Thread: Misplaced attraction Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027340
Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on
:
(Warning: awkward personal info ahead.) This is not a particularly theological question, but is informed a lot by how I was raised and the values I hold to now (re sex ethics, which are pretty conservative). I think Shipmates will have some good thoughts on it.
How do people deal with attraction towards The Wrong Person? Or to back the train up further, how important is attraction to you, and how has it changed over the course of your relationship/marriage? What was it that drew you to the person you're with, and what keeps you there (besides a marriage license)?
I'm single & abstinent, and I often find myself pulled in uncomfortable directions over this issue. Sometimes I feel an attraction that is, ahem, very much about raw sexuality (in my heart anyway - actual sex is not involved ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
). Tricky to deal with that if I also feel that her values don't match mine, or that she comes with some other deal-breaker. Or she's simply not interested. Other times it feels more like a "whole person" thing, where I really enjoy their company, and it feels like physical closeness might be a really nice addition to that.
And then there's the ones where I'm not sure on either front that the friendship/interpersonal chemistry is great, or that the attraction is that strong - but it could be, possibly. Sometimes these are the candidates (to put it crudely) who look good on paper. Regarding this last case, I find it really uncomfortable to be dating someone and then run into someone else that I clearly am more drawn to in some way, at least on the surface.
Sometimes it's because I'm self-interested and don't want to end up in a marriage that lacks mind-blowing sex ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
. Or simply good attraction. But I also feel kind of guilty, pursuing one woman and "noticing" features or qualities of another that the one I'm with may lack.
But of course, there is only one most beautiful person in the world, and the rest of us find ourselves with folks who might compete a little with the pull of others. How do you deal with these tensions? What are the factors one should really focus on when deciding who to be with?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Relationships are sort of like a game of blackjack. Every single time you break up with one person looking for somebody better, you run the risk of letting go of the best match you were ever going to have. In other words, every time you don't stay you risk going bust.
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
When you enter into a monogamous relationship with someone, you commit to not having sex with other people. It's ok (in my opinion) and natural to notice other attractive people, and even to entertain thoughts about them. But if you don't act on them, then you have not done anything inappropriate.
Some would say that entertaining the thoughts is not appropriate either. In that case I would quote Martin Luther and something about birds not nesting in your hair.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
So. Hello, and thank you for being painfully honest.
Where the rubber hits the road is this: sex is actually not that important. I know that's going to be a bit disappointing, but the length of time you end up doing for is, even if you and your spouse are sexual athletes, tiny compared with the time you do the washing up.
What you want to find is someone who will at least share the washing up duties with you. Any sex you get after that is a bonus.
If you're young (certainly younger than me), then you'll probably want to ignore this advice, because, you know, hormones. But if you can't imagine them hunched over the sink in a pair of Marigolds, then they're probably not for you.
Even if you only partially remember this advice next time you pick your jaw off the floor, my work here is done...
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
don't want to end up in a marriage that lacks mind-blowing sex
IME (now with the wife for 16 years) great sex is more about humour and less about physique. Which is good, because everyone's body goes to shit, at a surprisingly young age in most cases. Beyond a base-level physical attraction (which has to be there, again IME) then I reckon the upwardly-nubile (thanks IngoB) are on a hiding to nothing. These days I look at someone really pretty, find them pretty, and then imagine the hassle that negotiating the washing-up with someone who knows they are that pretty, would involve. It's a pretty effective driver to monogamy. Alas, it's too late for me to use it as a pretty effective driver to celibacy. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Attraction is great (esp. sexual attraction), but it does tend to die down after a while. In an otherwise happy marriage, it will go through low periods and flares. In an extramarital attraction, it will be a PITA for a few weeks or months, then fade out (thank God, for those who are trying to stay faithful).
Basically treat the physical attraction stuff as nice but extra. You want absolutely to avoid the dealbreakers (for me those are addiction, violence, lack of compatible faith. Yours may be different.) No amount of attraction is going to make up for one of those, even in the short run.
Then you want to look at the ordinary "could I stand this person as a housemate" issues. How are they with money? manners? time and lateness? communication? Are they trustworthy? Are they faithful even when it hurts? Will they hold and care for you when you get shattering news or discover you have a lump in your whatever?
Basically, if you possibly can, imagine yourself as a paid matchmaker considering the case of the two of you. Is this likely to make a good long term pairing according to your professional judgment? If so, the attraction is the icing on the cake. But don't set yourself up for heartbreak in ten years just because you're really strongly attracted now. (PS this is where the insight of close friends who know you both can help)
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
In the seventies some sit-com or other had a jack the lad (quite possibly played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) announcing he was never going to get married because what happened if he emerged from church only to see his dream woman amble past in an extremely short skirt. To which the only possible answer is do grow up.
The thing is sex is all very well and not to be sneezed at but there are plenty of other things that go on in a happy marriage and from time to time the words of the blessed St. Pyx_e of this parish are to be borne in mind: "I'm not getting any because I'm a happily married man. What's your excuse". Speaking as a happily married man there are half a dozen young ladies I could have run off with over the last decade if physical attraction were the only constraint. I haven't because a) I didn't want to alter my status from 'charming friend' to 'lecherous creep' b) if you ever want to see your child again the alimony is simply eye-watering and c) whilst I incline to universalism there may well be a special hell for people who break solemn promises and I ain't taking no chances.
Basically, when you meet Mrs G. and go down on bended knee you will be taking the sort of leap of faith which Blessed Soren Kierkegaard, PBUH, didn't quite have the stones to manage. When you have been married for a decade the sex may be great or it may be non-existent or anything in between but that is hardly the salient indicator as to whether everything is All Right.
To put it crudely, if you really don't fancy her it is deeply unfair of you to tie the knot but, equally crudely, you will find yourself fancying other people from time to time and it would be a bit weird if you found one person, and one person alone, attractive for all of your life time.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Where the rubber hits the road is this: sex is actually not that important. I know that's going to be a bit disappointing, but the length of time you end up doing for is, even if you and your spouse are sexual athletes, tiny compared with the time you do the washing up.
But you can get a machine to do the washing up, you can't get a machine to ...
... oh!
I'll get me coat.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Basically, when you meet Mrs G. and go down on bended knee you
... had better check she's not phrygian.
..I'll get me coat again.
Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on
:
Thank you all for such thoughtfulness.
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
To put it crudely, if you really don't fancy her it is deeply unfair of you to tie the knot but, equally crudely, you will find yourself fancying other people from time to time and it would be a bit weird if you found one person, and one person alone, attractive for all of your life time.
I wonder how *much* fancying is enough to justify a marriage. I feel like the world over features people of "average" attractiveness, and surely not all their partners are being "deeply unfair" by having married them. Or could there be something to that?
Another way to frame my original question, at it's most plaintive and basic, is "what are the right things to look for? And the right reasons to marry her/him? And what are the wrong ones?"
I seem to be really striking out on this issue - and even of letting myself proceed without throwing up a million reasons why "it won't work."
I am especially interested in whether & how much perceptions change from year to year.
**
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Basically, when you meet Mrs G. and go down on bended knee you
... had better check she's not phrygian.
..I'll get me coat again.
No need, no need. Phrygian=TOTAL dealbreaker. (Music joke, sorry. Balaam & I will leave together... Not like that.)
[ 05. May 2014, 00:20: Message edited by: Gmixolydian ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I suspect that most people of "average attractiveness" are considered Deeply Hot by the person who chooses them. Attractiveness is not an objective thingy--it's mostly in the eye of the beholder. And it can vary over time, too--I think my husband is dead sexy, but that wasn't my original opinion!
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect that most people of "average attractiveness" are considered Deeply Hot by the person who chooses them. Attractiveness is not an objective thingy--it's mostly in the eye of the beholder. And it can vary over time, too--I think my husband is dead sexy, but that wasn't my original opinion!
My university put out a booklet with pictures of all the freshmen. I took it to several women and asked them to choose the prettiest women. Then asked some men. No crossover. That's when I learned attractiveness is not an objective standard.
Some people marry an ugly personality because their own lack of self image tells them they don't deserve any better. Amazing how many peopled I know who were abused/belittled wives, or hen-pecked husbands.
If you love her/him, she is attractive to you. Worry about finding a wholesome personality more than hot looks.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect that most people of "average attractiveness" are considered Deeply Hot by the person who chooses them. Attractiveness is not an objective thingy--it's mostly in the eye of the beholder.
Absolutely. I have had plenty of conversations with one of my gay friends which have established that, even though in theory we like some of the same characteristics, in practice it's very frequent for one of us to swoon over someone that has little appeal for the other. And that's just on physical looks, never mind all the important factors of personality and philosophy.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Some people marry an ugly personality because their own lack of self image tells them they don't deserve any better. Amazing how many peopled I know who were abused/belittled wives, or hen-pecked husbands.
That is a generality too far for me. You cannot assume when you see a couple where one is of higher than average beauty/handsomeness, even drop dead gorgeous, and the other is pug-ugly that the former has low self esteem. There are a lot of factors involved here. There is a level where enjoying being together transcends attractiveness.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Belle Ringer was talking about ugly personality - not ugly looks.
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
Another way to frame my original question, at it's most plaintive and basic, is "what are the right things to look for? And the right reasons to marry her/him? And what are the wrong ones?"
Marry a really good friend. All other things change and morph over time, especially if children are in the mix. Friendship endures.
[ 05. May 2014, 06:57: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
I remember taking 90-year-old (but intelligent and lively) aunt out to local brew pub: a little bantering chat with handsome young waiter (this was Canada, where the waitstaff are particularly friendly). Afterwards she remarked ruefully to me - 'Y'know Firenze - it don't ever go away'.
As long as we are sentient, we're likely to experience attraction. Assuming (and it can be a big if) that we have the wherewithal (youth, looks, money, fame) to be a player, what are the considerations? IME, I would say it's the excitement of the old hormonal churn vs the love, affection, mutual dependence and shared history with a partner. I found it was a great relief to realise I didn't have to do anything: that it was a romantic fallacy that an erotic impulse has to be acted on. As soon say feeling hungry justifies smashing the shop window to get at the eclairs.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think it's difficult to generalize about these things. For example, the advice to marry a good friend can prove disastrous, as the need for sex begins to hit home later.
I do think sex is very important in relationships, and I am skeptical about people who say it's not so important. Granted, there are probably people for whom it is not so much.
There is a kind of blend of friendship, sex appeal, common interests - but then generalizations are always wrong. Some people like to have a row every day; some people have sex all the time; and some, once a month. Chacun a son gout - everyone to their own taste. I suppose this means that first, you have to understand your own personality in these regards, no easy matter, especially when young.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
My significant other was my best friend for a long, long time before we were an item.
What I notice is that the people who love this the most are usually older women who have been happily married for twenty-odd years or more. A typical response is my Auntie G, who said, “Oh that’s lovely. You know, grand passions are all very well, but they get a bit tiring in the end. And after that, what you’re left with is your friendship.”
