I got part way through replying to this this morning, but I had to go help my partner's father with something. Funny story: He introduced me to his friend as "my son's partner".
lighthouse:
That's pretty funny, considering you know nothing about the man or our relationship outside of what I've told you.
He's nothing more than a security blanket for you. You use him to make yourself feel like you're worth something, because he makes you feel good.
And lighthouse is playing the mind reader again. Here I thought we'd actually convinced you to give that a rest.
Of course he makes me feel good. He loves me, and he gives me the opportunity to spend my life with someone that I love. Our relationship enhances my life. Taking another individual into consideration in every aspect of your life sounds like a burden, but when you care about that individual it's quite rewarding.
If you want me to get scientific about it, any relationship can be reduced to three simple factors: oestragen/testosterone, monoamine, and oxytocin. Based on elevated levels of these hormones associated with our partners, we make conscious decisions to spend time/our lives with them.
He's a lot more than a security blanket, doll. I'm not in any great need for one of them. I'm quite secure in and of myself... I don't need a man to make me feel good about myself.
You've already said that you don't want to marry him.
No, not now. We don't want to get married at this point. Perhaps we will later. We're in no rush... we know we've got plenty of time.
He's not a "life" partner, until you've committed to spend the rest of your life with him. And you haven't.
How do you know that? Just because we aren't married? Don't be an idiot.
You've already said that you don't want to marry him.
No, not now.
You've already said that you don't want to marry him. And the statement stands, if all you mean is "sex partner," then that reduces him to nothing morethan a sex toy. I never said that "sex partner" is all you mean.
Good.
You're kidding, right? I'd prefer not to "date" someone that I don't want to actually be with. That's all.
I certainly want to be with my partner. Otherwise I wouldn't be. A yes/no tickbox to the question "Are you married?" is not a fair assessment of whether or not someone wants to be with someone else.
And I never said anythign about a destination. I do not need a girlfriend to feel better about myself, or to elevate myself to some societal status.
Of course not. You have self-righteousness and arrogance for that, mixed in with a dose of religion.
When I'm ready to get married, it will be after I've found someone I want to sepnd the rest of my life with, and I will pursue a relationship, with the intetntion of marriage.
And if that wedding doesn't take place within a month, are you really serious about them? Two months? What's the appropriate length of time, in your expert opinion, that people can be together-but-not-married and still be assured that they are doing things in a lighthouse-approved manner?
I will wait until I find someone who feels the same way, and we will move forward with it. And the marriage will not be some imaginary destination, it will be the continuation of the journey.
Exactly. It's a
continuation of a journey... a journey that begins with a relationship. That relationship is not stagnant just because it's not immediately rushing towards a wedding date.
You're not moving forward. you're staying in the same place. Neither of you seems to have decided that you want to move forward.
Yes, we have. We're moving comfortably towards tomorrow. And the next day. Etcetera and so on.
And the most likely scenario is that instead of moving forward, you'll move apart.
I don't think so. We, like most, build on our relationship every day. We may move apart one day. But, if that's going to happen, a marriage certificate won't stop it. Only we can.
You sound like Bill Clinton. Sexual act does not = sexual intercourse.
Actually, the distinction between various sex acts is something we tend to leave to you nitpicky heterosexuals. You'd be hard pressed to find a queer who'd agree with Bill Clinton, but heterosexual men everywhere seem to hold that view.
I digress. Sexual intercourse, or variations on the theme, do not form part of my job description.
Your definition of date is flawed, dumbass. I can go to a movies with someone I'm interested in without it being a date. Even if it is just the two of us, and we are both interested in each other.
Sounds like a date to me.
I'm not bragging. You're just an idiot. I'm not. Pointing it out to you isn't bragging. You don't see me trying to tell someone else that I'm smarter than you, do you?
It's a message board. You're telling everyone who reads it, and you know it. And most of us are either chuckling, or marvelling at your arrogance and ignorance.
Love has to be a factor. Are you incapable of paying attention? Lust is the antithesis of love, and should not be a factor in marriage.
Lust is a vital part of any marriage, and of romantic love. Even romantic love that doesn't have sex in it... lust tempered by self control. I already pity the poor girl you end up marrying, but I'll pity her even more if you don't realise that simple fact. A marriage without lust is likely to be an unsatisfying and frustrating one.
It's not a date if neither of us sees it as a date. If just one of us sees it that way, it isn't one. We have to agree that it's a date. And it has to involve more than just hanging out.
Some of the best dates I've ever been on have involved just hanging out. That's usually one of the best indications that you're onto something... when just hanging out with that person becomes a romantic and fascinating way to spend your time.
Mustard Seed:
I mean no disrespect. I respect your intellectual prowis and you may well believe that you are/have enjoyed your experiences in related fields. But I could likely find a well articulated intellegent, surviving, and in some ways thriving, bolemic and or anorexic celebrity or model who, if such a stance had no chance of destroying their current livelyhood and lifestyle, would anc could very easily advocate the bolemic/anorexic 'life style' using the very same logic you've displayed. The same stance could be taken by a great many others in society on topics I think you would not openly embrace.
I can see where you're coming from, but bulimia and anorexia are only diagnosed when the symptoms begin to pose serious physical or mental health risks. Same with alcoholism. Without the health risk, you're just dealing with a person who doesn't eat much, or likes to have a drink.
I'm talking about a mentally and physically healthy sex worker. If their occupation began to post significant physical or mental health risks, then my response would be the same as that I'd give to a person who was suffering because of their diet or drinking: Get help, and get out. But those who have no problems? Why shouldn't they continue with their non-destructive action?
Shimei:
A hell of a lot of personal reasons?
A few significant ones that I feel comfortable discussing: I've only been divorced since November. I see no need to rush into another marriage.
Actually, that's all you're getting. Everything else is between he and I. Suffice to say that we're happy with our relationship as it is, and see no need to change it at this point in time. That should be as good a reason as any.
When it comes to relationships I believe what the Bible says. So if you think my perception is messed up, take it up with God.
God says that you should flatly refused to get involved with a girl who was once a sex worker, regardless of her current occupation or opinion of her previous life? I must have missed that chapter.
If you are so committed to this guy you live with, why not make it a real commitment? It is not about a piece of paper. It IS about a commitment, one you and your boyfriend do not have.
We have commitments other than that single piece of paper.
I thought you worked in the sex industry. Did you do it for free?
If you mean that you would perform sexual acts but did not perform intercourse, why not? Is their something wrong with that?
No, nothing wrong with it in my eyes. But it's not for me.
See how I can do that? Regard something as not right for me, but possibly right for another? You should try it some time.
*shrug* My job description is quite specific. It's something I enjoy making a living of. I see no need to branch out into other areas I'd be less comfortable with. Besides, I get paid better than a prostitute.
Good. I am glad that my views perturb a tramp.
*shrug* Tramp or not, I can still spot bitterness and a skewed perspective when I'm being poked with it.
As for this little exchange...
Mustard Seed:
Amen. Do you know all the details of firechyld's life? I don't.
Shimei:
She is a former sex industry worker (prostitute) who is shaking up with her boyfriend.
Mustard Seed:
You know about .ooooo1% of her life.
Mustard Seed is onto something, Shimei. Are you defined completely by your job? I'd put money on the fact that most people here don't even know what your last position
was, much less care about it. Do you meet people, check the "occupation" and "marital status" boxes, and promptly decide that you don't need to know anything more about them? That would be silly, wouldn't it?
Anyway, off again. Going to watch a movie with my
partner's parents.
