(Untitled)

[magicmaster321]

It isn't very often that I see something that makes me think that the modern world has become inhospitable to traditional ways of life. Today was one of those days. In the wake of one of my friends back home getting very happily married, two of my best friends from the bay area have ended their relationship. That is to say that one of them has

Comments

[carndum]

Everyone Back Then was just as fucked up as we are now. Hell, a "traditional relationship" could refer to an arranged marriage. Even though the now is completely FUBAR, don't pull a Livy and think that those in the past were moral paragons.

[magicmaster321]

The difference is that back then people worked though it. Now if people hit a bump in a relationship then tend to abandon ship, not to say that this was the case because I don't know the details, but it seems like the value placed in relationships has decreased. I'm not really sure quite what I'm trying to say...and as a result I know I will probably stick my foot so far in my mouth that I'm going to end up choking to death on it, but I'm really disappointed. At least in my experience the bond that occurs during a long term relationship never really goes away. You may forget about it, you may get angry with the person, or anything else can make you lose perspective on that bond, but when all is said and done its still there. In that regard I guess its kinda like conjoined twins. Together they might not be able to live the way most individuals do, but apart they're incomplete at best, and at worst both wither and die. Then again, maybe I put too much value in the connections between people

[damien_thryn]

Nah, not at all. Can never value relationships too much. Part of the problem may be the selfishness modern society worships. Read some of these advice columnists some time, talking about relationships. These days, its all about yourself and what you want, what you can get.

Everyone Back Then (following Joseph's lead) probably were just as bad as we are as people, but basic survival needs overshadowed their innate selfishness. You sort of learn to get along with someone when your mutual reliance keeps you alive year to year. When people don't need each other, they are free to be selfish.

[noldolante]

You know, I think modern society has come to define a virtuous a lot of survival behaviors that became tradition because they were required, and then stayed traditional after they weren't because that was what people were used to.

I do not, however, disagree that people were forced to act more as a community back when life was rougher...and that it was probably good for them as people to depend on each other.

Sometimes the bar just needs to be raised in order to inspire us to work harder.

[carndum]

True, but what people worked through back then were marriages, not dating. Also, "long term" at this point in our lives is a rather interesting moniker to use since the percentages that we've been with someone as opposed to how long we have been alive are so skewed. I agree that there is a bond that develops in any relationship one is in, whether it lasts six months or two years or whatever (excepting one that was so horridly horridly wrong that I have Hatshepsuted it), but I argue as you would expect me to: there is no commitment expressly stated in dating until someone puts a rock on someone else's finger.

Eesh, isn't that how I got in trouble in the first place? Maybe there is something to be said for Courting Candles...

[damien_thryn]

Yeah true. Add the legal and social constructions of marriage and the symbolism of aforementioned rock, and you've got a 'relationship for life' that had better work, or its going to be a rough time of it. Maybe thats how it worked in the olden days - you were stuck together, so it'd BETTER work. Or else it would end in knives...

Courting candles? Niiice. They DID have style back then. And hey, at least the suitor might get a little flame just by breathing, a chance to make his case - these days the barriers to entry (so to speak) when it comes to dating are so damn high some guys spend most of their disposable income barely able to make it to the door.

Hooray for exiting that sad state of nature.

[magicmaster321]

While I agree with you that dating does not imply long term, I would argue that living with the person you are dating does (I know I'm probably going to catch hell for that, but what they hey). I just think its weird how everyone expects to be 100% happy 100% of the time, and that's not realistic when a relationship involves two people, particularly two educated people with their own dreams and goals. This is why compromise is necessary. Unfortunately, in all aspects of our society, we've grown to refuse to compromise, feel indignant when someone else won't, and feel entitled when someone else does. But alas, I fear that I'm continuing on to a tirade about modern society, which may or may not be where I'm looking to take this conversation.

[damien_thryn]

Oh totally agreed. If you live with someone, especially for a long time, its sort of implied that you are committed - I mean, you are as good as married, just missing the rock and the slip of paper for what they're worth. Believe me, Bev and I wouldn't be still living together 7 months on if we weren't sure we were in it together for the long haul, come what may

[carndum]

I actually agree with most of the points you make. The only thing I have to say about the living with someone part is that I am contractually obligated to pay the rent for 10 more months with Megan. Not saying that I am going to cheat on her (because then the hell-catching will spread like, er, wildfire), but that I'm not required to be monogamous with her just because of my current situation.