In couples where it looks like a man is much less attractive than the woman he’s with, I usually work on this (not entirely serious) basis: if she looks radiant, fulfilled and happy, assume that he is a really, really nice guy with a beautiful character who loves and cherishes her. If her face betrays a look of sad, disappointed, quiet despair, you may work off the assumption that he is *rich*. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
(Couples of the latter type are particularly to be observed sipping cocktails in the bars of expensive hotels.)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
If you are a romantic person, you might want to skip this post. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think all this is somewhat similar to shopping for a car, or perhaps rather, should be. Now, many people will agree that a Ferrari or an old Bugatti or whatever else strikes your fancy as "super-car" is more desirable than a Ford Fiesta. In a sort of abstract sense, at least for most of us. But even if we could afford to but these, then say a Ferrari is not really the best car for a school run, or if you are a plumber trying to bring his tools to the next job, or if you live in the inner city and need this to fit into small parking spots. Etc.
So if we are seriously thinking about buying a car, we think more like this: 1) What is my budget, what can I actually afford? 2) What do I need the car for, and hence what sort of features should it have? 3) Given 1 and 2, what are the best options out there?
Now, in my opinion much heartbreak in the world is caused by forgetting 1 and 2, and turning 3 into the romantic "What is the best option out there?" only, which then is mostly emotions and hormones. The reason why "arranged marriages" often work better than we would perhaps expect (or concerning our own European history: used to work better), is because 1 and 2 were thought about long and hard. (And where they go horribly wrong, at least some of the time it will be because the marriage was not arranged for the benefit of the couple, but for other reasons...)
By saying this I do not wish to deny the importance of 3. I just want to point out that making it the primary and often only criterion can lead to really bad relationship decisions. If we take a long, hard look at who we are (1), and the think carefully about what we actually want out of a relationship (2), then we will have a much better idea what features in a partner will make things work long-term for us. And with that in mind, we can hopefully find someone who has what it takes and whom we are attracted to romantically (3). In particular, this transforms the search for a partner for a kind of random walk, being bounced around by sexual impulses, into a more systematic look for a match. And while that may not sound as romantic, I think it will serve most of us better.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
The mystery of attraction is just that - a mystery.
I'm worried for you, G, that in taking what might seem like a methodical approach to finding a life-partner (you write of 'on paper') you are cutting yourself off from the possibility of finding your own 'right' person.
I know the idea of shared values sounds great, but sometimes we need to be with someone who challenges us, rather than just acts as mirror and sounding-board.
As for being friends first - yes, that can work, but beware: sometimes trying to turn a very good friend into a lover can be disastrous and you end up not only without the lover but without the friend too.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
Cross post - twice.
--
Or neither of them may be rich. A bit of gender reversal here, LRP and I have been known to sip the odd cocktail in a posh bar, because that is what she likes to do, but not too often because of the cost. The reason I might not be looking happy is that I'd rather be drinking pale ale — it doesn't matter if the bar is a dive as long as the beer is good. Willingness to compromise goes a long way in a relationship.
(I've even come to appreciate what makes a good mojito.)
[ 05. May 2014, 11:21: Message edited by: balaam ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think all this is somewhat similar to shopping for a car, or perhaps rather, should be. Now, many people will agree that a Ferrari or an old Bugatti or whatever else strikes your fancy as "super-car" is more desirable than a Ford Fiesta. In a sort of abstract sense, at least for most of us. But even if we could afford to but these, then say a Ferrari is not really the best car for a school run, or if you are a plumber trying to bring his tools to the next job, or if you live in the inner city and need this to fit into small parking spots. Etc.
Ferrari, old Bugatti or Ford Fiesta - you wouldn't buy any of these without a test drive first.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
But of course, there is only one most beautiful person in the world, and the rest of us find ourselves with folks who might compete a little with the pull of others. How do you deal with these tensions? What are the factors one should really focus on when deciding who to be with?
Frankly, the first statement above is nonsense. There's no absolute standard for physical beauty. People's tastes both differ and change over time. Cultural ideals differ and change over time.
Second, if you're seeking a long-term relationship on the basis of physical appearance, your efforts are pretty much doomed anyway. I don't know how old you are, but you may have noticed that people who survive over long periods age. They also go through periods of poor health, joblessness, ill luck, accident, and so on. All these things can negatively affect appearance -- yours as well as your partner's. Do you plan to ditch a partner the instant she or he develops crow's-feet or a beer gut? Do you expect that partner to abandon you when your hairline starts receding or your chin begins to double?
As to mind-blowing sex, may I suggest that your relative inexperience is showing? The sex which occurs early in a relationship is often enhanced by its novelty -- a feature which is by definition impermanent and unsustainable. Of course, a reasonably inventive and/or adventurous couple may go on stoking those fires for a while. But eventually, other concerns intrude on our lives: career choices, children, civic and religious responsibilities, resolving the conflicts over values and habits that pop up in any long-term relationship; these, too, affect our ability to be inventive (or even to stay awake) for sex, mind-blowing or otherwise.
Attraction is natural. It's not a problem. Attraction becomes a problem only when one starts paying the kinds of attention to it that lead to acting on it, in violation of promises one has made and/or legitimate expectations of the partner one has already chosen.
"No" is an extremely useful and powerful word, and should probably be employed more often than it is, especially in one's internal discussions with oneself.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As to mind-blowing sex, may I suggest that your relative inexperience is showing? The sex which occurs early in a relationship is often enhanced by its novelty -- a feature which is by definition impermanent and unsustainable. Of course, a reasonably inventive and/or adventurous couple may go on stoking those fires for a while. But eventually, other concerns intrude on our lives: career choices, children, civic and religious responsibilities, resolving the conflicts over values and habits that pop up in any long-term relationship; these, too, affect our ability to be inventive (or even to stay awake) for sex, mind-blowing or otherwise.
Attraction is natural. It's not a problem. Attraction becomes a problem only when one starts paying the kinds of attention to it that lead to acting on it, in violation of promises one has made and/or legitimate expectations of the partner one has already chosen.
Without disagreeing with a word of this, sometimes it also gets better over time. For one thing, particularly with inexperienced partners making what makes a particular someone else happy can take time.
Though as we are working on our 9th or 10th year depending on how you count it, I find that our communication is still improving in every aspect of marriage. And really, I think that's beautiful aspect of a long-term relationship. Bullfrog is just as attractive to me as he ever was, but he's a better husband now. Sure there are other beautiful men and women around, but none of them know me the way he does. None of them care about me. None of them have had the children/successes/struggles we've had.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think all this is somewhat similar to shopping for a car, or perhaps rather, should be.
"Well, Ms Ferrari", said the secondhand car salesman, "Is Mr IngoB the sort of owner you want? He wants to know if you are OK for school runs, can you fit in a small space, are you expensive to service? In short will he be getting value for money? He doesn't want second best - though realistically you're just the best he can afford.".
quote:
If we take a long, hard look at who we are ... and the think carefully about what we actually want out of a relationship
How about thinking what you bring to the relationship? People are not second hand cars and it is not being romantic to remember that. Marriage is an open ended commitment, you change, your partner changes (though neither of you manages to correct the other's faults).
My wife and I have been together for over 30 years. We're old enough for people close to us to have died or be terminally ill. We've seen what that does to their partners. We're getting older, sooner or later one of us will be left alone. We both agree, it will be like having your guts torn out with red hot irons every day. And each of us would rather be the one who has to endure that because we can't bear to think of the other having to.
Maybe before it happens they become a drooling, screaming, groaning, biting, kicking, incontinent, demented remnant of the person we love more than all the world. And we will cope with that.
And, it will still have been worth it.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
Another way to frame my original question, at it's most plaintive and basic, is "what are the right things to look for? And the right reasons to marry her/him? And what are the wrong ones?"
Well, when I was in my early 20s I made a list of Desirable Qualities In A Husband. These included such items as 'must like the same kind of music as me' 'must be at least 2 inches taller' 'must be in gainful employment.'
Then I met my husband, who is about half an inch shorter than me and was unemployed at the time. And I tore the list up, because I realised the most important things were (a) must have a great sense of humour and (b) must love books and reading as much as I do. And they weren't on the list at all, because I'd never met anyone else like him and so didn't think of including them.
Your list of most important things might be different, of course. But Doc Tor and Lamb Chopped are on the right lines - physical attraction is the least important ingredient in the mix, although it might not seem like it to you at the moment. Sex is like dancing; you can get better at it with practice.
Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on
:
As hopelessly unromantic as IngoB metaphor was, it dose at least contain a grain of truth. Ford escort or Ferrari or Bugatti, none are any good if you can't drive. Great sex is up to you. If your not any good at it, no use thinking a different partner will be any better.
You know the older I get the more I think their a lot to be said for 'settling' At least it a concious decision made with eyes wide open. Lust has a way of blinding you to faults, the old saying 'in love with a pile of dung and only sees the straw' comes to mind.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's difficult to generalize about these things. For example, the advice to marry a good friend can prove disastrous, as the need for sex begins to hit home later.
I do think sex is very important in relationships, and I am skeptical about people who say it's not so important. Granted, there are probably people for whom it is not so much.
It's not that sex isn't important-- as one married 20+ years, I would agree it is. And yet, as Porrige noted, sex is going to change a lot over the course of a relationship, and the intervening years and effects of pregnancy, child-rearing, even disease or disability. So the advice to "test drive" simply doesn't work, as today's Ferrari will be broken down by the side of the road tomorrow while the Honda is still humming down the highway.
So it's not that sex is irrelevant, it's that the things that will make for great sex down the road and throughout all sorts of unforeseen circumstances are not the things that you look for when you're evaluating a night of passion. Rather, the things that make for great sex down the road are the same things you look for in a good friendship.
You can't know what sorts of physical, circumstantial, or emotional obstacles to your sex life might be waiting down the road. But if your partner is generous, unselfish and caring, and most of all, has a good sense of humor and perspective, you can be fairly confident that your sex life will be able to transcend any unknown obstacles in the future. Especially, if you, too, strive to exemplify those same qualities.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's not that sex isn't important-- as one married 20+ years, I would agree it is. And yet, as Porrige noted, sex is going to change a lot over the course of a relationship, and the intervening years and effects of pregnancy, child-rearing, even disease or disability. So the advice to "test drive" simply doesn't work, as today's Ferrari will be broken down by the side of the road tomorrow while the Honda is still humming down the highway.
When I said 'test drive' I didn't mean just the sex. I meant living with the person for a while. You never really know a person until you live with them.
My son knew some years ago that he wanted to marry his GF, but he didn't pop the question until they had lived together for a year. A wise move imo.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As to mind-blowing sex, may I suggest that your relative inexperience is showing?
I second this suggestion. I've had toe curling, charley horse inducing, mind-erasing* orgasms with people I did not love. People with whom the relationship did not survive despite this. So, forget this criterion.
Whilst I do not care for IngoB's car shopping analogy, there are practical aspects to long-term relationships. Initial attraction, love at first sight and such are rubbish.
Whilst there is no formula for a good relationship. What I have observed in successful relationships is common ground. Not complete, but enough. And one very dirty word: Work. A successful relationship requires work.
* Who am I? Where am I? Oh gods, I don't care!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'd like to suggest that a huge thing you absolutely want and need and want and need and NEED is loyalty; that in itself is enough to override almost everything else. You want a person who will be loyal to the two-of-you, over parents, work, friends, what-have-you. To put it negatively, you want a person who will commit NOT to throw you under the bus when hard times come--and you need to do the same for them.
