JudasMyGuide
Ancient Mariner
That's not the only approach you have to have and I might agree with @Onhell on certain points, but not most.
Despite the utterly abominable rate of divorce everywhere (and my country is no exception), I know a lot of people who picked their lifetime partner when they were very young and they are still together and wouldn't think otherwise.
For a somewhat jaded, divorced person making lists like these makes only too much sense, but if you aren't a jaded, divorced person yourself, don't enter a relationship with that attitude. My parents are both on their third marriage with different people (I come from the middle one) and if anything, it taught me to listen to the married, not the divorced people.
As for that list, I mean
Bills? How do you discuss that? Is your potential future spouse economically active? That should be enough. Optional for students, anyway.
Parenting styles? You don't know what your parenting styles will be until you have children and sometimes even then. In the four years since we had our first, we changed a lot - our convictions regarding education, our methods, our ways how to differentiate between the different kids with different needs.
Debt? Might be reasonable, though I met my wife while she had debt (not a crippling one), because she wanted to run a mini-business while still at the university and she was scammed. Yeah, MLM. She was somewhat afraid to admit it at first, too. I paid it off with the help of my family and it was educational for all of us.
Religion/what beliefs will be instilled on children? We both converted to Catholicism from Atheism five years into our relationship. And not just pro forma or something, we are very serious about it, it is the most important thing for us and it changed everything about our life to a ridiculous degree. Nether of us really expected that.
How to deal with family? You don't. Childhood traumas? We all have one.
As for the expectations, well, to quote the atheistic Woody Allen, "people make plans mostly to make God laugh".
Love alone is certainly enough, although the word doesn't mean what you think it means. Love is not a sentiment, love is an act of will. You can love a lot of people, but it is much easier if there is at least the infatuation at the beginning that most people call "love".
Since I'm talking about the acts of will...
While he was a prick and it is easy to find his quote for and against any given thing:
he is right, to a degree. A conversation is a good indicator of the deeper stuff.
Aristotle "broke friendship down into three subtypes: utility-based, pleasure-based, and character-based friendships. "Each arises from what is valued in the friend: their usefulness, the pleasure of their company, or their good character,"". I would say that while perfect marriage has all three, you shouldn't expect perfect marriage and that Onhell is all too much obsessed over the first - and the most inferior - type. The "usefulness".
I mean, do you think I would leave my wife, my second half, my Goldberry, because she had Alzheimer's and started to forget everything? So that she wouldn't even recognise me and be aggressive towards me? No fucking way. Do you think she would leave me if my body failed me and she had to care for me in my infirmity? No fucking way.
But I'm not sure about it with people who think the way Onhell advertises for.
A lot of the relationship is common experience. You live through life togeter and build somehthing. And even if it's sometimes hard and unpleasant, the beauty of what you build shines with all the more splendour. That's something you can't recognise or see a priori.
I at least believe that it is important to have the same goal. You know, the character, the moral, the metaphysical one. Have a spouse whose company is pleasant and who strives to be moral. When you have that, everything else is negotiable.
Despite the utterly abominable rate of divorce everywhere (and my country is no exception), I know a lot of people who picked their lifetime partner when they were very young and they are still together and wouldn't think otherwise.
For a somewhat jaded, divorced person making lists like these makes only too much sense, but if you aren't a jaded, divorced person yourself, don't enter a relationship with that attitude. My parents are both on their third marriage with different people (I come from the middle one) and if anything, it taught me to listen to the married, not the divorced people.
As for that list, I mean
Bills? How do you discuss that? Is your potential future spouse economically active? That should be enough. Optional for students, anyway.
Parenting styles? You don't know what your parenting styles will be until you have children and sometimes even then. In the four years since we had our first, we changed a lot - our convictions regarding education, our methods, our ways how to differentiate between the different kids with different needs.
Debt? Might be reasonable, though I met my wife while she had debt (not a crippling one), because she wanted to run a mini-business while still at the university and she was scammed. Yeah, MLM. She was somewhat afraid to admit it at first, too. I paid it off with the help of my family and it was educational for all of us.
Religion/what beliefs will be instilled on children? We both converted to Catholicism from Atheism five years into our relationship. And not just pro forma or something, we are very serious about it, it is the most important thing for us and it changed everything about our life to a ridiculous degree. Nether of us really expected that.
How to deal with family? You don't. Childhood traumas? We all have one.
As for the expectations, well, to quote the atheistic Woody Allen, "people make plans mostly to make God laugh".
Love alone is certainly enough, although the word doesn't mean what you think it means. Love is not a sentiment, love is an act of will. You can love a lot of people, but it is much easier if there is at least the infatuation at the beginning that most people call "love".
Since I'm talking about the acts of will...
While he was a prick and it is easy to find his quote for and against any given thing:
he is right, to a degree. A conversation is a good indicator of the deeper stuff.
Aristotle "broke friendship down into three subtypes: utility-based, pleasure-based, and character-based friendships. "Each arises from what is valued in the friend: their usefulness, the pleasure of their company, or their good character,"". I would say that while perfect marriage has all three, you shouldn't expect perfect marriage and that Onhell is all too much obsessed over the first - and the most inferior - type. The "usefulness".
I mean, do you think I would leave my wife, my second half, my Goldberry, because she had Alzheimer's and started to forget everything? So that she wouldn't even recognise me and be aggressive towards me? No fucking way. Do you think she would leave me if my body failed me and she had to care for me in my infirmity? No fucking way.
But I'm not sure about it with people who think the way Onhell advertises for.
A lot of the relationship is common experience. You live through life togeter and build somehthing. And even if it's sometimes hard and unpleasant, the beauty of what you build shines with all the more splendour. That's something you can't recognise or see a priori.
I at least believe that it is important to have the same goal. You know, the character, the moral, the metaphysical one. Have a spouse whose company is pleasant and who strives to be moral. When you have that, everything else is negotiable.
Last edited:
