# Should I get married or remain single?



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

Hello,

Girl that I am seeing is bugging me to get married. We've been friends for the last 6 years and only moved our relationship to a romantic level in the last 10 months or so.

She has broken up with a boyfriend of 7 year relationship, has recently turned 35 years old and now feels is the time to get married and start a family.

I've just recently turned 40 and am quit content with the bachelor life for the next 3 or 4 years (or even longer). We are very good friends so I could certainly see the upside to marrying this particular girl however, I cannot see myself being faithful for long.

Can anyone give me true honest advice about how wonderful marriage is or how marriage sucks?

I have been very very very honest with her about my feelings regarding marriage and my propensity to infidelity. Still she insists "THAT I AM THE ONE!" 

Please do not give me this advice "You have to be honest with her and let her go blah blah blah." Also, I don't buy into the advice "Married men live longer healthier lives" propaganda.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Sounds like you don't want to get married so it doesn't really matter how others view or cope with marriage. 

If you harbor a "propensity" toward infidelity, then I would conclude that the married life is not for you. Otherwise, what is now a propensity will soon become a compulsion.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Are you kidding? Why even consider it? What are the advantages for you? Anything more than getting her to shut up about getting married? You've made your choice. You made your decision clear to her. Stick to your guns. No, means no. Otherwise you're not going to be happy. In turn she's not going to remain happy very long (even if you are "the one" at the moment). And the divorce? Those are always fun.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I conclude sirchandler's girlfriend hacked into his account and posted this.


----------



## Woofa (Dec 23, 2014)

I think that married life is what you make of it. Like anything else, there will be people who say they love it and people who say they no longer love it. I have been married for less than three years and can honestly say that I love it. 
Is everyday a nonstop fun filled vacation? No, but then my life was not that way before I got married either. 
Are there days on which my wife or I are probably best left alone? Sure and as we learn how to figure out which days those are our marriage grows and develops.
What will it be like in 20 years? I honestly can't say.
I can tell you that I married late (43) and this was the second marriage for my wife and she had two tween/teens who became my family. This meant that I not only gained a wife but literally overnight gained an entire functioning (okay, some days it does not function as well as others,) family. I was old enough to enter into marriage with a pretty reasonable idea of what it would entail and my wife, having been married previously, also knew enough of what did and did not work for her.
This is a very tough thing to give advice on but it seems clear from your post that not only are you not ready to get married, you are also not ready to get married to this woman. That she is your friend and would make you a good wife is not what I consider to be good reasons to marry her. Many would disagree with me. 
I think that the time to get married is not when you think you might be ready but rather when you are doing something without her and all of a sudden determine that you truly hate the idea that she is not there to share with you. (I know sounds like When Harry Met Sally but that does not make it any less true.)
Good luck, whatever you choose and remember that we will always be here to discuss your clothing, if not your relationship.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Absolutely not! Don't do it! You marry because you think that she is the one, as well, not just because she thinks that you are the one!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Woofa said:


> I think that the time to get married is not when you think you might be ready but rather when you are doing something without her and all of a sudden determine that you truly hate the idea that she is not there to share with you.


That's very well put, and very true. 
I met my wife whilst on leave and studying. After a few months of going out with each other, I joined my next ship. We wrote to each other frequently, and, unlike previous girls, I never got bored of writing to her, or ran out of things to say. Some months later we arrived in Singapore, a place that I really like, and I felt strangely deflated. What was the point in being in Singapore without her? That thought pretty much settled it for me. We've now been married for nearly 30 years. (One gets less for murder!) Although she can be really irritating at times, and can get quite unreasonably annoyed with me, for reasons that I can never really see justification for, my natural goodness, kindness and tolerance shines through.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

At least you aren't this guy...

*Woman Donates Kidney to Stranger, Now They're Getting Married*

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/woman-donates-kidney-stranger-now-married/story?id=28919260

Of course, the public's comments are hysterical!!

That guy will never hear the end of it....
"I gave you a kidney and you can't take out the trash?"
"I gave you a kidney and you can't pull yourself way from the TV and let the dog out?"
"I gave you a kidney and you can't watch the Hallmark channel for 3 little hours?"

Poor fella.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Absolutely not! Don't do it! You marry because you think that she is the one, as well, not just because she thinks that you are the one!


This is the perfect advice - peerless wisdom succinctly written!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

If you go through with this, I suggest that you see a lawyer first and have her sign the mother of all pre-nup's that includes every sort of hold harmless clause--in your favor--you can imagine. You'll be glad you did.


----------



## dr.butcher (May 28, 2014)

If you have to ask.... 