Having that makes it much, much harder for outside conflicts to split you up. It allows your marriage to become a safe place for both of you. It also means that when hard times come, it isn't just one of you trying to keep things together.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
To the OP: It seems to me that (what you have identified as) your conservative sexual ethics have built up a lot of anxiety and pressure on you about this. I think you'd do well to consider Porridge's and IngoB's posts.
Get rid of the dangerous notion that "there is only one most beautiful person in the world." In the search process, it is both untrue and unproductive. There are probably ten people in your circle of acquaintance to whom you could be perfectly happily married. Should you come to the altar with someone, you will believe that there is only one most beautiful person in the world - but at that point it is a declaration of love.
Choose someone who will feed you pudding when you're old.
Don't ever, ever think that abstinence before marriage becomes license to cheat afterward, which seems to be a potential and unwanted "side effect" of the ethics you've identified. Just because you think God is happy you didn't put your hand in the cookie jar, doesn't give you permission to put your hand in other cookie jars after. If that is a real risk for you, you'd be better off adapting your sexual ethics to become more permissive before marriage rather than committing adultery after. Lesser sin and all that.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Leaf: quote:
Don't ever, ever think that abstinence before marriage becomes license to cheat afterward, which seems to be a potential and unwanted "side effect" of the ethics you've identified. Just because you think God is happy you didn't put your hand in the cookie jar, doesn't give you permission to put your hand in other cookie jars after. If that is a real risk for you, you'd be better off adapting your sexual ethics to become more permissive before marriage rather than committing adultery after. Lesser sin and all that.
Whoa. There are people who actually think like that? It's bad to fornicate before marriage but okay to be adulterous after marriage? Do they wear out their virtue muscles with all that premarital chastity, and later let all that rectitude go to pot from moral exhaustion? Sheesh. At that point they'd be badly disappointing both God and their spouses.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Choose someone who will feed you pudding when you're old.
Problem is, how do you know that they will? I would consider that more an outcome of a long and successful relationship, than a quality readily apparent at the beginning of the relationship.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Whoa. There are people who actually think like that? It's bad to fornicate before marriage but okay to be adulterous after marriage? Do they wear out their virtue muscles with all that premarital chastity, and later let all that rectitude go to pot from moral exhaustion? Sheesh. At that point they'd be badly disappointing both God and their spouses.
I will be the first to say that this is both observed and anecdotal on my part, so anyone with studies/data is welcome to show up. But yes, this is A Thing. Weird, isn't it? It's not that they would say it's outright "okay" to be adulterous after marriage - just a kind of immature defensiveness. Surely, having been so righteous before marriage, God's gonna cut 'em a little slack afterward.
I think it is far more damaging behaviour, but obviously Measures Vary.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Choose someone who will feed you pudding when you're old.
Problem is, how do you know that they will? I would consider that more an outcome of a long and successful relationship, than a quality readily apparent at the beginning of the relationship.
Obviously you don't know for certain, but ISTM there are indicators to check. And it's possible that this is both a pre-existing quality and a potential outcome.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
My university put out a booklet with pictures of all the freshmen. I took it to several women and asked them to choose the prettiest women. Then asked some men. No crossover. That's when I learned attractiveness is not an objective standard.
Hmm... I think there are a few studies to show a fair degree of inter-subjective agreement on attractiveness... Admittedly, I think most of them also show that "I think s/he's attractive but s/he's not my type" is a fairly common response...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Choose someone who will feed you pudding when you're old.
Problem is, how do you know that they will? I would consider that more an outcome of a long and successful relationship, than a quality readily apparent at the beginning of the relationship.
Obviously you don't know for certain, but ISTM there are indicators to check. And it's possible that this is both a pre-existing quality and a potential outcome.
Yes. A lot of the things that have been said already-- looking for things like loyalty, generosity (in the widest sense of the term), unselfishness. Someone who thinks a relationship is a transaction-- where I give you something to get something in return-- is probably not going to stick around to feed you puddin' when you've lost the ability to give him/her much of anything in return.
And fwiw, in my experience, those exact same qualities are the ones more apt to lead to satisfying sexual relationship over time, rather than who is currently the most alluring/ knowledgable/ gymnastic whatever.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Whoa. There are people who actually think like that? It's bad to fornicate before marriage but okay to be adulterous after marriage? Do they wear out their virtue muscles with all that premarital chastity, and later let all that rectitude go to pot from moral exhaustion? Sheesh. At that point they'd be badly disappointing both God and their spouses.
I will be the first to say that this is both observed and anecdotal on my part, so anyone with studies/data is welcome to show up. But yes, this is A Thing. Weird, isn't it? It's not that they would say it's outright "okay" to be adulterous after marriage - just a kind of immature defensiveness. Surely, having been so righteous before marriage, God's gonna cut 'em a little slack afterward.
I think it is far more damaging behaviour, but obviously Measures Vary.
To the degree it is a Thing, it might be related precisely to the notions we have talked about here-- the idea, first of all, that there is a (*breathless sigh*) "one-and-only" that you have to find to the exclusion of all the other contenders. The various ways that we're all twisted and broken when it comes to sexuality, and the way the Church aggravates that by raising the expectation that marital sex unsullied by any premarital dalliances is the be-all and end-all of ecstatic experiences-- but you gotta "earn" it by waiting for it. Which, finally, is related to the subversive influence of consumerism-- that God exists to make me happy, and that when I obey/serve him ("being a good boy/girl before marriage) he'll reward me in some tangible immediate way (mind-blowing honeymoon sex).
