relationships
Life could have been worse...now I am more settled and not as restless, it will be nice to grow old with the love of my youth, after all. We live and learn. But had I known, I would not hve gotten into it, to be sure.I think that when a woman truly falls in love, it does involve not losing, but giving herself. With the right person, we will want, out of love, to serve him, to belong to him, to bear his children, and, yes, to change ourselves to be more compatible with him. We can't help it - it's in our biology. Therefore, it won't be a self-betrayal or self-loss - it will be listening ourselves and being comfortable with what that biology says. The movement to be strong! and independent! is no more than a very effective and widespread form of denial.
I have strong goals and ambitions that I plan to pursue. I hope for a Ph.D., and a job as a research neuroscientist. I hope for a Nobel Prize - and I have a plan with implementable steps to reach that goal. However, my greatest goal in life is to get married. Why? Because I have a form of happily-ever-after in my mind, and that is: I want to rest. I want to come home from work and have home feel like home, instead of merely not-work or place-where-I-shower-occasionally. I want the comfort, stablity, and consistency of someone beng there. I know he will stop loving me after we've been married for a year or two in the best-case scenario, and recognize he may even stop loving me before the wedding, or never love me at all. But having a constant in my life, having someone who might occasionally hold me, someone who at least cares enough about me to remind me of meals I'd otherwise skip or tell me to come to bed so I don't work through the night again, is still always better than having no such constant. Thus, as long as a relationship is consistent, any feeling of being "trapped" or "abused," even if founded in actual events, is a problem of perspective on the woman's part. Staying with someone is more humane than leaving her, period.
Back to the concept of rest: Your daughters may seem happy not being in relationships and working in to advance their careers in felds of their interest, but they cannot fight their biology, which dictates that they need partners. I believe that one's interests are those topics and activities that work the best at distracting her (or him) from his/her loneliness and longing for a partner. A person's interests simulate a loving relationship - I am in love with solvng circuits, and working on a challenging one is like a passionate encounter, for example. (This is why I hardly even choose to go to bed - once I'm there, I am no longer distracted and the loneliness floods in.) Once someone is in a relationship, if it is a good, consistent, and dedicated one, his/her primary interest should become his/her partner. Think about the question "Would you leave your current career for your spouse?" If the answer is no, then you're still using that career as a distractor, and haven't found the right person yet. Talents, on the other hand, may be given to us by God to help mankind, but they are given to use by Nature to help us attract a mate and further the species, as is any natural gift. An amazing talent for music is the same as a set of beautiful eyes - they stir the same emotions and sensations in a man - just as a sexy body and "sexual talents" may be equated.
(I guarantee you I've already heard all the ad hominem rebuttals that are about to follow - and can only repeat that they are born out of "a very effective and widespread form of denial." I know who I am, and I know what I want, and the concrete biological basis for my extenson of this to most, if not all women defitintely exists.)
Secondly, as to my daughters ... ( ) they are ages 24 & 18. The 18 yr old is the one who has just joined the Army and although she dates, it is relaxed in the sense that she knows she will not marry any time soon. The 24 yr old, is just coming out of a rather lengthy relationship with no interest in another one for some time ... long enough to heal old wounds.
My point in writing this was because our kids are bombarded continuously with erroneous images of "love." From the soaps to the sit-coms, hip-hop to films men and women jumping from bed to bed, swapping partners, shaking it, baking it ... lower, lower, lower ... unless they are along the minority, most kids have not witnessed a "good marraige" built on a real, selfless love.
<<I want to come home from work and have home feel like home, instead of merely not-work or place-where-I-shower-occasionally. I want the comfort, stablity, and consistency of someone beng there. I know he will stop loving me after we've been married for a year or two in the best-case scenario, and recognize he may even stop loving me before the wedding, or never love me at all. But having a constant in my life, having someone who might occasionally hold me, someone who at least cares enough about me to remind me of meals I'd otherwise skip or tell me to come to bed so I don't work through the night again, is still always better than having no such constant. >>
Now, this statement ... frankly, blows me away. Really? You'd rather be in a loveless relationship than none at all? Or am I misunderstanding you?
I am finally comfortable alone. In fact, I'm not only comfortable, but ... content with life. I have 3 great kids ... and a decent support system of friends and acquaintances. ALthough a man might be a nice addition, it is without a doubt, NOT a necessity. Maybe that is my point ... ? I could never be satisfied to endure one moment of a relationship that was not mutual. Alone is not a punishment, contrary to public opinion.
What are you seeking in a relationship, if I may ask?