You don't specify if you two live together or not. If not, that's probably a decent first step. It will bring into sharp focus all those things you may not enjoy about married life with her, or it may affirm your belief that she is indeed the person you want to marry. The quality of your marriage will depend on whether you want to spend every morning, night and day with her.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Marriage is for those gentlemen who have lost confidence in their ability to succeed, who are afraid that the next 'encounter' may not be right around the corner. 

As to children, brats are bad enough under any circumstance but you Sir will be in your mid 50's when the 'little darlings' hit their teens. It doesn't bear thinking about. 

Give her the old heave-ho.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Marriage is for those gentlemen who have lost confidence in their ability to succeed, who are afraid that the next 'encounter' may not be right around the corner.
> .


Preposterous at best ole bean. Marriage is often a business situation in and of itself and holds the means to success. Surely your commoner princess Kate would never have succeeded in becoming your future queen had it not been for marriage. What's that little expression? "Marrying up"? And Billy? He did it more out of political & business reasoning as well, right?

Do you really think only Harry has the capability of partying with naked chicks? Yet...Poor Willy with his position & cash needed to get married because he couldn't bed a woman?

Surely it's not only the English royals/commoners that marry out of convenience (be it political, social, or economic)?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Preposterous at best ole bean. Marriage is often a business situation in and of itself and is a mean to success. Surely your commoner princess Kate would never have succeeded in becoming your future queen had it not been for marriage. What's that little expression? "Marrying up"? And Billy? He did it more out of political & business reasoning as well, right?
> 
> Surely it's not only the English royals/commoners that marry out of convenience (be it political, social, or economic)?


A business situation, a means to success, marrying up?

And they say that romance is dead.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> A business situation, a means to success, marrying up?
> 
> And they say that romance is dead.


Romance & religion. 2 of the most baseless reasons for getting married. Marriage itself is a rather odd concept forced upon society by religion.

It's all quite magical. Like saying "you're the one". Sure thing.. In a world of over a trillion people, there's only ONE person meant to be with you. Laughable at best


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Would your premise also not be faulty in the case of arranged marriages?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I am not certain that marriage is forced upon society by religion. I would suggest that marriage is a force in itself that is bolstered by the trappings of religion, probably so that the breeders may consider themselves legitimised.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I am not certain that marriage is forced upon society by religion. I would suggest that marriage is a force in itself that is bolstered by the trappings of religion, probably so that the breeders may consider themselves legitimised.


Ah. I was under the impression that most religions state that sexual intercourse before marriage is wrong. That living together with a member of the opposite sex without being married is "living in sin". Many religions don't even allow the sexes to mix. Outside of marriage, Jews aren't supposed to touch members of the opposite sex. No need to mention muslims & their thoughts on the topic, is there? Hindus aren't much better. Of course the west is rather loosey goosey in their beliefs but you seemed to be speaking for all men (versus a very small minority). Surely all the relgious brain washing from an early age affects not only the individual but society as a whole.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ This presumes, of course, that the majority of people (and here I speak of the Western World, surely our primary concern?) who become married hold to a religion of any type.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ This presumes, of course, that the majority of people (and here I speak of the Western World, surely our primary concern?) who become married hold to a religion of any type.


The numbers I've seen as to the Western World seem to say exactly that. I.E. 83% of the >300 million Americans identify themselves as christians (80 million catholics alone). With other religions thrown in, only 10% claim no religious affiliation. Surely 9 out of 10 is a majority isn't it? Of course.... you would be correct if 140 million people were lying (it is possible).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ And remind me - how many Americans believe that Elvis is still alive? Or that downed UFO's are stored in hangar 19?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ And remind me - how many Americans believe that Elvis is still alive? Or that downed UFO's are stored in hangar 19?


Most likely not 90%. Nor do I see marriage ceremonies taking place in hangar 19. I do however believe that elvis is performing quickie marriages in vegas (should you so desire). :eek2:

https://imageshack.com/i/f0K4NYYrj

https://imageshack.com/i/f0cL810zj


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

The U.K. is a bit better. Only 75% claim religious affiliation. But...It's still a vast majority (even without elvis & area 51).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ And yet the churches in the UK are empty.......


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ And yet the churches in the UK are empty.......


No doubt that the trend is lower attendance in U.K. churches....Yet...It begs the question....Why are there 38'000 churches in England alone? And why are over half of U.K. marriages still based on a religious ceremony?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Because the bride wants a pretty backdrop to her big day.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ Because the bride wants a pretty backdrop to her big day.


So your serious arguement as to why the majority of people in the U.K. are having religious marriage cérémonies .....is that such marriages are done not out of faith/belief/upbringing but..... because the bride thinks the Church is "pretty"? Really? To me it speaks as to how ingrained religion actually is when it comes to society, the individual and most certainly..."the institution of marriage". Just because someone doesn't go to Church every week doesn't mean that they don't consider themselves part of religion x. Many people that don't attend weekly still participate in the more serious rites & rituals....i.e. baptism, first communion, easter services, Christmas services, etc...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Just curious...Do state funded U.K schools still have a "daily act of worship wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character"? Aren't a third of all U.K. schools considered to be "Faith (religious) Schools"?

If so, it does appear that religious values are being forced upon the schoolchildren at a rather impressionable age. This would also include such things as views on marriage...Right? And in the U.K. it's clearly stated as to which one...."of a broadly Christian character". If children are raised for their first 16 years in such a manner, is an empty versus full Church really telling as to how ingrained religion is within U.K society?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

That is my serious argument. Really. 

UK Churches are no longer obliged to only marry their parishioners they simply rent out their premises to all comers.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> That is my serious argument. Really.
> 
> UK Churches are no longer obliged to only marry their parishioners they simply rent out their premises to all comers.


Are they not required (by their faith) to perform a religious marriage ceremony? or can they use the same one used for civil cérémonies?

If you're in a Church swearing to god to do something, and you don't believe in god, then it makes the whole thing a sham doesn't it?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Just curious...Do state funded U.K schools still have a "daily act of worship wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character"? Aren't a third of all U.K. schools considered to be "Faith (religious) Schools"?
> 
> If so, it does appear that religious values are being forced upon the schoolchildren at a rather impressionable age. This would also include such things as views on marriage...Right? And in the U.K. it's clearly stated as to which one...."of a broadly Christian character".


I'm not sure that it's still the case that there is a daily act of Christian worship, and I don't believe the number of church schools is quite as high as a third, but certainly in the 60s and 70s, a morning assembly at which there were prayers and hymns was universal throughout the UK. Any children of other faiths - Jews, Hindus and Moslems - would hold their own services.

I think exposing children to certain proper values - forcing these upon them, if you wish - is an essential and good thing, whether it takes place in the home or at school.


----------



## Woofa (Dec 23, 2014)

I read an interesting book back in undergrad. 
(I apologize that I could not tell you anything further about the title or author but here is what I remember.)
The premise of the book was that, stripped away of all the trappings of society and civilization, at the most basic, humans are an animal species and similar to other species (possibly plant as well as animal) have built into them the core need to survive both as individuals and as a species. 
With this in mind, the male of the species has only one true purpose, to impregnate as many females of the species as possible, thus allowing for the greatest possibility of producing viable offspring to allow for the continuation of the species. Understanding this, nature created males in such a way that at puberty, testosterone begins to play a major (some might argue overriding) factor in their lives. At this point, males serve no real purpose on the scale of humankind survival except to mate as often as possible. Females on the other hand, have a completely different role in the survival of humankind. Because of the peculiarities of humans and the way they develop, the least amount of reasonable time that a woman will need to spend with her offspring from the moment she is impregnated is eight to ten years. From this, it was argued that women were actually the first to create “marriage.” However, marriage in the beginning, was no more than the creation of a family unit (man, woman, child) by the female because by adding a stronger male figure to her and her child, she greatly increased the child’s ability to develop into a viable (read as able to procreate and continue the species) human being. At this point, marriage in fact had nothing to do with the fidelity of the male and in fact, it would have been understood that while the male would protect the female and child, he would still be in a position to impregnate other females. In fact, if the male was powerful enough, it would be possible for him to protect numerous female/child families in a time where his only job was to provide food/shelter/protection but little or nothing else.
This is an interesting way to look at things and I am not arguing that it is right or wrong. Certainly, I don’t think this would be a good argument to bring up to your wife when she discovers that you hooked up with that stripper last year in Vegas during the convention. “Honey, I am only doing what I am programmed to do and can’t be blamed for my actions.” My guess is that this argument is not going to fly under those circumstances. However, it does have some bearing on our current discussion and perhaps a slightly different way to look at things than you had previously.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Which would be great if we were animals who did not have moral agency, but we do. This is true whether we like it or not, believe it or not, or choose to exercise that agency or not. 

That's what sets us apart in all of creation.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Are they not required (by their faith) to perform a religious marriage ceremony? or can they use the same one used for civil cérémonies?
> 
> If you're in a Church swearing to god to do something, and you don't believe in god, then it makes the whole thing a sham doesn't it?


