleshlight anyway.

It's about timing more than anything. Sometimes I really would rather just be playing Dark Souls, than fucking. Sometimes, believe it or not, I would rather be sitting and cuddling and talking about nothing, than having sex. Sex isn't the be all end all of the world. When it's the right time and moment for it? Of course, there's nothing else like it. But it has to be that time, and it's not a reflection of my attraction to a person if I am not in that mood at that specific time.

So sure, a permanently sexless relationship sucks, and that's a sign to end shit, but that's a very different thing to simply not getting it every time you want it. I'd say any truly sexless marriage, it's far more an issue of resentment than mere lack of attraction.

The thing is, I think, for most adults over the age of like 25-30, who have had more sexual partners than they can count on one hand, the novelty wears off. It's just sex. That's something that internet losers who are perpetually starved don't get, because sex is for them forever this mystical transcendent kind of nivana.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole