"If neither of us is married in 20 years, let's get hitched."

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Have you ever said this to anyone?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I did last night. We kind of joked about it but were also fairly serious, I think.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:25 (twenty-two years ago)

20 years is a long time.

― Huckadelphia (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:26 (twenty-two years ago)

This happens only in the movies. Or "Friends"

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd think there'd be a semiconcious at least "well I might be dead before then" type of thought involved in that, but I would I guess

― Silly Sailor (Andrew Thames), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I said something along the lines of "If neither of us is married by the time I'm 35, let's have a kid" to someone. But he got a serious girlfriend, and then we got in a massive row and completely fell out. Not necessarily in that order. Can't really remember.

Escape clauses like that are total dud. If you like the person enough to get married to them eventually, get married to them now. Or something. How does it feel being someone's Backup Marriage? Pretty shit, I imagine.

― the river fleet, Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it would be theoritically possible to sanely have a kid with someone like that, but marrying someone just cuz they're the least reprehensible option?

― Huckadelphia (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i kont spal

― Huckadelphia (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:33 (twenty-two years ago)

"... except if you get fat or ugly."

― Jon Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, the marriage thing seems totally dud and desperate. Two people who are single but choose to reproduce, that is somewhat different, I guess.

― the river fleet, Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, the latter is an appallingly bad and self-indulgent idea, instead of just a dumb one.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Just be honest and admit you want to fuck them now.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:48 (twenty-two years ago)

But what if you only want to do them in 20 years time?

Ack, marriage is a dud anyway, apart for tax purposes. And spawing with someone just because you haven't found any other suitable displacement activities is a big fat bastard dud. Eww.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Spawning, SPAWNING.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

But what if you only want to do them in 20 years time?

Go for the parents.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a quick fix, I'll admit.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 15:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I should add that in my case, we actually did date for a couple years (1999-2001) but broke up partially because we didn't want to get tied down in such an intense relationship in our early 20s.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:16 (twenty-two years ago)

What about now though jay?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, I wouldn't want to date her again now because the whole "seeing other people" hasn't exactly worked out for me yet.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:30 (twenty-two years ago)

And you feel like you need that before any serious relationship, or any serious realtionship with her?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:32 (twenty-two years ago)

The latter.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

But hey, this thread isn't about me!

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

OK, I guess it is.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:49 (twenty-two years ago)

So Jay, are there any sexual problems? Haha, sorry, only joking!

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, the latter is an appallingly bad and self-indulgent idea, instead of just a dumb one.

Hey! Scotland is threatened by serious depopulation. It's totally responsible!

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

i said that to a 4 year old the other day. a 24 yr old bride awaits me in the future.

― oops that sounds perverted actually (ken c), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Pervert!

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes it does, Ken you filthy beggar. Hey, CHU, leave those kids alone!

urgh xpost

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:58 (twenty-two years ago)

liz, marriage is not a dud, laura and i were happily married for nine years (and had been together for seven years before that) and if it hadn't been for the cancer we would have been happily married for many more years. don't generalise.

the answer to the original question is dud because you might not be alive in 20 years' time.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Kids=Dud -- what kind of a world etc etc
On the whole, this is dudder than getting married in the immediate term. Which is quite dud enough.

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

it may be dud in Liz's opinion Marcello.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know why 20 years seemed like a good time when I originally said it. Does 10 years change anything?

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:02 (twenty-two years ago)

(Maybe because I can see myself in 10 years, at age 35, not quite ready to give in yet.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

it'd render my proposal illegal...

― pervert (ken c), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:04 (twenty-two years ago)

How about "If both of us are married in 20 years, let's have an affair"?

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)

hahaha -- why not now though?

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't fancy you.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

You've never met me

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I said this to my friend Vin back in the day. We agreed to it, the way pre-teens agree to things like this. Enter: women. Bang went that pact.

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I have a pact like this, except it was for when we turned 30, not in twenty years. I think it just comes about from being in a bad relationship or just having a bad breakup and being disgusted about the whole situation of love and marriage, or at least that was the case for the two of us. I think the pact is still good though I haven't checked recently.

― Allyzay, Wednesday, 4 February 2004 17:20 (twenty-two years ago)

UGH...these backup pacts are for boobs. An ex-gf/stalker told me this once. I'll probably never hear from her ever again, since she doesn't know 'bout my whereabouts!

― My Head Hurts (Francis Watlington), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:35 (twenty-two years ago)

If you're comfortable enough with someone to be able to say this humbling thing and you can actually imagine yourself with them, then you should probably marry this person.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

What about "If neither of us is in a good relationship in 20 years, let's kill ourselves together?"

― martin m. (mushrush), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

That might be seen as a touch overwrought.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I had a 20-year pact with this one friend of mine. She and I, who had been friends for years by this point, had a relationship at the time centered around shared tales of how horrible our girl/boyfriend were, and I think it was more of a mutual I-know-you-you-deserve-better kinda thing. Although I can't say I wouldn't have made out with her given the chance.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

i said this once to an ex-g/f who i'm still friends with, but i wish i hadn't. i'm terrified because she keeps going out with dudes and then breaking up with them, saying that they don't compare to me. which is flattering, but still terrifying.

― Please Don't Google Me (rotten03), Thursday, 5 February 2004 03:39 (twenty-two years ago)

"if neither of us is married in 20 years, I get to have that ass."

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 5 February 2004 03:57 (twenty-two years ago)

What about "If neither of us is in a good relationship in 20 years, let's kill ourselves together?"
-- (marti...), February 4th, 2004 5:39 AM. (mushrush)

I've said that one before, while drunk and the length of time was reasonably shorter.

― ipsofacto (ipsofacto), Thursday, 5 February 2004 04:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Miccio you genius

― Dave M. (rotten03), Thursday, 5 February 2004 04:06 (twenty-two years ago)

It didn't work out on Murphy Brown. Frank and Murphy went their separate ways.

― Elsa Lanchester, Thursday, 5 February 2004 05:54 (twenty-two years ago)

So someday, love didn't find them?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 5 February 2004 05:57 (twenty-two years ago)

if it's her opinion then she should say IN MY OPINION SHOULDN'T SHE????

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 5 February 2004 08:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes it is my opinion. Sorry Marcello. I didn't mean to disparage anyone's happiness in the state of marriage. However, I would say that the whole Classic/Dud errr dichotomy set-up type situation is meant for people to be able to express their opinion quickly without saying explicitly, 'This is my opinion', because that would take up waay too much bandwidth, no? Kind of part of the shorthand of ILE.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Thursday, 5 February 2004 11:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Umm I fear you when you're grumpy.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Thursday, 5 February 2004 11:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Ack, marriage is a dud anyway, apart for tax purposes.
I used to have the same opinion (partially because in our shop we buy gold... I buy more wedding bands from people than I sell'em). But I am gravitating towards pro even though I realize that chances of staying together for more than ten years are extremely slim. So we'll have to be exception to the rule. :-)

― nathalie (nathalie), Thursday, 5 February 2004 11:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha Marcello you mentalist. You're a writer, surely you know that sticking totally redundant phrases like IN MY OPINION everywhere is, well, totally redundant. Why must you take disinterested comments on a PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD and attach them to your life story?

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:16 (twenty-two years ago)

like you fucking care.

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Why must you take disinterested comments on a PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD and attach them to your life story?
Because it might be important to him (and obv not to you)?

― nathalie (nathalie), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh Christ. Enough with the rage Barry love, please.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)

My point above was not to cause yet another row, merely to say that it was obviously Liz's opinion on this subject. Marcello obviously has a differing opinion because he is fortunate enough to have experienced a happy marriage & probably still would had it not been for some sad circumstances. I think you can take it as read if someone writes a line like the one Liz did, it's their opinion.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Well put pinky. Nathalie, do you understand now? It's about Marcello's idiotic solipsism, not about the content at all. But then isn't it always.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Eep is this going to carry on being all meta, or will the subject eventually return?

I'm not anti-marriage for everyone, obviously, because that would be MENTAL and I'm not Chairman Mao. I'm not a fan. Fair play to people who have the ability to foresee themselves legally attached to one person and happy with the situation for the rest of their lives.

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Getting back to the thread: surely having this said to you is the same as saying, if I don't find anyone better, you'll do! Fupp that in the biggest way, if I'm not good enough for you, then b0ll0x!
x-post

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's usually said in a kindly, reciprocal (and usually joking) context. Not in a "I know you'd settle for me now, but I'd rather look around a bit longer, thanks" way.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

But that's the thing, would you be settling for this person?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Doesn't it mean "we like and are comfortable around each other, so when we're older, less bothered about sex and stuff, we can give each other companionship"?

(apols for derailing thread, and to Marcello and Nathalie)

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Are we talking about kids here? Although I guess only Jaymc can answer that, because if we are then that is the same. 'You arent worthy to be the father/mother of my children, but I want kids, so if nothing better comes along, then hey, let's hit it!'

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 5 February 2004 12:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Barry is OTM. Though I'd recast 'sex and stuff' as 'intense romantic love'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 5 February 2004 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean you could have terrific sex with a fuckbuddy you're very fond of but still not want to marry them.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 5 February 2004 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Exactly, you DON'T want to marry them, so you are settling.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 5 February 2004 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, I *know* pp. The point is that it's a reciprocal thing that only comes into play as a fall back option. It's not supposed to be romantic.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 5 February 2004 14:00 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah i guess, point taken!

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 5 February 2004 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

It could work as a good incentive to get married.

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 5 February 2004 15:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Although I guess only Jaymc can answer that

I am merely your genial host.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 5 February 2004 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I said that to my friend Amanda back in high school. We both laughed, our laughs dissolved into chuckles, into a quick stare, and soon enough we were going at it like mad.

It's all true, except for the stuff after the first sentence.

― Gear! (Gear!), Thursday, 5 February 2004 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

this sounds like something i might have said at one point but i have no idea to whom.

― gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 5 February 2004 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I've said it to at least 5 of my male mates in the last 5 years, not that I plan not to have a toyboy of my own by then.....

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Friday, 6 February 2004 00:21 (twenty-two years ago)

i think this has been said by someone to me, although he wanted to do it 'at 30' which i thought was both way too early and confusing because he's at least 3 years older than me and didn't clarify if he meant when i was 30 or when he was 30.

this seems like an extreme version of what i call 'the reserve list'. i can't remember if i've explained this anywhere around here, but a short summary is that the reserve list is populated by people that are on reserve for dating in the future. usually the reasons you aren't together right now are practical: one of you is seeing someone else or you're living in different places, but there's sometimes that 'it just doesn't seem right, right now, but i think it could be great later' thing which can be confusing.

i usually tell guys when they're on my reserve list, i think that's fair. had a pretty major reserve list shakeup in the last year, when the guy who had been at the top of the list for about 9 years tumbled to a much lower position. crazy.

― colette (a2lette), Friday, 6 February 2004 14:32 (twenty-two years ago)

!!!

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Friday, 6 February 2004 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

marriage is good for green card and tax/benefit purposes. im not religious so it doesnt have any meaning to me, but as a means to an end, it can be good.

i think in the case of the subject title, whats meant is, "if we end up old and lonely and alone" lets do it together, not alone. i think its mainly said because most of us cant actually imagine what its like to be in our 40s and older, and theres an implicit inference that our criteria might be different then (whether it will be or not is anyones guess).

on the other hand, i think its more likely that this is really an example of safe flirting.

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Friday, 6 February 2004 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

on the other hand, i think its more likely that this is really an example of safe flirting.

ding ding ding ding ding.

Which is why I asked about the suicide pact, because that's not really safe even if it is flirting.

― martin m. (mushrush), Saturday, 7 February 2004 00:52 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...

i've never said it, but it's been said to me, and it's classic when you can imagine a successful marriage to the person and you've never been more than friends.

the corollary dud, though, is 'let's get married because we're turning 30 in a few months and you're probably the best thing around (even though i dumped you a few years ago)'

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:19 (twenty years ago)

This whole thread makes me want to vomit. I mean the idea that people keep "reserve lists" or whatever just revolts me to the core. Like you're so afraid of being alone that you keep a backup and a spare?

God, this hangover is not helping my misanthropy.

― Disciplining And Controlling My Mind (kate), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:24 (twenty years ago)

I love being married!

(sorry)

― adamrl (nordicskilla), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:25 (twenty years ago)

this has been said to me :-(

― $!$@!$!, Friday, 13 January 2006 16:26 (twenty years ago)

I love being married to you too, Adam.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:29 (twenty years ago)

ethan i meant it!!

― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:31 (twenty years ago)

I forgot about this thread. It looks like the person I said this to (at the start of the thread) is probably getting married to someone else now.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:34 (twenty years ago)

Y'all are being a bit cynical about this, I think. This kind of discussion happens between people who don't have huge passionate attractions to one another, but get along wonderfully and care deeply about each other and so on. So the idea would be ... if neither of us find the huge passionate attraction we theoretically want from marriage, then we'll probably spend all our time together anyway, so maybe at some point we'll stop wasting time looking for something else and just enjoy it. The only part of this that's stupid is making an "agreement" about it way ahead of time: if, in 20 or 30 years, you still would just rather spend all your time with each other, you'll figure it out then, you know?

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:41 (twenty years ago)

"Y'all" = "people of 2004" + "kate"

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:41 (twenty years ago)

People of 2004 are pretty weird, let's face it.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:43 (twenty years ago)

absolutely otm as to the good side of this, but these aren't the only people who have this kind of discussion.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:43 (twenty years ago)

And actually maybe a better translation of this would be: "You're such a good friend that I would actually enjoy spending all my time with you, and the only thing that would keep us from actually getting married is the lack of a big romantic element to our friendship."

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:44 (twenty years ago)

I have a deal like this with one of my friends - when she turns 30, if neither of us is in a serious relationship, we'll get married and have a kid. I'm not sure how serious the deal is though. I guess both of are hoping we'll find someone special before that, there's still 6 years time.

I also have a deal with a lesbian friend of mine that I will conceive her child, should she want one with me. This is a deal that I actually feel like keeping, if she really asks me to. Lately my feelings towards getting children have become more positive, and if she'll be living with girlfriend, then the child will have to great parents, and I can be Uncle Tuomas who takes care of him/her when they're away, and who spoils him/her with presents and stuff.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:45 (twenty years ago)

must...not make baby masturbation joke...

― Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:47 (twenty years ago)

i had a pact like this with someone once, but shortly after agreeing to it he met the love of his life :-(

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:48 (twenty years ago)

Ha, Tuomas: unless Finland is experiencing a bizarre drop in life expectancy, I think 30 might be a very bad time-frame for this kind of arrangement! (I.e., no way will that happen!)

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:48 (twenty years ago)

I dunno, this whole thread just makes me depressed and angry in a way I can't quite define.

― Disciplining And Controlling My Mind (kate), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:48 (twenty years ago)

"This whole thread" is the variable there, isn't it.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:49 (twenty years ago)

I can be Uncle Tuomas

― Dan (So Many Cabin Jokes, So Little Time) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:50 (twenty years ago)

I don't quite get your point, Nabisco.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:50 (twenty years ago)

(xx-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:51 (twenty years ago)

*high fives dan*

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:51 (twenty years ago)

i think it's time for an ilx name change

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:51 (twenty years ago)

What do American kids with uncles named Tom call them?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:53 (twenty years ago)

massa

― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:54 (twenty years ago)

aunt jemima (haha xpost)

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:54 (twenty years ago)

haha

― adamrl (nordicskilla), Friday, 13 January 2006 16:55 (twenty years ago)

i have to say the first thing i flashed on when i say 'Uncle Tuomas' was that tuomas.jpg. you know the one.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:00 (twenty years ago)

the one where he's whipping a slave?

― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:00 (twenty years ago)

Thread of the day.

― Dan (Sorry Tuomas) Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:02 (twenty years ago)

dave harvelle

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:02 (twenty years ago)

My point, Tuomas, is that 30 is young -- younger than most people are ready to stop searching for mates and just settle in with what they've found so far. Maybe social arrangements in Finland make that feel different, but from what I know that's not exactly the case.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:03 (twenty years ago)

he just longs for the day when a man could sit on his porch a whittlin' and sing "my ol' jyväskylä home" in peace.

― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:04 (twenty years ago)

It seems I can't be taken seriously here anymore... :(

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:04 (twenty years ago)

30 is young in NYC, but i'll bet it'd old in Pueblo

x-post: tuomas, I thought Tuomas.jpg would be a sign of a kid's favorite uncle

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:06 (twenty years ago)

he just longs for the day when a man could sit on his porch a whittlin' and sing "my ol' jyväskylä home" in peace.

OHSNAP.GIF

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:06 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, Nabisco, I got your point once I thought it for a while. I think she wants kids by the time she turns 30, that's why we set that as the time limit. But as said, it's not that likely we're actually going to go through it.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:07 (twenty years ago)

Young in NYC, yes. Old in places like Pueblo only if you count common-law marriages! But my sense is that it won't be particularly "old" for Tuomas's social group. Plus just wanting something to happen by 30 doesn't mean you'll hit 30 and immediately activate the back-up plan -- most sane people keep at things a bit, and only gradually come around to deciding that what they've already found migth be the best they're going to.

A lifeboat for Tuomas: http://www.gettysburg.edu/library/specoll/images/rarebooks/uncle%20tom

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:12 (twenty years ago)

what happened to you nitsuh, you used to be cool.

― cancer prone fat guy (dubplatestyle), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:14 (twenty years ago)

I have drunkenly proposed to Alba is this kind of manner. Last summer. There was good drunken logic behind the idea, although I forgot about it in the mroning. I think he found it sweet.

― Anna (Anna), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:20 (twenty years ago)

i wonder if the prevalence of mid-30s marriages in the NYT weddings section (as per gothamist - i don't actually read the thing; no, not me) is more reflective of the age at which people get married or more reflective of the fact that you probably have more to write about people at that age.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:20 (twenty years ago)

It's probably because people of that age have the kind of money and social connections that nyt likes to write about. If nyt writes about the wedding of someone in their 20s it's usually because at least of of the parents involved is monied or famous.

― Lars and Jagger (Ex Leon), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:23 (twenty years ago)

Well I'm not saying mid-30s is necessarily "normal," just not-abnormal for certain social spheres. Or whatever. Also gabbneb keep in mind it's not just "when people normally get married" but rather "when people decide to completely scrap their original marriage-search plans and just cosy up with good friends instead." For sane people the latter should come several years after the former!

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:23 (twenty years ago)

Thirty doesn't seem as near to the end of the line when you're actually at/past thirty than it does when you're 20.

I think a good friend and I might have jokingly said this to each other once. At the time I was horribly bitter and cynical towards love and, well, he still is. So it seemed like a good drunken idea.

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:27 (twenty years ago)

there was actually an article in the NYT a few years ago about how "30 is the new 20" and how more new yorkers were getting married in their 30s.

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:32 (twenty years ago)

I guess both of are hoping we'll find someone special before that, there's still 6 years time.

Yes, I'm sure that six years will flow as slow as molasses, too.

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Friday, 13 January 2006 17:53 (twenty years ago)

I have a marriage pact with someone. We have about three and a half years left until my 35th bday. According to her, we had originally decided it would kick in when I turned 30. I had no recollection of this, and she reminded me about it eight months before I turned 30. I decided to give us both the benefit of the doubt and push it to 35.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Friday, 13 January 2006 18:20 (twenty years ago)

I think I agreed to this getting married if we've not found anyone, but I think we put the age at around 35 or something like that. I'm sure she'll have forgotten if I bring it up.

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 13 January 2006 18:28 (twenty years ago)

I had this whole positive thing written out about this and love and "knowing oneself" and then I got mired in the biology argument, which is both depressing and interesting re: technological advances. frick. But yeah, 30 is not old! 35 isn't really either!

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 18:33 (twenty years ago)

I dunno, I think I'd set the age at more like 70. I can imagine "settling" for a friend, maybe, after living an independent kind of life and deciding that having something familiar and unchallenging to come home to outweighs the hope of finding something that actually fills the vacuum...but I can't imagine getting to that state before I start collecting social security. Hope springs etc.

I mean, what if it was a mistake? What if you threw in the towel & got married/conceived and THEN one of you met someone else? There are just too many people involved to be hurt at that point.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 18:40 (twenty years ago)

The only thing I can just about see it as being good for is if you want to procreate and you haven't met "the one". Marriage just for the sake of being married seems like a nonsensical goal to me.

― Disciplining And Controlling My Mind (kate), Friday, 13 January 2006 18:48 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, the other thing I was going to say (and then decided I'd gone on long enough already), was that by age 70 (god willing) I don't expect to care two bits about being married. If someone wants to come home to me, he can damn well do so -- and vicey versy.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 18:52 (twenty years ago)

I guess there are economic reasons to get married like inheritence tax and etc.

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 13 January 2006 18:55 (twenty years ago)

Laurel, if neither of us is married at 70, we should move in together and become a crime-solving duo.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 19:15 (twenty years ago)

I'm game, rrrob. Where will we live? Am partial to bungalows but I can be flex, I guess -- but there must be a garden.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 19:19 (twenty years ago)

We will live wherever evil reigns, wherever justice must be done, and preferably where it's not too damp because, y'know, the rheumatism.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 19:28 (twenty years ago)

So Las Vegas, then.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 19:32 (twenty years ago)

whoo! yes! hahaha, awesome.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 19:36 (twenty years ago)

Reasons you might want to get married, even if just to a good reliable friend you're not necessarily romantically crazy about:

- Company, especially if your friends/peers are increasingly paired up and married off; you'll have someone around the house, someone to take vacations with, etc.

- Economics; why be great friends in separate one-bedrooms if you'd both enjoy sharing a nice big house? Why not share health insurance and match up retirement funds and all that good stuff?

- Kids, as mentioned, if that part is more important to you than the search for some crazy-romance soulmate -- and especially if you'd prefer to raise those kids in a two-parent wedlock.

- Aging; once you get really late in life there comes a point where you'll really benefit from that pairing up, so you can look after each other's health and such.

- Tradition; you can do all of those things without being married, but at some point it becomes meaningless to make the distinction -- you're paired off in the way that most people think of as "marriage," and you're common-law married in legal terms, so what semantic point are you trying to prove by not doing it?

Which is the whole weird thing here -- for most of humanity and for most of human history, pairing up like that has been all "marriage" consists of, right? Whether it's arranged or based on finance or whatever else, the point is just that you wind up matched with someone to fill all those roles; notions of pure-romantic marriage are pretty recent inventions and actually kind of questionable in terms of their reality. The majority of marriages on Earth have surely been built on "worse" things than two good friends deciding they get along and might as well pair up and support one another.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 20:26 (twenty years ago)

nabisco, do you think it's possible to do that good/reliable pairing-up thing with someone you ARE romantically crazy about? because a lot of people seem to believe that you can only pick one -- the whirlwind romance or the settling-down-with-someone-nice. (i ask because none of the guys i've ever dated have considered me settling-down material and i'm thinkin' i'm just gonna die alone.)

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 20:33 (twenty years ago)

Well, not to read too much into N's points but in terms of becoming happily resigned to companionship vs waiting it out for romance, all I know is none of my past tries have been anywhere near compromise-worthy, so at the very least it's going to have to be an improvement over those. Fortunately I don't have to take a husband in order to a) own property/raise children, or b) get the land cleared and the corn growing, so I think I'll keep my romantic notions.

Weirdly, it's always seemed a lot more plausible to me to grow old with a best female friend than with a male spouse, but then I've valued the women in my family & other circles all my life, and have only briefly been happy in dating relationships.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 20:40 (twenty years ago)

That doesn't seem that weird to me.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 January 2006 20:41 (twenty years ago)

In fact, isn't that what's known as a Boston marriage?

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 January 2006 20:42 (twenty years ago)

Of course it's possible to have a good match and romance at the same time! I dunno, maybe I'm just weird or lucky, too-accommodating or too easily pleased, but ... yes, no question. And it seems like as people get older they drastically reshape their priorities about these things, in ways that seem productive. Someone will probably come along and be cynical about this, but it's true: e.g., lots of people seem to decide that having a reliable companion is more important to them than any of the minor things they thought they couldn't stand before -- so suddenly an honest, caring person with a crooked nose and bad taste in music becomes just the right thing. People figure this stuff out, not because of desperation or "settling," but because they get years of experience in sorting through the options, and maybe get more confident about looking beyond details and just deciding that they'll be happier with a good person there than alone.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 20:50 (twenty years ago)

"good person"

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 20:52 (twenty years ago)

Yes, Jay.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:01 (twenty years ago)

Maybe a better way of putting that is that our demands for the details of the "good person" become more flexible, or that we get better at sorting them out, or something. Or we shift our expectations of what we want from a relationship -- we become less concerned with satisfying a big ideal, and more concerned with whether the relationship will make us happier than not being in it would.

Cf Laurel's point, which makes me curious. I can kind of understand the same-sex friend idea, except for one thing: is it really easier to find a friend you want to spend all your time with than a romantic partner? I find it hard to separate the two, but maybe that's just because most of my friends are girls already (and to be honest I have more vexed friend-relationships with some of them than I ever have with girlfriends). In other words, what makes the "relationship" more demanding or difficult to find than the close-female-friendship? Is it because of differences between men and women, or is it because you expect more from the relationship? (Besides just the obvious sex part.) Because maybe that's part of what I mean about changing expectations.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:02 (twenty years ago)

what I'd like to know is: who on this thread would marry ME in 20 yrs?

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:36 (twenty years ago)

I don't know if I can answer. There's too much -- I keep typing out a few paras and getting really upset and deleting. It's a maudlin kind of day, apparently.

There's the fact that I haven't dated enough to show any patterns -- both my LTRs have ended dismally but for opposite reasons so I can't really extrapolate from either of them, and they took place over almost a decade, so far apart that I was hardly even the same person for both. In addition, I thought I could get old w/ my current (male) roommate but the past year has made that impossible and I don't know if it will ever not be impossible again, so there's a lot of sadness I'm holding at bay.

I can say, though, that I think the "obvious sex part" is really important. Maybe I'm just choosing to make it important? I can't tell. But I haven't found a workable compromise yet so I'm going to have to go with "important".

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:37 (twenty years ago)

we often forget that marrying for romance is a very euro/western idea.

― Miss Misery xox (MissMiseryTX), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:41 (twenty years ago)

if you've gotta live with one person for the rest of your life, you might as well make it fun!

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:48 (twenty years ago)

My point with that was ... say you'd be content to spend the rest of life with a close friend. And say there's an appropriately sexed person who's also a close friend, meaning the experience would be the same, except there would also be a sexual component. Is it really important for that sexual component to be great? It could be boring as hell, but it's still more than you were getting from the original close friend, right?

And the deeper point of that was, like, what makes it easier to find a same-sex close friend (assuming you're hetero) you'd be willing to pair up -- what makes that easier than finding a relationship? Unless it's male/female differences, the main possibility is that it's because we expect stuff out of lovers that we don't out of friends -- stuff that can actually raise the bar well beyond "someone I'd be content to live with from now on." A nice person you have lousy sex with might get chucked -- even though an equally nice person you don't have sex with at all would seem fine for live-long pairing-up!

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:55 (twenty years ago)

Umm, I'm not sure that all actually makes sense, but the idea is that we expect relationships to give us way more than friendships -- and this means that a "failure" as a relationship may actually have offered more than a "successful" friendship. And I think as people get older they kind of recalibrate for that.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:58 (twenty years ago)

No, and I think here's where the discussion kind of becomes moot: because I'd rather be alone than be having a not-very-fulfilling relationship. My dreams just die too hard, and the constant sadness of being involved in something that's slowly strangling one, if not two, people is just too much. I tried it, I really did. The universe is just going to have to do better than that or Rrrobyn and I should start looking at real estate.

And I feel like I have to say that by "not very fulfilling" I don't mean, like, your partner has habits that drive you crazy like leaving the cupboard doors open after rummaging through them, or not making the bed, or you don't agree with his or her politics. It was considerably more serious, although still sort of intangible, or maybe only relevant if you're the kind of person who...well, considers emotional needs to be ACTUAL NEEDS.

Finding friends is easy -- first of all, unless you're equally happy to date & marry either gender, opening up the field to "just friends" doubles your chances of a match. Second, you don't have to be sexually compatible in any way. Third, unless you're, like, buying property or agreeing to jointly raise offspring, it's not a permanent commitment -- circumstances change and there's always the chance you'll part ways. With a marriage, one likes to think that's not so much the case (although of course it's not a NON-issue). I could probably think of more but I'm tired and I have to go home and do things.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:22 (twenty years ago)

The universe is just going to have to do better than that or Rrrobyn and I should start looking at real estate.

maybe we can all live together! it'll be like the golden girls.

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:23 (twenty years ago)

I'll have you know, I am very supportive of this Laurel/Jody/Robyn arrangement.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:26 (twenty years ago)

laurel = betty white
rrrobyn = rue mcclanahan
jbr = estelle getty
tokyo rosemary = bea arthur

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:27 (twenty years ago)

http://www.dashboardwidgets.com/showcase/data/57/Golden_Girls-1p0f.png

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:28 (twenty years ago)

That casting is actually pretty perfect.

Whitehall is the new St. Olaf.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:35 (twenty years ago)

I think I could settle for the sort of relationship Nabisco describes in his long post upthread. I still believe in love, I haven't turned cynic or anything, so I'm still hoping my Second Great Love will come by some day. If it seems like that won't happen (and most likely I'll keep on looking for more than six years), I'd rather live happily with someone nice rather than try to search for the possibly nonexistent Right One for the reast of my life. I don't believe in any sort of afterlife, so I'd rather get the most out of it while I'm here.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:37 (twenty years ago)

I dunno, Laurel, I still find it weird. It's like ... if a friend gives you A and B, but not C, that's wonderful -- you'd move right in. If a lover gives you A and B, but not C, that's a crushing disappointment. Strange, right? Well, not so strange, because the friendship doesn't actually remind you of what's lacking; you never expected it to be there anyway. But there's something interesting about that. And I do think that a lot of people, as they get older, meet people and start to think: "This person isn't all that great at the C part, but the A and B are there, and in the end that's the important part." Or, emotions being such as they are, sometimes being reliable about the A and B actually creates the C. Not sure how to explain that one, except to say that beyond some level of age/maturity you see lots of people for whom qualities like stability and honesty actually start to create "romance."

(This may be one of those weird things like where you lose a leg and then you're all "it's the best thing that ever happened to me, it taught me so much," but hey, that ability to emotionally adapt like that is one of the best things we have going for us.)

(And not that you have to think about this any more than you feel like thinking about it! I mean, I know where you're coming from -- when both people are missing the C part it tends to poison the A and the B pretty quickly. Resentment and disappointment over what's not there -- and both people's attempts to GET that missing part from the other -- they can make it worse than if it's just understood from the get-go that it's not on the table.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:38 (twenty years ago)

Greatg friendships are more complicated than relationships.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:42 (twenty years ago)

haha, golden girls! except we'd all be detectives too. Ah, but even the golden girls had relationship issues, with each other and with men. Of course, that was tv.

Maybe the issue here is that of long-term committment and security, as Laurel brings up. Once a person has those things, and a "good" marriage theoretically provides them, then one has more freedom for other things in life - which includes further work on the relationship, certainly, but also spending time with children, creative pursuits, work, friendships, intellect, etc, etc. That is, the search for a partner, which we know can be really central to one's life, is no longer an issue. I've read this somewhere, I think.

But beyond just reading it, I've also felt, among other feelings, that sense of, well, relief after meeting someone and thinking that he might be IT. Mind you, that's only happened a couple of times and early on in brief relationships that obv did not result in marriage - b/c there were fundamental incompatabilities. Is this a "wrong" feeling? I don't think so, if both people aren't idealizing the other, and want the same thing from the relationship. Or, god, just have tonnes of fun together plus some nice intimacy. I do see what you mean though, Nabisco.

omg, haha in a grim way re: partner understanding that emotional needs are actual needs. Most of my relationships have been really good this way, but one guy (yes, one I thought might've been IT) was very much "what do you mean you FEEL that way?" Basically wanting an example, an incident, a solid reason for the feeling, etc., which made me feel like an irrational person for listening to my intuition, esp re: him (which was, shockah, actually what I needed to listen to - and eventually did.) This went beyond just "different ways of communicating." Anyway, that was a tangent.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:47 (twenty years ago)

Okay, I'm still here. Work sucks.

Let me be clear: I have not at any point indicated that I think there's only ONE PERSON IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD who is somehow "right". My mother, on the other hand, has been been praying all my life for that Future Special Someone. I know, because she tells me all the goddamn time.

Jody: the more, the merrier! Also, the longer the rotation before I have to clean the bathroom again, so my invitation is not entirely un-self-serving.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:47 (twenty years ago)

I'd rather live happily with someone nice rather than try to search for the possibly nonexistent Right One for the reast of my life.

i just hate the word "nice" in this context, like at the end of the day their being "nice" is all that really matters. like you can't compromise with someone who's the right one in every way but is also kinda harmlessly bitchy and emotionally messy.

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:49 (twenty years ago)

Well, that's nice for me.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:49 (twenty years ago)

I think you're reading too much into it, Jody.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:50 (twenty years ago)

sorry, i'm projecting some of my own history on to this, i know.

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:54 (twenty years ago)

I think we should hire someone to do the cleaning in our crazy golden girls house. In fact, I think that might be good advice for anyone living together, omg.
xpost

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:54 (twenty years ago)

rrrobyn oootm

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:55 (twenty years ago)

Can I be your Naked Male Cleaner?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:55 (twenty years ago)

no.

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:56 (twenty years ago)

That totally made me cough on my tea.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:56 (twenty years ago)

Damn.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:57 (twenty years ago)

Well, choke, and then cough. Because I have a cold ohno.
xpost

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:58 (twenty years ago)

Hmm, I'd be about as old as you then, I guess you wouldn't want to see my nude buttocks twist while I vacuum the Persian.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:58 (twenty years ago)

(I'm sorry, I just came back from the pub, a bit tipsy...)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 22:59 (twenty years ago)

hey, there's a GG rerun on right now!

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:04 (twenty years ago)

"vacuum the Persian"

haha, GG is on! It's a SIGN.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:08 (twenty years ago)

All right, look, I'm apologizing ahead of time for getting all verklempt and confessional, but fuck it:

Robyn, you are exactly, exactly right with your tangent. I knew that I would never be known, that my motivations would never be understood, and the things I felt were most central to my self would go unnoticed and unvalued. In another place & time if we had no other options, could we have stayed together? Oh hell, probably. We never actually fought or set out to hurt each other, and we were equally sincere about trying to work things out. But oh god it made me so sad to be delvalued little by little. And the worst is that I did it to myself, because I thought maybe people were right, maybe I WAS being unrealistic, maybe I SHOULD accomodate myself to that role because that would be as good as it got.

I would so much rather go home to an empty apartment and still like myself.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:10 (twenty years ago)

Carpet! That's what I meant.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:11 (twenty years ago)

(x-post)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:11 (twenty years ago)

"carpet"

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:12 (twenty years ago)

I knew that I would never be known, that my motivations would never be understood, and the things I felt were most central to my self would go unnoticed and unvalued.

and this is exactly the kind of relationship that nabisco isn't talking about

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:16 (twenty years ago)

No, but it's another kind of relationship that a lot of people could have (and did) consider "sufficient" to carry on with.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:19 (twenty years ago)

Yes, exactly. And holy crap, Laurel - feeling devalued sucks, especially if you don't realize it's happening and why. And then you end up blaming yourself and you spiral downward. bah! When I realized it, and that things shouldn't be that way, I was totally shocked, to the point where I looked in the mirror and had this weird moment of "oh, Robyn, you're back, hi!" So weird.

But re: FINDING THE ONE or IT or SOUL MATE - I don't believe it either really. I think that people are connected in different ways and we go through a process of learning to recognize what those connections are - friendships, relationships, business partners, temporary thing, etc. It seems that a lot of hurt comes from misrecognition, attempting to make one kind of connection into another. In this case, living together with a partner is a pretty big deal - and even if it's just "nice" it still creates an intimacy, and if someone decides they want out or wants to be with other people, well, that's hurtful to both sides. I am obviously in that group of people who wants something more than "nice," I guess. But I have a feeling you weren't saying just this, L.

So now I'm thinking about what it is that KEEPS people together - b/c, for me, it's something more than just getting along or pleasantness.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:22 (twenty years ago)

Okay, I want to be a man-gigolo to four retired ILXors, is that straight enough?!

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:23 (twenty years ago)

(x-post)

Oh dear, I'm sorry I interrupted your discussion, I'll go to sleep now.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:24 (twenty years ago)

the real question is: who's gonna be the female giga-ho to the retired tuomas, skidmore, kenan, and momus?

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:25 (twenty years ago)

omg, it's the reality tv of future.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:26 (twenty years ago)

Tuomas: What did Jody say?

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:28 (twenty years ago)

momus = rue mcclanahan
tuomas = betty white
skidmore = estelle getty
kenan = bea arthur

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:28 (twenty years ago)

xpost

Yes, those are all things (understanding your motivations, understanding what matters to you and who you are) that I consider part of the A+B -- the same things you'd expect from a same-sex Golden-Girl companion, you know? People who think relationships are "sufficient" without that tend to be people who think being in a romantic relationship at all is somehow fundamental to the human experience, which is, yes, batshit. I definitely understand you there, Laurel.

The "married in twenty years" arrangement ... I almost feel like this is the sort of thing you'd do with someone who understands you too well, if that makes sense -- the person who's almost too close to you to suddenly start having conventional romantic feelings? For the record I think this sort of thing is more just a nice compliment to pay a friend, not an actual good plan. In part because, yeah, "nice" is nice, but nobody ever really gives up on better-than-nice. And in the sense that we do change our minds -- in the sense that people shift their priorities about this stuff -- I don't think it's some conscious decision; I think they actually change. If today's "nice" friend will seem, in 30 years, like something wonderful, it won't be because of an agreement -- it'll be because you actually come to recognize some wonderfulness there.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:32 (twenty years ago)

He/she will be at karaoke singing "The Flame" or "Right Here Waiting for You" or something, and from then on it'll be exactly like that Andrew McCarthy movie with Mary Stuart Masterson as his best-friend punk drummer.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:35 (twenty years ago)

Tuomas: "No, I think it's perfectly okay for me wax your balls, since your back is aching. It's the 2040's, nothing's gay anymore. Or everything is. Am I hurting you?"

Martin: "No, that's good. You've obviously done this before, so gentle."

Momus: "You know, historically it was perfectly acceptable for four men to share a flat and shave each other's testicles. The socio-economic revolution that resulted in everyone and their balls needing a flat was seen beneficial to most, but it had it's downsides, for example the death of homosocial rituals such as communal pubic hair removal..."

Kenan: "Fuck's sake, I'm eating here!"

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:37 (twenty years ago)

And that concludes our thread, folks, g'night.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:38 (twenty years ago)

http://www.jpgr.co.uk/r6062_a.jpg

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:40 (twenty years ago)

haha. aw, but I'm tearing up here with the karaoke image. oh dear, it's all very When Harry Met Sally too...

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:42 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, but I've had the candidate for that in-30-yrs relationship directly in front of me for, like, the last 6 years, and we both know it. And it didn't work out the first time! So I fear the changes (read: damages) that would have to occur to make me wiling to settle for that all over again. If I'm so tired and so damaged-feeling NOW and the idea still seems ludicrous, how much more would have to be ahead of me to bring me around? It doesn't bear thinking about.

Fuck this, there are cocktails to be had.

― Laurel (Laurel), Friday, 13 January 2006 23:48 (twenty years ago)

yay, i'm dorothy!!!

― tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Saturday, 14 January 2006 00:04 (twenty years ago)

i ask because none of the guys i've ever dated have considered me settling-down material and i'm thinkin' i'm just gonna die alone

jody, are you me??

― tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Saturday, 14 January 2006 00:05 (twenty years ago)

xpost to Laurel - It DOESN'T bear thinking about. Because thinking about such things drags a person down, takes you out of the present, where new and good experiences can happen. Who knows what's going to happen tonight, so let alone 30 years from now, I say (b/c I'm Rue Maclanahan's character, dammit! haha.) And there are cocktails RIGHT NOW guaranteed.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Saturday, 14 January 2006 00:09 (twenty years ago)

jody, are you me??

oh, like you don't know the answer to that.

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 14 January 2006 00:34 (twenty years ago)

i just drank a lychee martini! consider my cocktail had.

― yvette yreka (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 14 January 2006 00:35 (twenty years ago)

Apologies to everyone for bleeding all over a perfectly nice thread, as I said to Jody. A little club soda and it should come out a treat!

― Laurel, Saturday, 14 January 2006 19:02 (twenty years ago)

No need to apologize Laurel--I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I tend to agree with you in the whole, though could not muster up enough energy add anything to the discussion.

― Mary (Mary), Sunday, 15 January 2006 04:46 (twenty years ago)

Sometimes we gotta bleed. I think that what you were saying is part of what makes this thread good, L!
(I have not had any cocktails this weekend! This is perhaps sad, but now my cold is almost gone! But I have this feeling that if I'd been out drinking I would have brought up this issue re: future friendship marriage promises and inevitably made such a promise, if only jokingly, and, god, probably to someone totally inappropriate. So it all works out.)

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Sunday, 15 January 2006 05:15 (twenty years ago)

Tuomas: "No, I think it's perfectly okay for me wax your balls, since your back is aching. It's the 2040's, nothing's gay anymore. Or everything is. Am I hurting you?"
Martin: "No, that's good. You've obviously done this before, so gentle."
Momus: "You know, historically it was perfectly acceptable for four men to share a flat and shave each other's testicles. The socio-economic revolution that resulted in everyone and their balls needing a flat was seen beneficial to most, but it had it's downsides, for example the death of homosocial rituals such as communal pubic hair removal..."

Kenan: "Fuck's sake, I'm eating here!"

I'm sorry, but this is the funniest thing I've read on ILX in a million years. I hope it was excelsiored over and over and over.

― Disciplining And Controlling My Mind (kate), Monday, 16 January 2006 11:55 (twenty years ago)

My apologies to Martin, Momus and Kenan, once the ball was thrown into the air I couldn't resist.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 16 January 2006 12:06 (twenty years ago)

i've been wanting to get married lately. too bad i dont even have a boyfriend! maybe someday. anyway, it sounds fun to me.

― POOP BITCH (Mandee), Monday, 16 January 2006 14:56 (twenty years ago)

One of my fictional characters just got married recently, so I had to do a think and be all "hrmmm, what would it be like to actually be married?" And for about 3 or 4 minutes, it actually seemed like it would be a nice, cosy sort of thing.

And then I put the bottle of sherry away and came to my senses.

― Disciplining And Controlling My Mind (kate), Monday, 16 January 2006 14:58 (twenty years ago)

One of your fictional characters??? Is this like a personality?

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Monday, 16 January 2006 15:31 (twenty years ago)

No, it's one of the characters in a piece of fiction that I am, ha-HEM, writing.

― Disciplining And Controlling My Mind (kate), Monday, 16 January 2006 15:31 (twenty years ago)

Mandee, will you be my Internet bride? ;)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 16 January 2006 16:43 (twenty years ago)

Having just reread the golden-boys passage above, I find the ;) in the post above to be kind of creepy.

(but yeah, that passage was excelsiored, certainly!)

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 16 January 2006 16:50 (twenty years ago)

Why's that?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Monday, 16 January 2006 20:29 (twenty years ago)

I love this thread.

I said this to someone, once, about five years not twenty - I still remember the wall we were sitting on and the red of the car lamps. I don't mean it anymore, though.

― Gravel Puzzleworth (Gregory Henry), Monday, 16 January 2006 21:16 (twenty years ago)

That was the first time I proposed online, and I actually got an answer! :)

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 14:44 (twenty years ago)

Ah, I'm sorry Mandee, I didn't meant to imply proposing is something I'd do on regular basis.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 14:47 (twenty years ago)

I said this to someone about ten years ago. She's since got married.

― Stone Monkey (Stone Monkey), Tuesday, 17 January 2006 16:18 (twenty years ago)

Not with you, I presume?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 19 January 2006 06:10 (twenty years ago)

better option:

"If neither of us is married in 20 years, let's get stoned."

― msp (mspa), Thursday, 19 January 2006 07:48 (twenty years ago)

Does this explain the Cronkite thing?

― Rickey Wright (Rrrickey), Thursday, 19 January 2006 08:27 (twenty years ago)

i'd totally have a marriage pact with someone, but only if we would get divorced the next day.

― ken c (ken c), Thursday, 19 January 2006 13:14 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.