Ok. But my point was that these values are being taught as having a religious basis versus a societal or ethical basis. And in turn... the majority in the u.k. consider themselves as religious. People not attending church services once a week doesn't mean much after being indoctrinated 5 days a week for x amount of years. Kids are taught at an early age that marriage is a religious thing & therefore the majority of U.K. marriages are done by religious ceremony (mainly in pretty churches).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Woofa said:


> I read an interesting book back in undergrad.
> (I apologize that I could not tell you anything further about the title or author but here is what I remember.)
> The premise of the book was that, stripped away of all the trappings of society and civilization, at the most basic, humans are an animal species and similar to other species (possibly plant as well as animal) have built into them the core need to survive both as individuals and as a species.
> With this in mind, the male of the species has only one true purpose, to impregnate as many females of the species as possible, thus allowing for the greatest possibility of producing viable offspring to allow for the continuation of the species. Understanding this, nature created males in such a way that at puberty, testosterone begins to play a major (some might argue overriding) factor in their lives. At this point, males serve no real purpose on the scale of humankind survival except to mate as often as possible. Females on the other hand, have a completely different role in the survival of humankind. Because of the peculiarities of humans and the way they develop, the least amount of reasonable time that a woman will need to spend with her offspring from the moment she is impregnated is eight to ten years. From this, it was argued that women were actually the first to create "marriage." However, marriage in the beginning, was no more than the creation of a family unit (man, woman, child) by the female because by adding a stronger male figure to her and her child, she greatly increased the child's ability to develop into a viable (read as able to procreate and continue the species) human being. At this point, marriage in fact had nothing to do with the fidelity of the male and in fact, it would have been understood that while the male would protect the female and child, he would still be in a position to impregnate other females. In fact, if the male was powerful enough, it would be possible for him to protect numerous female/child families in a time where his only job was to provide food/shelter/protection but little or nothing else.
> This is an interesting way to look at things and I am not arguing that it is right or wrong. Certainly, I don't think this would be a good argument to bring up to your wife when she discovers that you hooked up with that stripper last year in Vegas during the convention. "Honey, I am only doing what I am programmed to do and can't be blamed for my actions." My guess is that this argument is not going to fly under those circumstances. However, it does have some bearing on our current discussion and perhaps a slightly different way to look at things than you had previously.


However, I will not be dictated to by those selfish genes and their extended phenotypes thus I have disconnected myself from the biological imperative, choosing to follow only base impulses of my own devising.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Which would be great if we were animals who did not have moral agency, but we do. This is true whether we like it or not, believe it or not, or choose to exercise that agency or not.
> 
> That's what sets us apart in all of creation.


Really. You can't train dogs pretty much the same way? Punishment & rewards? A dog that pooped on the carpet acts just as guilty (if not more so) as a kid caught doing something naughty. I suppose all good dogs go to heaven?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ So a dog taking a dump on your rug is the same as moral corruption in a human being? If this is your premise great but I'm afraid I don't know where to go with it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ So a dog taking a dump on your rug is the same as moral corruption in a human being? If this is your premise great but I'm afraid I don't know where to go with it.


I think that we deserve your definition of moral corruption SG, before we may proceed.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It never fails to amaze me that one would seek justification for a step as personal as getting married through an inquiry posted on a men's clothing board in Cyber-space. Seems to me to be throwing caution to the wind, in the extreme! Frankly my sense of compassion lies with the poor lass whose bad fortune it is to be hanging her future hopes on our own sirchandler. From the words in his post, he strikes me as a bit of a self absorbed (ahhh...) individual....at best!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ So a dog taking a dump on your rug is the same as moral corruption in a human being? If this is your premise great but I'm afraid I don't know where to go with it.


Sorry.I forgot that reading into the situation isn't some people's strong point .....so I'll put it straight...

There is no moral agency ingrained in humans. Humans are trained from birth and act as any other animal when they fear punishment. Not being capable of understanding societal norms, or a lack of training in them, is not a sign of moral corruption.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I think that we deserve your definition of moral corruption SG, before we may proceed.


How about vacating one's promise to remain faithful to one's spouse. Lying, cheating, stealing. Perhaps wanton disregard for other's and relying on one's own pride and avarice as the organizing principle of how one conducts one's affair, e.g. Bernie Madoff. Those are just a few. Note how I did not list sins of an ecclesiastical nature as I'm sure some of the atheists would jump all over me.

