What do they want? What did they want in the Golden era?

[Flicka]

All I can say is that if I was looking for my father in a relationship I'd need to find an emotionally unstable, egotistic, absent man who would let me down at every turn if I would ever be stupid enough to trust him. I can honestly say I'm not looking for that. As for anyone else, I have no idea. [huh]

Aaaaand... I just realised that I described my longest relationship. Exactly my ex, that. My problem is that I fall for guys I find intelligent and who make me laugh and I think the other things slipped past due to poor screening from my side (I was painfully young).

Well, at least I'm wiser now. Burnt child fears fire, as the Swedish expression goes.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Without generalizing, I would say that the vast majority of people (probably everyone) just want to be happy.

A maxim I was taught early by both parents, and the explicit agreement I have with The Baroness: "If you're not happy, get out of it". This is not entirely to coddle yourself, but with one unhappy side in a relationship, eventually both sides will be unhappy. However, in the end each person's happiness and content is by far more important than the hurt that will be caused to the other party. They'll get over it. Far better a clean break than years of misery and increasing antagonism.* Of course before making a life-changing decision, one should have properly assessed the situation - is it really the other person that makes you unhappy, or is this just a convenient excuse that you can use to avoid dealing with your own issues? etc. etc.

bk

*all with the proviso that youth - and not so youth - will make bad, often wrong in retrospect (look at the number of people who go back to have flings with high school sweethearts!), decisions.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

That is an incredibly shallow view of women. It also is a very large misunderstanding of how abuse works in relationships. To the outside world it is easy to say that a victim should walk away from an abuser; but anybody who has been in an abusive relationship or seen one closely can tell you it is far from simple. Abusers are adept at isolating, dis-empowering, and physically/mentally preventing their victims from leaving. Also, putting the burden on the victim to leave the relationship is the wrong way to look at abuse- the burden is on the abuser to stop being abusive. The victim has done nothing wrong to deserve the abuse; the abuser is the criminal and should be the one to change his/her behavior.

It is an abuse victim's responsibility to seek help if s/he needs it, particularly if they continually seek out abusive relationships or are having problems due to past abuse. But it is never an abuse victim's fault for being a victim. If abusers didn't abuse there would be no victims, period.

I agree with your sentiment that one should not blame the victim for being abused, however, I think the point that he was trying to make is that a lot of women actually seek out the kind of assholes that are abusive, or just plain assholes, when they really ought to have known better in the first place, or should have dumped the loser early on.

Your point that abusers are adept at trying to isolate and dis-empower their victims is well taken, however they don't have mind control powers. Women often have many avenues of escape open to them that they choose not to take, for one reason or another. Part of empowerment is acknowledging one's own part in her own misery and recognizing what she can do to stop it.

 

[scottyrocks]

I can't tell you how many times, when I was in my late teens and early twenties, that the best girls went for the 'hot' guys, who often turned out to be the arrogant emotional abusers - in other words, because they had their pick of the crop (not using that term in a derogatory fashion), it didn't matter to them how the girl felt when he ditched her.

On another note, relationships change over time. My wife sums it up as, 'Happy wife, happy life.' As much as this sounds like it could be a recipe for disaster and abuse of the husband, if you are indeed with the right person, you will both find it easy to make each other happy. If the woman is indeed one of those partiers who doesn't care how much hubby is busting his butt, then that may not work, unless the husband truly doesn't care, as long as his wife is happy. Each situation is different.

 

[sheeplady]

Your point that abusers are adept at trying to isolate and dis-empower their victims is well taken, however they don't have mind control powers. Women often have many avenues of escape open to them that they choose not to take, for one reason or another. Part of empowerment is acknowledging one's own part in her own misery and recognizing what she can do to stop it.

Please notice I said nothing about women or men in my comment. Assuming I am talking only about abuse against women is *far* from true.

This story is about a woman. A woman I know married a man who was severely abusive when she was 18, at the urging of her family. She had two children with the "man." At first the abuse was controlling, but by the time they had kids it escalated. She went to her pastor for help, but was told that her marriage vows were for life, and she should try to be a better wife and he wouldn't beat her. She went to her mother, her mother told her she was lucky to have a man. She went to her sister, who told the abuser she was trying to escape and borrow money. Her abuser tried to kill her by drowning.

So she packed up what she had, took the girls out of school (actually stole them out of recess, because her abuser was so well liked in the community she knew the school would call him if she took the girls out early), and ran halfway across the country. They were living out of her car, because she had nothing. She called her mother after a few months- she was lonely and thought her mother would help her- it was getting to be winter and living out of the car was getting difficult. She was sure her mother loved her grandkids more than the abuser. The mother told the abuser where they were, and the mother and children were physically attacked in public and beaten- thankfully other people intervened. They ran twice more- to be ratted out. So this woman had no one she could trust- ever. She even changed her children's first names to hide.

Are you seriously suggesting she should have "known better" when everyone said he was a saint, including her own family? That she had all these opportunities to run, when her family turned her in at every available moment, knowing she and her children would be beaten?

I'm sorry, but every bit of fault lies on the abuser, those that enable him/her, and those who ignore the problem and do nothing to help. There were so many people who could have helped this woman, and probably some of them sat back and said "she should have known better."

 

[MikeBravo]

We should call this the generalisation thread.

Once again someone has set in train a useless and futile thread, opening a can of worms by making a vague reference to the golden era in the original post.

 

[Amy Jeanne]

We should call this the generalisation thread.

Once again someone has set in train a useless and futile thread, opening a can of worms by making a vague reference to the golden era in the original post.

lol lol lol lol

This made me laugh so hard.....lol

Seems like a lot of this lately, though. Maybe I should start some pro-vintage threads or go resurrect some...

 

[Feraud]

To be fair John is a longtime member and probably not trolling. Everyone generalizes and even those to claim to be so free-wheelin' and liberal.

There are a few "good news" discussions that could probably use a bump.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Ever notice how the longer couples stay together, the more alike they look?

 

[Feraud]

My wife will kill herself if she looks like me..

 

[Touchofevil]

:rofl:

 

[Tomasso]

What do they want?

They want it All........:nod:

 

[Edward]

All of this. This is how my husband and I operate. That "man vs. woman" crap is lame *yawn* I'm sure they exist, but I'm lucky enough to not know anyone that immature.

Also, men (and women, too) who think they are experts on the opposite sex make me laugh lol

Oh, tell me about it. I've seen so many men whine about how women are such a "problem"... when their whole approach to relationships is to treat "the little woman" as essentially "the enemy". Mind games. Tragic and darkly hilarious.

Settling for someone is demonized in our society. We're told by very intelligent people that settling for someone means you will not likely realize your potential as a human being.

What we're not told is that settling isn't always picking the nearest/first partner. And in today's society, we're most definitely not told how "settling" may in fact equal "settling down".

There is a world of difference between settling for a relationship that is not "right" for the individual because it is what is on offer, and "settling down" with someone with whom a viable, positive relationship is possible. I actually regard it as one of the great benefits of the modern age that society is slowly (albeit too slowly) coming to terms with the existence of single people. I've seen rather too many people even in my own generation mistake "settling" for "settling down", with all the unpleasant consequences that follow. Back in Northern Ireland there was even in my generation (and I think still is - much harder to tell from the outside and as an older guy now, though) a real culture of "marrying age". I've seen one too many reach "marrying age" in their mid twenties and settle for whoever they are with at the time rather than waiting until they are with someone with whom they can settle down. Particularly pronounced in social groups among whom premarital chastity is still in vogue (a factor which typically exacerbates the problem, as the consummation of the physical relationship is often one of the most significant motivations for formalising it to a legal effect). The sooner we evolved beyond the notion that marriage is a natural and superior state of being for everyone or that in some way people are less mature or their lives incomplete if they do not marry, the better. Similarly the question of whether they contribute to the perpetuation of the human species or not.

Without generalizing, I would say that the vast majority of people (probably everyone) just want to be happy.

Yes, indeed.

A maxim I was taught early by both parents, and the explicit agreement I have with The Baroness: "If you're not happy, get out of it". This is not entirely to coddle yourself, but with one unhappy side in a relationship, eventually both sides will be unhappy. However, in the end each person's happiness and content is by far more important than the hurt that will be caused to the other party. They'll get over it. Far better a clean break than years of misery and increasing antagonism.* Of course before making a life-changing decision, one should have properly assessed the situation - is it really the other person that makes you unhappy, or is this just a convenient excuse that you can use to avoid dealing with your own issues? etc. etc.

bk

*all with the proviso that youth - and not so youth - will make bad, often wrong in retrospect (look at the number of people who go back to have flings with high school sweethearts!), decisions.

Agreed. Re the bolded, I was once put in a very unpleasant position by someone who did just that. Of course, in the long run this contributed significantly to improving my own lot, not that I could see that at the time. Less an ex-partner, more a narrow escape.

We should call this the generalisation thread.

Once again someone has set in train a useless and futile thread, opening a can of worms by making a vague reference to the golden era in the original post.

I find the implied hetero-normative nature of this photo offensive.







lol

 

[John in Covina]

I find that it is an interesting thing that I was asking what people want now and how does it differ from what people wanted back then and we wind up with a lot of finger pointing as to why relationships don't work.

And to top it off I get pointed at.

All I can tell you is that my parents married in 1949 and were maried until my dad passed away in 1999, there was no finger pointing and while there were some tears now and then they didn't really simply rely on eachother to make themselves happy but lived to make the other one happy.


So often people come into marrige simply thinking what it does for them not realizing it is about the other person first.

(People revile these verses from Scripture but never seem to read what it says to the husband and his duty: Ephesians 5:22-33)

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Very good post John.
Sure alot of resentment and bitterness seems to surface in a thread like this. Sad. The joy of sharing seems lost in more important personal ideals of just how it should be. Perfection for them. Ain't gonna happen. Few seem to overcome their past (rarely a bed of roses(?)). All I can think of..is what a shame..what a waste. Perhaps missing happiness simply because of fearing what that may really mean.
HD

 

[John in Covina]

Perhaps asking what worked in the past and what works now for relationships would be a better topic.

 

[Undertow]

There are SO many choices, and one MUST exhaust one's appetite before "settling" on a final choice. Another factor is this idea that there is something wrong with anyone who is not at least trying to pursue happiness.

In the era, people weren't obsessed with "being happy". Now, men and women settle down with a good option only to find themselves fretting, "Could I be happier with this other person?" "If he/she would cave into [x] desire, would I like them more?" "Am I just spinning my wheels, or could I be so much happier with [y]?"

I guess it boils down to the fact that many folks have so much more time on their hands. They're not fighting for their lives, or hungry, or taking inordinate risks. They are sliding their fingers over a touchscreen and wondering when the wage-slave behind the counter will finally be done making their $10 coffee. [huh]

No wonder people can't just be happy.

 

[John in Covina]

My parents met once then dated 1 time then my dad proposed the next day.

It is my understanding that my mom was actually visiting from Denmark at the time staying at her uncle and aunt's home on 54th St in Brooklyn. My dad was no "dating machine" either.

 

[LizzieMaine]

In the era, people weren't obsessed with "being happy". Now, men and women settle down with a good option only to find themselves fretting, "Could I be happier with this other person?" "If he/she would cave into [x] desire, would I like them more?" "Am I just spinning my wheels, or could I be so much happier with [y]?"

What's more important, excitement or contentment? We live in a culture today that insists that the adrenaline must *always* be flowing. It's not enough any more just to sit on the porch at night with your spouse listening to the ball game, the culture tells us if we're not out there Grabbing Life By The Horns 24 hours a day, we're missing out, and if we're "content" there's something wrong with us. Just another way the Boys From Marketing stick their faces where they don't belong and mess things up.

 

[Flicka]

I find that it is an interesting thing that I was asking what people want now and how does it differ from what people wanted back then and we wind up with a lot of finger pointing as to why relationships don't work.

And to top it off I get pointed at.

All I can tell you is that my parents married in 1949 and were maried until my dad passed away in 1999, there was no finger pointing and while there were some tears now and then they didn't really simply rely on eachother to make themselves happy but lived to make the other one happy.


So often people come into marrige simply thinking what it does for them not realizing it is about the other person first.

(People revile these verses from Scripture but never seem to read what it says to the husband and his duty: Ephesians 5:22-33)

I do revile them, yes. But I'm really fond of Luke 18:29-30.

My maternal grandparents married in 1946 and so did my paternal grandparents. My maternal grandparents loved each other to the day my grandfather died, despite my grandmother's Alzheimer. On the other hand, my paternal grandparents were completely miserable. I would say that the difference was that my maternal grandparents were happy, well-adjusted people who were well suited for each other, while my paternal grandparents were damaged people with very traumatic childhoods who were very different. I think it's easier to be happy if you don't carry around a lot of painful emotional baggage, so I guess "endeavour to have a happy childhood" is one lesson to be learned from their stories.