4 ms·
The article is literally about relationships in the context of a long-term marriage. Your comment is a complete non-sequitur. Heck, the article doesn't even re
by pluma 10y ago
The article is literally about relationships in the context of a long-term marriage. Your comment is a complete non-sequitur.
Heck, the article doesn't even require the presumption of a monogamous marriage for the points to be applicable. It applies equally well to any committed long-term relationship, no matter how many people are involved and regardless of your tax status.
- k__ 10y agoThat's exaclty the point. The article doesn't explicitly talk about monogamous relationships. It simply sees them as given and talks about solution 'inside' of this given assumption. I'm just saying, you don't have to follow these parts.
- pluma 10y agoThat's like pointing out the existence of veganism in an article on pulled pork recipes, or the existence of other religious faiths in an article about the meaning of Ramadan in Islam. The article is written as a response to a question about romance in long-term monogamous marriages, so of course it sees monogamous marriages as a given. Did you expect her to add a paragraph like "Hey, maybe if you can't find romance in a monogamous marriage you're just not made to be monogamous or married and that's fine too"? Do you expect articles on programming best practices to contain similar paragraphs ("Hey, maybe if you don't like fizzbuzz you're not really into programming and should try hardware instead.")?
- k__ 10y agoNo, it's different. The article is about a specific problem and tries to tell people 'everything is okay, you just need to accept that things change' while this may not the solution many long term relationships need.