I'm quite certain I can find somewhat broad buy in to those listed above.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Sorry.I forgot that reading into the situation isn't your strong point so I'll put it straight...
> 
> There is no moral agency ingrained in humans. Humans are trained from birth and act as any other animal when they fear punishment. Not being capable of understanding societal norms, or a lack of training in them, is not a sign of moral corruption.


Sort of difficult to prove that given that there's not a good case study of a human being that was born, left alone in nature and raised by wolves whom we can use as a case study. People organize themselves into groups, be it villages, tribes, clans, nation states and so on.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

justonemore said:


> Ok. But my point was that these values are being taught as having a religious basis versus a societal or ethical basis. And in turn... the majority in the u.k. consider themselves as religious. People not attending church services once a week doesn't mean much after being indoctrinated 5 days a week for x amount of years. Kids are taught at an early age that marriage is a religious thing & therefore the majority of U.K. marriages are done by religious ceremony (mainly in pretty churches).


In the UK, less than 30% of marriages are classed as 'religious marriages' - the rest take place in register offices or 'approved premises'. I would argue that the UK, like most European countries is a largely secular, non-religious society, although many of our beliefs and values have been shaped by those of Christianity.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob...d-wales--provisional-/2011/sty-marriages.html


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> How about vacating one's promise to remain faithful to one's spouse.


So changing your mind is moral corruption? on what basis?



SG_67 said:


> Lying, cheating, stealing.


That's just the first hour of the business day in banking and politics....


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Sort of difficult to prove that given that there's not a good case study of a human being that was born, left alone in nature and raised by wolves whom we can use as a case study. People organize themselves into groups, be it villages, tribes, clans, nation states and so on.


Wow...You got that crossed even when I tried to put it straight forward....I'll tell you what... I'll avoid the medical journals and quote you wikipedia...

*Fear* is an emotion induced by a threat perceived by living entities, which causes a change in brain and organ function and ultimately a change in behavior, such as running away, hiding or freezing from traumatic events. Fear may occur in response to a specific stimulus happening in the present, or to a future situation, which is perceived as risk to health or life, status, power, security, or in the case of humans wealth or anything held valuable. The fear response arises from the perception of danger leading to confrontation with or escape from/avoiding the threat (also known as the fight-or-flight response), which in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) can be a freeze response or paralysis.
In humans and animals, fear is modulated by the process of cognition and learning. Thus fear is judged as rational or appropriate and irrational or inappropriate. An irrational fear is called a phobia.
Psychologists such as John B. Watson, Robert Plutchik, and Paul Ekman have suggested that there is only a small set of basic or innate emotions and that fear is one of them. This hypothesized set includes such emotions as joy, sadness, fright, dread, horror, panic, anxiety, acute stress reaction and anger.
Fear should be distinguished from, but is closely related to, the emotion "anxiety", which occurs as the result of threats that are perceived to be uncontrollable or unavoidable.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The fear response serves survival by generating appropriate behavioral responses, so it has been preserved throughout evolution


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ So a dog taking a dump on your rug is the same as moral corruption in a human being? If this is your premise great but I'm afraid I don't know where to go with it.


Speaking of dogs, it occurred to me that the OP should consider getting this woman a puppy and leaving it at that.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

On a sad note... Speaking of fears.....The number one fear of American children aged 13-17 happens to be "terrorist attcks"....I wonder who taught them that one....:rolleyes2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Sort of difficult to prove that given that there's not a good case study of a human being that was born, left alone in nature and raised by wolves whom we can use as a case study. People organize themselves into groups, be it villages, tribes, clans, nation states and so on.


Tarzan??


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

justonemore said:


> On a sad note... Speaking of fears.....The number one fear of American children aged 13-17 are "terrorist attcks"....I wonder who taught them that one....:rolleyes2:


I sense Israel is about to be dragged into this thread.......


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> So changing your mind is moral corruption? on what basis?
> 
> That's just the first hour of the business day in banking and politics....


Changing one's mind is fine. Confront the person to whom you made an oath and asked to be released; it's called divorce.

Your second comment is a non sequitur.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> On a sad note... Speaking of fears.....The number one fear of American children aged 13-17 happens to be "terrorist attcks"....I wonder who taught them that one....:rolleyes2:


Brian Williams.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I sense Israel is about to be dragged into this thread.......


Ooops. I was thinking it was more the U.S. government using fear to their advantage over the masses....but... good guess :tongue2:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Tarzan??


Even Tarzan was somewhat loyal to Jane, wasn't he?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Nah Tarzan was a cheeta.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Wow...You got that crossed even when I tried to put it straight forward....I'll tell you what... I'll avoid the medical journals and quote you wikipedia...
> 
> *Fear* is an emotion induced by a threat perceived by living entities, which causes a change in brain and organ function and ultimately a change in behavior, such as running away, hiding or freezing from traumatic events. Fear may occur in response to a specific stimulus happening in the present, or to a future situation, which is perceived as risk to health or life, status, power, security, or in the case of humans wealth or anything held valuable. The fear response arises from the perception of danger leading to confrontation with or escape from/avoiding the threat (also known as the fight-or-flight response), which in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) can be a freeze response or paralysis.
> In humans and animals, fear is modulated by the process of cognition and learning. Thus fear is judged as rational or appropriate and irrational or inappropriate. An irrational fear is called a phobia.
> ...


So people are altruistic and giving because of fear? A nun working with the wretched in Calcutta is doing so out of fear?

Certainly fear motivates certain behaviors, but are you suggesting that all human behavior is predicated on fear and one's reaction to fear? What a miserable outlook!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Even Tarzan was somewhat loyal to Jane, wasn't he?


Faithful to the only human female he ever saw. Must have been really difficult.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> ^ Nah Tarzan was a cheeta.


:winner:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Just curious...Do state funded U.K schools still have a "daily act of worship wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character"?


No, no religious act of any kind.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> So people are altruistic and giving because of fear? A nun working with the wretched in Calcutta is doing so out of fear?
> 
> Certainly fear motivates certain behaviors, but are you suggesting that all human behavior is predicated on fear and one's reaction to fear? What a miserable outlook!


I also mentioned rewards as motivating behavior... Perhaps you missed it? Post 36

You are a good boy because you want your rewards in heaven. You are not a bad boy because you don't want to be punished in hell....Isn't that the way it goes? It's hardly a new concept....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Faithful to the only human female he ever saw. Must have been really difficult.


Excellent!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> I also mentioned rewards as motivating behavior... Perhaps you missed it?


So fear and reward? These are the guiding principles of human affairs?

There is no room in your view of human behavior for the soul and the God's Grace?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Chouan said:


> No, no religious act of any kind.


Oh? When they did get rid of it?

The state funded "Faith schools" are still faith based I assume? Although Langham disputes the numbers, I've read a third of U.K schools fit into such a category.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> So fear and reward? These are the guiding principles of human affairs??


Human affairs?...Oh my.. It's much bigger than that....You do understand that the biological reaction to fear and pleasure is the same in most of the animal kingdom (to include humans)....Right?



SG_67 said:


> There is no room in your view of human behavior for the soul and the God's Grace?


Acting in a certain manner because some imaginary entity says you should isn't the marker of "grace" to me.

Tell me...When you're dissecting a cadaver...What are you more likely to find? The soul? Or the brain?

Is god's grace an acceptable medical treatment in the U.S.? I seem to remember a few cases of sky pilot parents going to jail after god ignored their pleas. Perhaps they didn't pray hard enough? Maybe their faith wasn't strong enough? Let me guess.. Their souls weren't pure enough?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Faithful to the only human female he ever saw. Must have been really difficult.


Not necessarily. He was quite the swinger, you know.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Not necessarily. He was quite the swinger, you know.


And some of those Orangutans are real lookers!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

justonemore said:


> Human affairs?...Oh my.. It's much bigger than that....You do understand that the biological reaction to fear and pleasure is the same in most of the animal kingdom (to include humans)....Right?
> 
> Acting in a certain manner because some imaginary entity says you should isn't the marker of "grace" to me.
> 
> ...


There's nothing incompatible between medicine, the practice of medicine and faith in God and one's immortal soul.

Can love be captured on medical imaging? How about guilt? My friend, we can find the brain, sure, but there is much about the brain and how it functions that we don't know. I can find the Marianas Trench on a map too but I've never explored it's depths.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

dr.butcher said:


> If you have to ask....
> 
> You don't specify if you two live together or not. If not, that's probably a decent first step. It will bring into sharp focus all those things you may not enjoy about married life with her, or it may affirm your belief that she is indeed the person you want to marry. The quality of your marriage will depend on whether you want to spend every morning, night and day with her.


No, we do not live together. Initially her suggestion was that we move in together prior to getting married. I reluctantly agreed to moving in together. However now that I have agreed to move in together, she feels moving in together before marriage goes against her values.

She now insists that we marry before living together.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Unless she is independently wealthy, and you can cash in on that, then no.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> It never fails to amaze me that one would seek justification for a step as personal as getting married through an inquiry posted on a men's clothing board in Cyber-space. Seems to me to be throwing caution to the wind, in the extreme! Frankly my sense of compassion lies with the poor lass whose bad fortune it is to be hanging her future hopes on our own sirchandler. From the words in his post, he strikes me as a bit of a self absorbed (ahhh...) individual....at best!


Would it be better if I lie to her, proceed with the marriage and continue living a double life as many many many people of your generation did?

Would it be better if the lass simply suffered in silence while her unfaithful husband with no interest in marriage other then having his kids raised, food cooked and house cleaned went about his life as many many many women of your generation did?

One of the beauties of Cyber-space is that it helps prevent those things from happening by answering questions, offering options and alternatives to those who are experiencing those situations. Which was not available to many many many men and women of your generation.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ Nah Tarzan was a cheeta.


Bless you, Shaver. This post made reading through this weird thread worth the effort.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

sirchandler said:


> Would it be better if I lie to her, proceed with the marriage and continue living a double life as many many many people of your generation did?


Lying's a bad idea, although it's hard to maintain a good relationship without doing it just a little. I think you need to be as honest with her as possible and let her decide if she should cut bait or hang in there.

It's possible to get married and have sort of an old school approach to it, i.e. never mind the romance, let's just make this work through will and effort because it makes sense.

By the way, I'm convinced that marriage ultimately has its roots in economics. It's a business merger intended to ensure a measure of security. Tied to that is having children, who provide labor and hopefully represent something of an investment in that they will help one out in one's old age. Religion comes into it only in that religions usually are interested in regulating sexuality (as most societies do, regardless of religion). Thus, it was only in the 20th century that "romance" ever became a factor in marriage. Real people--as opposed to protagonists in novels and other art forms--never married for love until then.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

sirchandler said:


> No, we do not live together. Initially her suggestion was that we move in together prior to getting married. I reluctantly agreed to moving in together. However now that I have agreed to move in together, she feels moving in together before marriage goes against her values.
> 
> She now insists that we marry before living together.


Now there's a shocker. Pray tell. How did she come to have such solid values? If was her idea initially to live together then something must have played a part on her insisting on marriage now. Are these new found values or old beliefs?

Out of curiosity..Did she ever live with her pal of 7 years?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

sirchandler said:


> Would it be better if I lie to her, proceed with the marriage and continue living a double life as many many many people of your generation did?
> 
> Would it be better if the lass simply suffered in silence while her unfaithful husband with no interest in marriage other then having his kids raised, food cooked and house cleaned went about his life as many many many women of your generation did?
> 
> One of the beauties of Cyber-space is that it helps prevent those things from happening by answering questions, offering options and alternatives to those who are experiencing those situations. Which was not available to many many many men and women of your generation.


It's futile asking Cyber-space these questions. I suspect that you already know the answer to your question, and are looking for anonymous back-up. I know what I would do in your position, but I think it's something for you to work out for yourself.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Marriage is for those gentlemen who have lost confidence in their ability to succeed, who are afraid that the next 'encounter' may not be right around the corner.


Shaver, buddy, we agree on nearly everything. But as a man who has been married to a spectacular, intelligent and beautiful woman for nearly 36 years, I can tell you for certain that on this one you suffer from exceptional constipation.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

sirchandler said:


> Would it be better if I lie to her, proceed with the marriage and continue living a double life as many many many people of your generation did?
> 
> Would it be better if the lass simply suffered in silence while her unfaithful husband with no interest in marriage other then having his kids raised, food cooked and house cleaned went about his life as many many many women of your generation did?
> 
> One of the beauties of Cyber-space is that it helps prevent those things from happening by answering questions, offering options and alternatives to those who are experiencing those situations. Which was not available to many many many men and women of your generation.


Yup, that's the answer. Marry a person you don't love who keeps changing her mind on matrimony/living together, lie your brains out on a daily basis and cheat on her every chance you get, because we all know that's what prior generations did. Heck, that's what I do, as do all my friends. After leaving our mistresses at the Super 8, we all get together at the local watering hole and brag about our exploits till closing time, when we all head home dead drunk to beat the living dickens out of our wives.

Yessiree Bob, that's it. Or should I say, yessiree Hamlet?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Can love be captured on medical imaging? How about guilt? My friend, we can find the brain, sure, but there is much about the brain and how it functions that we don't know. I can find the Marianas Trench on a map too but I've never explored it's depths.


Actually love can be(and has been) captured on medical imaging (Zeki & Martels to name one). And yes. Guilt can be detected by imaging as well. Wagner out of Stanford was getting results of 90% accuracy 2 years ago already.

