3 ms·

> “Before”, one would choose (or even be strongly recommended) a partner, commit, and make it work. Because divorce was not on the table, so you had to "make i

> “Before”, one would choose (or even be strongly recommended) a partner, commit, and make it work. Because divorce was not on the table, so you had to "make it work", even if in the end was just a toxic relationship, where couple in their 60s or 70s plainly hated their spouse.

fyhn 4y ago
And like in all things, there is probably a better middle ground. Don't commit forever to a horrible partner, but also don't look for the "perfect person" with whom there will be no difficulties. Neither is good. Look for the "good enough" partner and really try to make it work.
- darkwater 4y ago
  Absolutely. And don't be afraid to end a relationship that's not working, learn from it and be a wiser/better partner in your next one (if you are interested in having a relationship again).
itsoktocry 4y ago
>Because divorce was not on the table, so you had to "make it work" This isn't 1950. Divorce (and even easier, separation) has been "on the table" for a long time. Yet the culture around dating and marriage today is miles away from decades ago. You can tell yourself old couples hate each other, because of course some do. But people have been happily "making it work", across cultures, for centuries. It's about the expectations you have in a partner and what you want from the relationship. If that's made-for-TV-movie romance until eternity, good luck.
- darkwater 4y ago
  I'd like to see some paper/book about 'But people have been happily "making it work", across cultures, for centuries.', proving that the majority of couples were happy in their golden years. But we should start defining golden years because in many civilizations and ages, lifespan was certainly shorter on average. Edit: typo
  - andrei_says_ 4y ago
    I think one of the differences is in the definition of “happy” and the expectations around it.

fyhn 4y ago

And like in all things, there is probably a better middle ground. Don't commit forever to a horrible partner, but also don't look for the "perfect person" with whom there will be no difficulties. Neither is good. Look for the "good enough" partner and really try to make it work.

darkwater 4y ago
Absolutely. And don't be afraid to end a relationship that's not working, learn from it and be a wiser/better partner in your next one (if you are interested in having a relationship again).

itsoktocry 4y ago

>Because divorce was not on the table, so you had to "make it work" This isn't 1950. Divorce (and even easier, separation) has been "on the table" for a long time. Yet the culture around dating and marriage today is miles away from decades ago. You can tell yourself old couples hate each other, because of course some do. But people have been happily "making it work", across cultures, for centuries. It's about the expectations you have in a partner and what you want from the relationship. If that's made-for-TV-movie romance until eternity, good luck.

darkwater 4y ago
I'd like to see some paper/book about 'But people have been happily "making it work", across cultures, for centuries.', proving that the majority of couples were happy in their golden years. But we should start defining golden years because in many civilizations and ages, lifespan was certainly shorter on average. Edit: typo
- andrei_says_ 4y ago
  I think one of the differences is in the definition of “happy” and the expectations around it.