wrote me a letter

[Joe Guy]

[rubato]

Good lord, that is a deeply personal question Rube.

Let's just say that I'm allergic to marriage, and leave it at that.

So were they, but really, if you are as committed as you appear to be there are practical matters which make marriage the only reasonable choice. As a lawyer I'm sure you are aware of these things. Besides, it's great fun to stand up in front of god and everybody and say "This is the person I love, now and forever." And all your friends and family get a great party which ends when YOU scoot off for a nice little romantic vacation while they clean up!

It's a win-win.



yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

It's never a win-win.



Mrs rubato

[BoSoxGal]

rubato, it is really a bit beyond the pale to comment on an adult woman's relationship choices and after being politely rebuffed, to double down on judgment and assertion of your opinion of what she should do.

For a guy who claims to be a feminist who wholeheartedly supports a woman's right to complete autonomy in her person, it's damned hypocritical.

Millions of people engage in long term loving committed relationships without ever feeling a desire or need to get married. She's shared as much as she wants to, now quit being a busy body and leave it be. It's insulting to suggest she hasn't the intellect to have thought out all the advantages and disadvantages in making her own choice.

[dales]

rubato, it is really a bit beyond the pale to comment on an adult woman's relationship choices and after being politely rebuffed, to double down on judgment and assertion of your opinion of what she should do.

That's rube's stock-in-trade, to double down when he's been shown to be wrong.

And then have the stupefying audacity to wonder why he's being rebuffed.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell come to mind.

[Guinevere]

I think y'all should just keep your collective noses and opinions out of my private life. I'm all good, thanks for the concern. Merci bien.

[Lord Jim]

It's never a win-win.



Mrs rubato

[rubato]

I asked a civil question which she could choose to answer or not. We can learn by the thoughts and choices of each other when we care to.


All else is you ejaculating hatred.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

And then have the stupefying audacity to wonder why he's being rebuffed.

[BoSoxGal]

I asked a civil question which she could choose to answer or not. We can learn by the thoughts and choices of each other when we care to.


All else is you ejaculating hatred.


yrs,
rubato

You asked, she declined to answer, you persisted in belaboring the point.

There was nothing hateful in my post to you; I merely pointed out the hypocrisy.

As tiresome as you can be, I generally avoid being a dick to you because there are plenty of others here who fill that role with tedious consistency.

[Guinevere]

We're a trend. A Euro trend, anyway!

http://www.nextavenue.org/older-adults- ... t-together

Since 1990, the divorce rate among adults 50 years and older has doubled. This trend, along with longer life expectancy, has resulted in many adults forming new partnerships later in life. A new phenomenon called “Living Apart Together” (LAT) — an intimate relationship without a shared residence — is gaining popularity as an alternative form of commitment among both older and younger adults.

Researchers at the University of Missouri say that while the trend is well understood in Europe, it is lesser known in the U.S. This means that challenges, such as how these partners can engage in family caregiving or decision-making, could affect family needs.

“What has long been understood about late-in-life relationships is largely based on long-term marriage,” said Jacquelyn Benson, assistant professor in the College of Human Environmental Sciences.

“There are now more divorced and widowed adults who are interested in forging new intimate relationships outside the confines of marriage. Recent research demonstrates that there are other ways of establishing long-lasting, high-quality relationships without committing to marriage or living together,” she says. “However, U.S. society has yet to recognize LAT as a legitimate choice. If more people — young and old, married or not — saw LAT as an option, it might save them from a lot of future heartache.”

Free your mind from conventional thought!

[oldr_n_wsr]

My dad was in one of those (mom died in 1998). Nice lady and she was good for him. They went out dancing together a lot.
But dads heart is still with mom.

[Big RR]

My dad as well; as for his heart, I think he followed the maxim--if you can't be with the one you love (they were married just short of 50 years), love the one you're with. He had a couple of nice relationships, and they made him happy. And when they ended, no divorce or anything else necessary. wIn-win for all IMHO.

[Burning Petard]

My religious tradition has had its own peculiar traditions, but marriage has always been considered a major, important positive in the lives of most individual humans. About six years ago we changed our internal rules to say that marriage must be between two and only two human beings. No other species considered, no other numbers of participants considered. There were to be no checks of biological plumbing arrangements for the participants. The marriage must be locally legal. That's it. However.

My religious tradition has had an active history in Austrailia for about 150 years. For about the last 25 years our leadership has noted an interesting trend--the people of Austrialia in general have less and less support for the first idea above--about the importance and utility of marriage.

That has had some interesting impact on plans for future 'ministry and service' in Australia and other places.

So Guin, I wish you well.