A bit basic but here it is....love in a nutshell.....

https://imageshack.com/i/exkuWpVsp



SG_67 said:


> There's nothing incompatible between medicine, the practice of medicine and faith in God and one's immortal soul.
> 
> .


Indeed. The pope's cure for the plague is still with us today. Thanks to saying "bless you" every time someone sneezes we are almost plague free. I wonder if the same would also work for the anti-vaxxer movement nowadays.

Pity we can no longer drill holes into people's heads to get the "demons" out. Lol. I guess back then they billed by the job versus 5 minute incréments.. :rolleyes2:


----------



## Woofa (Dec 23, 2014)

Just a note 32, I have now moved up to the Knights Inn. Super 8 would'nt give me that out by midnight only pay $10 rate if we agree not to use any towels we used to get.

See you about 12:15 at Billybobs as usual!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Yup, that's the answer. Marry a person you don't love who keeps changing her mind on matrimony/living together, lie your brains out on a daily basis and cheat on her every chance you get, because we all know that's what prior generations did. Heck, that's what I do, as do all my friends. After leaving our mistresses at the Super 8, we all get together at the local watering hole and brag about our exploits till closing time, when we all head home dead drunk to beat the living dickens out of our wives.
> 
> Yessiree Bob, that's it. Or should I say, yessiree Hamlet?


Those were the days!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

sirchandler said:


> Would it be better if I lie to her, proceed with the marriage and continue living a double life as many many many people of your generation did?
> 
> Would it be better if the lass simply suffered in silence while her unfaithful husband with no interest in marriage other then having his kids raised, food cooked and house cleaned went about his life as many many many women of your generation did?
> 
> One of the beauties of Cyber-space is that it helps prevent those things from happening by answering questions, offering options and alternatives to those who are experiencing those situations. Which was not available to many many many men and women of your generation.


As in most every aspect of our lives, in conducting our relationships, honesty is always the best policy! In my own case, I have tried to apply the old "KISS" principle to my marriage. Perhaps it all boils down to just plain 'dumb luck', but every morning I wake up next to the lady who, quite literally, took my breath away and stole my heat when I first introduced myself to her 43 years ago. She still takes my breath away. You never want to just settle in a marital relationship. As to the future, be honest with your lady friend, but more importantly, be honest with yourself! You both deserve better than just settling. Good luck in your decision(s) my friend.


----------



## universitystripe (Jul 13, 2013)

Well, happy Valentine's Day, indeed. What a romantic topic.

First, never get married unless you are sure she is "the one." I understand that the concept of "the one" is ridiculous, but she should fall into that very small percentile of women that you can love at her worst. Because you will see it.

Second, once you find that type of woman, marriage can be a wonderful thing with many practical benefits. You increase your income if you both choose to work, thus increasing your standard of living. Of course, you could theoretically do the same by living with anyone else, but a marriage comes with it a supposed permanence. Roommates are not among those you should trust at that level. Marriages may only last half the time, but less formal living arrangements probably fall through much closer to the 100% mark. 

Companionship is also worth considering. It's a wonderful knowing I come home at night and have someone with whom to discuss the day's news and events.

Marriage is not for everyone, and it's better to be single than in a bad relationship, but it can be wonderful. Good luck in your endeavors.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

I have been married 32 years to the same woman. We married each other because of love, something that is getting short shrift in these conversations. Did we know it would work forever? No, but we felt confident that it would, and thru life's messy passages, having each other has allowed us to weather the storms. Do we fight, disagree, act petulant and childish? Of course, but every night we kiss in bed and confirm our love to each other.

We have been lucky to have chosen wisely. I attribute this to our love, and our personal moral commitment to the institution of marriage. This allows us to work out our differences, make compromises, and not walk out as so many do at the first signs of trouble or stress.

You can argue about economic benefits, biological imperatives, providing a window of protection for a developing juvenile all you want. But a woman you love gives meaning to your life, provides a safe haven during life's storms, gives you a companion to share life's happiness, hardships, and boredom with. You get a partner to work with to fulfill your life's dreams, which if you've chosen wisely coincide. I go to work each day looking forward to being in her arms each night. She is my trusted confidant, and the only person in the world (besides my late mother) who I can unequivocally trust to always has only my best interest at heart. A true partner, mate, lover, and friend. Those who don't have this are missing out on life's greatest gift. They are truly alone in the world.

To the OP if you don't feel that way, marriage is doomed. The very fact that you could contemplate unfaithfulness now indicates you do not have this bond. For if you did no other woman would be worth more than a passing appreciation of her beauty.

This message has been sponsored by Hallmark.


----------

