4 ms·

> If I meet a partner at 40, when we start really getting old and annoyed, what am I going to hold on to? > How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? You're rais

by smcl 3y ago

> If I meet a partner at 40, when we start really getting old and annoyed, what am I going to hold on to? > How lucky I am to be her 23rd partner? You're raising a few different things here and it's hard to see what you're really concerned about, because I don't think it's the matter of divorce rates vs number of sexual partners. If you're worried you can't find a long-term partner in your late-30s, then don't be - it's possible and tbh from personal experience dating in my 30s has been much more relaxed and chilled out than in my 20s. When you find someone will you have memories of being together stretching way back 'til your teens? Nope, but that's not necessary for happiness at all, it's one aspect of some people's relationships and not all relationships need to look alike. You'll have a different story that's unique and interesting in its own way. If you're upset about the idea of being with someone who has been with 20+ men or women before you, then you need to work on your insecurities. How promiscuous either of you were at any time before you met will have no bearing on that whatsoever, if you are committed to each other. It sounds a bit like you regret or resent not already being married or in a long-term relationship already if I'm honest, and are reflecting and looking around for some answers or some justifications. If that's the case then I'd suggest trying not to do that, you'll not help your own situation and you could end up going down a dark path, making yourself feel worse or being less likely to find someone.

brokenkebaby 3y ago
>How promiscuous either of you were at any time before you met will have no bearing on that whatsoever, if you are committed to each other. The problem is in the fact that commitment doesn't naturally happen from sympathy, or sexual attraction. As fitting two lives is hard, it's a choice which for most people stems from cultural alignments, or hard necessity. If someone's learned behavior is to fly as a butterfly over multiple flowers you can bet with a high probability that culture won't be helpful here. And necessity to stick together for survival is unlikely to exist for modern middle class.
- smcl 3y ago
  > The problem is in the fact that commitment doesn't naturally happen from sympathy, or sexual attraction Wait why is that the problem? I don't think anyone believes that being sympathetic or hot is sufficient to sustain a relationship. > And necessity to stick together for survival is unlikely to exist for a modern middle class. One of the points (a worryingly small number of) people are making here is that this is good. You don't need to just stay married just for survival - so if you're unloved, unfulfilled, abused or simply unhappy you can part ways without sacrificing your health, livelihood, social status or wellbeing.
  - brokenkebaby 3y ago
    >I don't think anyone believes being sympathetic or hot is sufficient to sustain a relationship. I didn't claim you do. The point made is about "How promiscuous either of you were [...] before you met will have no bearing [...]" Which doesn't stay particularly well exacty because of the thing on which we both agree. >you can part ways without sacrificing your health, livelihood, social status or wellbeing Whay's "good" is obviously subjective to your life goals. But both parting ways, and being alone is well-known to incur costs on one's health, livelihood, social status, and well-being. It also negatively impacts kids if there are any. There's a limited number of cases where staying together is just too bad, but it doesn't mean that high divorce rate is nothing to care about (societally), or one's particular divorce is fine (personally).
    - smcl 3y ago
      > Which doesn't stay particularly well exacty because of the thing on which we both agree. No idea what this means. > But both parting ways, and being alone is well-known to incur costs Alright I'm gonna stop you right here. It should be very clear that I meant you are free to divorce your partner and not end up financially ruined or socially stigmatised or outcast like you would in the past. The implication that divorce just means sadness and loneliness forever is really blinkered. > high divorce rate is nothing to care about (societally) You've used an interesting adjective here. How are you deciding that the current amount is "high"? How much is "normal" and how have you reached that conclusion? And what's the plan to reduce it to the normal amount once you figure out these numbers - stopping no-fault divorces so guys like Steven Crowder (who seems pretty pissed about the idea that his wife was allowed to leave him) can continue to abuse their spouses?

by smcl 3y ago

brokenkebaby 3y ago

>How promiscuous either of you were at any time before you met will have no bearing on that whatsoever, if you are committed to each other. The problem is in the fact that commitment doesn't naturally happen from sympathy, or sexual attraction. As fitting two lives is hard, it's a choice which for most people stems from cultural alignments, or hard necessity. If someone's learned behavior is to fly as a butterfly over multiple flowers you can bet with a high probability that culture won't be helpful here. And necessity to stick together for survival is unlikely to exist for modern middle class.

smcl 3y ago
> The problem is in the fact that commitment doesn't naturally happen from sympathy, or sexual attraction Wait why is that the problem? I don't think anyone believes that being sympathetic or hot is sufficient to sustain a relationship. > And necessity to stick together for survival is unlikely to exist for a modern middle class. One of the points (a worryingly small number of) people are making here is that this is good. You don't need to just stay married just for survival - so if you're unloved, unfulfilled, abused or simply unhappy you can part ways without sacrificing your health, livelihood, social status or wellbeing.
- brokenkebaby 3y ago
  >I don't think anyone believes being sympathetic or hot is sufficient to sustain a relationship. I didn't claim you do. The point made is about "How promiscuous either of you were [...] before you met will have no bearing [...]" Which doesn't stay particularly well exacty because of the thing on which we both agree. >you can part ways without sacrificing your health, livelihood, social status or wellbeing Whay's "good" is obviously subjective to your life goals. But both parting ways, and being alone is well-known to incur costs on one's health, livelihood, social status, and well-being. It also negatively impacts kids if there are any. There's a limited number of cases where staying together is just too bad, but it doesn't mean that high divorce rate is nothing to care about (societally), or one's particular divorce is fine (personally).
  - smcl 3y ago
    > Which doesn't stay particularly well exacty because of the thing on which we both agree. No idea what this means. > But both parting ways, and being alone is well-known to incur costs Alright I'm gonna stop you right here. It should be very clear that I meant you are free to divorce your partner and not end up financially ruined or socially stigmatised or outcast like you would in the past. The implication that divorce just means sadness and loneliness forever is really blinkered. > high divorce rate is nothing to care about (societally) You've used an interesting adjective here. How are you deciding that the current amount is "high"? How much is "normal" and how have you reached that conclusion? And what's the plan to reduce it to the normal amount once you figure out these numbers - stopping no-fault divorces so guys like Steven Crowder (who seems pretty pissed about the idea that his wife was allowed to leave him) can continue to abuse their spouses?