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
One indicator is the way they treat other people in their lives already--parents, dependent siblings, grandparents, other relatives, etc. If your candidate is willing to go visit Great-grandma with you as my Mr. L was, even though it means three hours drive and listening to her complain nonstop about her roommate with Evil Designs™, why then you've caught yourself a keeper.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
After 30+ years of living together, both intimately and in everyday mundane ways, I would say that the majority of people will find it quite difficult to walk away just because the other is starting to fall apart a bit earlier. By then, the relationship is not all that different from the ones one has to parents, siblings or children. It has stopped being an "option" and instead is part of what defines who one is. Of course, things can get so tough (say with Alzheimer's Disease) that one cannot handle dealing with the crumbling other. But I would expect that for most people this will be an immensely painful failure, feeling like a betrayal of this massive chunk of togetherness. It's not a "hey, I'm not getting enough out of this now, let's move on" sort of thing any longer.
To be honest, I think it is more important to worry about what will keep the relationship going after about 6-10 years. That's where I think crunch time often happens, when the last bits of novelty have worn off and things can become a grind. If you survive out into the 30+ years range, I'm pretty confident that you can get pudding fed to you, if necessary...
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
But yes, this is A Thing. Weird, isn't it? It's not that they would say it's outright "okay" to be adulterous after marriage - just a kind of immature defensiveness.
Sounds like a virginity cult thing. If the thing that you value is the preservation of the precious cherry, rather than chastity, then once you've lost it, there's less of a disincentive to misbehave.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I'm sure we discussed this on the last marriage and divorce thread, but late divorce after 30 or 40 years of marriage happens - online story about grey divorce. Some is a remarriage breaking down early, but some is couples who have been married for a number of years, not able to face retirement together.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
A quick google later, I found my guess quantified here, see in particular the 2nd figure. Time of greatest danger to the marriage is actually 4 to 8 years in, not 6 to 10 years as I had it, but two years off was a decent guesstimate... At 30+ years, the marriage is over six times less likely to break than at the peak time. That doesn't mean that no divorces happen then, but it will be a lot fewer, relatively speaking. (Note that there's no bias here from the reducing number of marriages overall, the second figure shows a relative plot: what percentage of marriages around now will be divorced next year.)
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A quick google later, I found my guess quantified here
... and nicknamed here.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
If that is a real risk for you, you'd be better off adapting your sexual ethics to become more permissive before marriage rather than committing adultery after. Lesser sin and all that.
Sexual permissiveness, if that doesn't square with the OP's ethics, need not enter into this. I'm put in mind of the old US custom of "bundling," where the swain, having traveled so far to court his lady love he couldn't get back safely to his own home in the dark, would be sent off to bed with the young lady. Each would be wrapped securely (bundled) in his/her own set of bedding (and it would be far too cold to risk unwrapping -- this was back in the days of finding the water in your wash basin frozen solid in the morning).
The courting couple would often lie awake talking for hours, chaste as may be, getting to know each other in dark-and-proximity-induced intimacy. Of course, you'd also find out what it might be like to share a bed with someone who snored or farted. Let's hope the family didn't serve baked beans at the preceding supper . . .
Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
But of course, there is only one most beautiful person in the world, and the rest of us find ourselves with folks who might compete a little with the pull of others. How do you deal with these tensions? What are the factors one should really focus on when deciding who to be with?
Frankly, the first statement above is nonsense. There's no absolute standard for physical beauty. People's tastes both differ and change over time. Cultural ideals differ and change over time.
Actually, I agree with you, except for the first bit - it would be silly to try to find the "most attractive human" by anyone's standards, or to expect them to retain that title over time (in my eyes or in some objective sense, which I agree does not exist). I was using that expression to say that there is always a chance that you meet someone who contends, even strongly, with your attraction to your partner, or has some asset that they lack. Which brings me to the next point...[/QB][/QUOTE]
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Second, if you're seeking a long-term relationship on the basis of physical appearance, your efforts are pretty much doomed anyway. I don't know how old you are, but you may have noticed that people who survive over long periods age. They also go through periods of poor health, joblessness, ill luck, accident, and so on. All these things can negatively affect appearance -- yours as well as your partner's. Do you plan to ditch a partner the instant she or he develops crow's-feet or a beer gut? Do you expect that partner to abandon you when your hairline starts receding or your chin begins to double?
Wow. Well, I'm not making these decisions based on appearance or attraction alone - the last line of mine that you quoted is me trying to find the right criteria, and be responsible despite aforesaid errant attraction, or the possibility of it. The aspiration here is not "opportunistic groom who uses women for pleasure for as long as they serve him." I think "misplaced attraction" is something everyone must struggle with at some point, except for those who may be lucky enough to really stay enamoured for all their decades of marriage - if those people exist.
Regardless, I think yours is a worthy reminder: that crazy & tragic things can happen - and how will you and the partner respond if they do? Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
As to mind-blowing sex, may I suggest that your relative inexperience is showing?
You may. But there was some humour in that. Maybe I should have spoken more plainly. No, I obviously don't think sex stays at a given level all the time.
...But I like the point others have made that it *can* improve on the basis of intimacy, friendship, loyalty.
IngoB's methodology has good points IMO, even if "unromantic." "Romance" just might be one of the chief causes of our many lonely, eligible singles.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
There are probably ten people in your circle of acquaintance to whom you could be perfectly happily married.
I think I agree with that. Somewhat theoretically, in my case, but I get your point.
quote:
Should you come to the altar with someone, you will believe that there is only one most beautiful person in the world - but at that point it is a declaration of love.
Wait, what?
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Don't ever, ever think that abstinence before marriage becomes license to cheat afterward, which seems to be a potential and unwanted "side effect" of the ethics you've identified.
That's just bizarre. People do crazy things, I guess. And mayyybe I'm better off not assuming "I could never do that", which is my temptation. But if I doubt I could violate my conscience even enough to fornicate right now (besides in my heart & so on), it's really hard to see how adultery could become a thing...
Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm put in mind of the old US custom of "bundling," where the swain, having traveled so far to court his lady love he couldn't get back safely to his own home in the dark, would be sent off to bed with the young lady. [...]
The courting couple would often lie awake talking for hours, chaste as may be, getting to know each other in dark-and-proximity-induced intimacy. [/QB]
Sounds rather pleasant. Farting, though=call off the wedding.
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Should you come to the altar with someone, you will believe that there is only one most beautiful person in the world - but at that point it is a declaration of love.
Wait, what?
In my effort to be succinct, I may have expressed myself inadequately. I meant that in the search phase, you ought to consider that there are potentially several perfect partners for you. But in the commitment phase, when you are making vows, you ought to believe that the person to whom you are committing is the one perfect person for you.
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
That's just bizarre. People do crazy things, I guess. And mayyybe I'm better off not assuming "I could never do that", which is my temptation. But if I doubt I could violate my conscience even enough to fornicate right now (besides in my heart & so on), it's really hard to see how adultery could become a thing...
That is good to hear. I hope you don't mind my raising that consideration. ISTM that everyone's sexual ethics, wherever they fall on a permissive/restrictive spectrum, come with their own set of risks.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
... the old US custom of "bundling," where the swain would be sent off to bed with the young lady. Each would be wrapped securely (bundled) in his/her own set of bedding (and it would be far too cold to risk unwrapping...)
Yeah, that's what they told you.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
Speaking for myself...
I didn't find my husband attractive when I first met him. BUT, he fulfilled all the characteristics I tend to like in guys I find attractive. That is - he's blond, lanky, about six feet tall, and has a nice back.
So, the more I fell for him, the more attractive I found him - and because he was already on my attractiveness "spectrum" as far as his basic looks went, I was already in a position to end up finding him UTTERLY SEXY.
If you're wanting to find someone based on their character, but still concerned about the attraction side of things, my advice would be to figure out what sort of things you tend to find attractive, and find something with a couple of those characteristics, so that your sex drive has something to start with.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
If you marry a human, they will fart.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I was gonna say, in those days, if the average courtship age was around 16, the reaction to bundling farts would most likely be uncontrollable giggling.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Speaking for myself...
I didn't find my husband attractive when I first met him. BUT, he fulfilled all the characteristics I tend to like in guys I find attractive. That is - he's blond, lanky, about six feet tall, and has a nice back.
So, the more I fell for him, the more attractive I found him - and because he was already on my attractiveness "spectrum" as far as his basic looks went, I was already in a position to end up finding him UTTERLY SEXY.
If you're wanting to find someone based on their character, but still concerned about the attraction side of things, my advice would be to figure out what sort of things you tend to find attractive, and find something with a couple of those characteristics, so that your sex drive has something to start with.
At the risk of being merely a data point, my preferred 'type' was (and probably still is) north-west European Celtic - small, dark-haired, pale skin. I married someone who fits cleanly into Scandinavian/Saxon ancestry.
Sorry, but all bets are off. Don't discount anyone because the outer wrapping isn't immediately exciting to you.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
Choose someone who will feed you pudding when you're old.
Problem is, how do you know that they will?
You don't. It's a risk, just like the rest of life. If you get dementia you won't have a clue who is feeding you pudding anyway.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Write down a list of characteristics you like in people, then tear it up, stamp on it, or burn it, if you prefer. It is completely useless.
As others have said, the great thing about life is that it continually frustrates your expectations. You like blond six-footers - then watch out for that dark five footer in the office.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Write down a list of characteristics you like in people, then tear it up, stamp on it, or burn it, if you prefer. It is completely useless. As others have said, the great thing about life is that it continually frustrates your expectations. You like blond six-footers - then watch out for that dark five footer in the office.
It is interesting to note how people will claim both that one's physical attractions are semi-random and that one should be seeking for certain non-physical features in a partner (generosity, humour, etc.). But of course there is no good reason to assume that one is more consistent than the other, and in truth neither are our physical attractions so terribly random, nor are our non-physical attractions so terribly systematic. Indeed, people are a "package deal", and we are both systematic and random concerning that "package" primarily. If someone suddenly goes against their usual preference in say the physical domain, look for them getting their boxes ticked in the non-physical domain, and vice versa.
Furthermore, I think the majority of noise in partner choices has to do with the simple fact that they are not really partner choices! There is a lot more talk about who is attractive or not than actual relationships forming. While things are basically theoretical ("if I had a free choice of partners, whom would I like best"), we might get highly specialised answers ("I would like a tall blonde woman who is a good dancer and plays pool"). But these are to a large extent just phantasms of the imagination that are stable only because we like them to be. When it is getting real, when people really start to look for a partner and when the actual possibilities are being evaluated, we might see other, more basic, criteria come through ("I would like a woman who reacts well to me when I am with my friends"). Indeed, the most common criterion as far as sex is concerned, from the male side at least, is something like "I really would like to have a woman whose idea of sex is to have lots of sex with me." Just because lots of jokes get made about that doesn't meant that it is false...
So what I'm trying to say here is that there is a big difference between imagined or imaginary searching for a partner, and the actual search when someone is "ready" to get hitched. And much of the volatility we see in partner choices has to do with the former, not the latter. In our current permissive climate, the usual "screwing around" until you are in your 30s can be quite dramatic simply because it is a mix of both. That is to say, while people are not really expecting to settle down just yet, the imagination with its specificity and randomness still plays a much bigger role in driving the transient relationships.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
St Deird: quote:
I didn't find my husband attractive when I first met him.
Hah, that was me, as well. I didn't find him physically attractive until after I fell in love with him. After that... wow.
27 years since I first met him, he still stands alone.
I finally worked out that I am not attracted to appearance much - it's men with sexy voices that I find irresistible. And Other Half could sell chocolate to supermodels.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
What are the factors one should really focus on when deciding who to be with?
I'm into my 16th year of marriage and I would answer this by paraphrasing Julian Fellowes who wrote in one of his novels that the essential qualities to look for in a spouse are politeness and kindness, because it is rudeness and cruelty that make life unbearable.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
My cousin, on becoming a father, riffed this on the theme of advice that he would some day give to his son:
My son will ask me, 'But Father - how do I know if she is The One?' And I shall say to him, 'My son, when you take her out to dinner, observe how she treats the waiting staff. If she treats them with disdain, she will some day treat you likewise. But if she is kind and generous and respectful to those who wait on tables, then do not let her go.'
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If you marry a human, they will fart.
Immediate cause and effect?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If you marry a human, they will fart.
Immediate cause and effect?
I am a little incontinent of flatus after having recovered from two third-degree perineal lacerations. But then, to be fair, having never been the kind of person to put a lot of effort into holding it in, I'm not about to start using the small amount of pelvic floor muscle I have left on such an unrewarding practice.
But since marriage led to child-birth and child-birth led to loss of muscle tissue, then yes: cause and effect.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
I'd just like to say that I'm in a fairly new relationship and this thread has been absolutely fascinating reading. All your views about what to look for in a partner have been very interesting and helpful to me. Thanks to everyone who's contributed.
Posted by Gmixolydian (# 2653) on
:
Yes, thanks for all the thoughtful responses, folks. (Don't let up if you have more.)
Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If you get dementia you won't have a clue who is feeding you pudding anyway.
With health care cutbacks, the only person who may feed you may be your Significant Other, so choose wisely.
<tangent> I used "pudding" in the North American sense, meaning "custard." /<tangent>
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
What you want to do is know the danger signs of things like personality disorders, and run the hell away screaming when you see them. In a pinch, how this person treats waiters, their parents, their siblings, other drivers in traffic, is a fairly sine-qua-non level gauge of their personality. If they pass this test, and you truly enjoy each other's company, you can figure out how to do the mindblowing sex thing together, if that's important to both of you. And of course there will subsequently be times when it's important to one and not the other, then it will go the other way. That's the way of these things.
As for looks, I met my wife online, and had no idea what she looked like until we met at the airport. She had my photo so she could recognize me, but the idea was that if she thought I looked creepy, or got bad vibes, she could just walk on past. She didn't walk on past, and we've been delighted with that fact for the 18 years since. Ah, love.
[ETA: re-reading that, I fear it may perhaps be taken to mean I think my wife is ugly. I don't, and I wish you wouldn't read it that way.]
[ 07. May 2014, 03:38: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
And always take to heart the advice of Martin Tupper -
When thou choosest a wife, think not only of thyself.
But of those God may give thee of her, that they reproach thee not for their being ;
See that he hath given her health, lest thou lose her early and weep ;
See that she springeth of a wholesome stock, that thy little ones perish not before thee :
For many a fair skin hath covered a mining disease.
And many a laughing cheek been bright with the glare of madness.
Or, as we would say today, the full battery of medical tests, psychological evaluation and genetic analysis. Preferably before the second date.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The old joke was to look at somebody's mother, and there you have your wife in 40 years time. I don't know whether this really works or not. Probably, often it works the other way, I mean horrible mother-in-law, lovely wife.
Also, I wonder if it works with men. Dunno.
The advice about waiters and so on is very good. I remember a girl-friend I had who treated waiters with icy disdain, and sure enough, one bright sunny morning, she treated me the same. Phew, I got away in the nick of time.
[ 07. May 2014, 07:49: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The old joke was to look at somebody's mother, and there you have your wife in 40 years time. I don't know whether this really works or not. Probably, often it works the other way, I mean horrible mother-in-law, lovely wife.
I would agree that character need not follow the family line*. However, appearance (terrifyingly) often does. My sister is now very like my mother was at the age my sister is now. When my father died I was clearing out the house, and found a drawer with four passports. The oldest was from when my father was the age I was at the time. I saw myself looking out from it. So, then I knew what I would look like in 10, 20 and 30 years time...
*Although Lady Bracknell disagrees:
quote:
All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Great Bracknell line, but incorrect. I know men who are very like their mother, and women like their father.
Yes, the appearance thing is eerie.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The old joke was to look at somebody's mother, and there you have your wife in 40 years time. I don't know whether this really works or not. Probably, often it works the other way, I mean horrible mother-in-law, lovely wife.
Also, I wonder if it works with men. Dunno.
Physical traits are a funny thing, and IME, do not follow gender lines as much as people think. Observational bias.
Anyhoo, if one is obsessed with how one's partner will look in 40 years time, one isn't ready for long term relationship.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
*Although Lady Bracknell disagrees:
All women become like their mothers. That is their tragedy. No man does, and that is his.
[tangent]Actually that's Algernon.[/tangent]
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on
:
My husband and I (of 25 years) are of different races/ethnicities and our daughter looks exactly like him and has his personality traits and temperament , while our son looks like me and has mine.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The old joke was to look at somebody's mother, and there you have your wife in 40 years time. I don't know whether this really works or not. Probably, often it works the other way, I mean horrible mother-in-law, lovely wife.
Also, I wonder if it works with men. Dunno.
Physical traits are a funny thing, and IME, do not follow gender lines as much as people think. Observational bias.
Anyhoo, if one is obsessed with how one's partner will look in 40 years time, one isn't ready for long term relationship.
Well, the original joke wasn't just about appearance, but behaviour. If your mother-in-law is an old battle-axe, your missus will be. I suppose if your father-in-law is an enfeebled poltroon, ditto hubby. Oh what fun.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0