Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? The marriage would have worked out just fine, just like most did.
Before there was easy divorce, a lot of marriages didn't work out, but people had to stay in them. Some couples ended up leading separate lives, but sharing a house. Some dealt with domestic violence. Some lived separately, at least for a time. People forget that all kinds of things went on. Just because people stayed together (because they were pretty much required to by law), didn't mean most marriages worked out just fine.
Uma Thurman Julia Roberts Reese Witherspoon Tracy Gold...even in her younger years Rhea Perlman Maggie Gyllenhaal
Lord...the perverted world males live in nowadays...
You guys must be sick to the bone if you consider women like Julia Roberts or Maggie Gyllenghaal "ugly".
Good luck finding your Megan Fox. Unfortunately, they haven't found a cure for Narcissism just yet.
Before there was easy divorce, a lot of marriages didn't work out, but people had to stay in them. Some couples ended up leading separate lives, but sharing a house. Some dealt with domestic violence. Some lived separately, at least for a time. People forget that all kinds of things went on. Just because people stayed together (because they were pretty much required to by law), didn't mean most marriages worked out just fine.
It means exactly that: that most marriages worked out just fine.
Marriage never meant a 60 year long honey-moon and it never will - not even with Megan Fox or Brad Pitt in your bed. The sick-in-the-mind "recent" human has been brainwashed into believing that a marriage cannot possibly last the moment it no longer feels like a honey-moon.
People in the past married mainly out of necessity: men needed cooked food and regular copulation (otherwise hard to keep paying for in brothels), women needed a provider and offered a variety of domestic services in return - which was fair enough.
People got together, they got used to each other, they had a family, they built a history between them...and most of such unions resulted in long-term affection and a solid bond, to the point most would not have wanted to exchange their spouse even for the most gorgeous creature ever.
This didn't mean people didn't fight or that they lived in eternal honeymoons.
The contemporary dimwits keep looking for Megan Fox as "trophy-ness" is the only thing left they can use from a wife. This is who the media told them they should F*ck - or else, it's a bad reflection on them. Everything a wife used to offer in the past is either no longer useful or can be easily bought in the market with a paycheck. On their side, many women have turned into perfectly lazy creatures , waiting for a guy to marry them and keep them at home under the "SAH" job title - the perfect job as it has no clear responsibilities or expectations.
The entire modern world is perverted to the bone and then people wonder why they are having such a hard time finding a long-term, loving partner.
People in the past married mainly out of necessity: men needed cooked food and regular copulation (otherwise hard to keep paying for in brothels), women needed a provider and offered a variety of domestic services in return - which was fair enough. .
This is a sad minimum yardstick by which to measure marriages. People did expect love, but it didn't always work out. They weren't happy. They either tolerated each other, or lived separate lives and just got together for meals out of necessity, or jumped through hoops to get a divorce, or there was violence. That's not "just fine". Some did work out, and that's great. But no one's going to go back to the days of marriages of necessity, or quasi-arranged marriages, where people just tried to "get used to each other". As often as not, people never did get used to each other. Women (and sometimes men) have to be able to leave a marriage if their safety is in danger. And it's not unreasonable for people to want more than "getting used to each other".
People in the past married mainly out of necessity: men needed cooked food and regular copulation (otherwise hard to keep paying for in brothels), women needed a provider and offered a variety of domestic services in return
I would rather be alone than be with a woman who's an unattractive person. Physical looks change with age. Whether you believe they improve or diminish with age is your opinion.
I can find beauty in everyone from a physical standpoint. All it takes is one quality that grabs you. The rest is up to you to let your mind explore and enjoy the person you've chosen.
Lonely people base everything on the physical looks of a person. These kind of relationships are usually empty and unsatisfying when one places so much importance on the immediate appearance of a person.
Attractiveness is subjective to each and every person. Some men think Julie Roberts is homely, and some men think she's absolutely gorgeous. Although some posters on here seem shallow and superficial about the height of physical attractiveness they expect and desire in a woman they want to date or be in a relationship with, it is what it is. I know for me, I was instantly physically and sexually attracted to my guy when I first saw his photograph. When I met him in person, oh my God.. I thought he was very handsome and very sexy.
But.. if when I first saw his photograph, if I was not physically attracted to him or if I didn't think he was attractive, I probably wouldn't have ventured further with him in the romantic/sexual sense. I would've been his friend, but that's about it. However, that's not to say that I couldn't have probably been attracted to him physically had I taken the chance to get to know him spiritually and mentally. He would've had to have been very unattractive for me to not have given myself that chance to get to know his personality and what he's all about. It's unfortunate that this is what the formula of finding a mate is comprised of. Looks first - and personality second.
Physical attraction is what draws us to that person; personality and the person's heart and soul is what keeps us drawn to them.
Physical attraction is what draws us to that person; personality and the person's heart and soul is what keeps us drawn to them.
Agreed. You need both elements, physical and personal. Usually it's the physical appearance we get to know first. To reject someone based on appearance is not necessarily putting looks over substance. It just means that there are two tests to pass and if you fail the first test it's pointless to take the second.
Agreed. You need both elements, physical and personal. Usually it's the physical appearance we get to know first. To reject someone based on appearance is not necessarily putting looks over substance. It just means that there are two tests to pass and if you fail the first test it's pointless to take the second.
that's a not a myth at all. People in the past married for security. They didn't even like each other.
Hollywood turned marriage into all this romantic crap you see in the movies.
+1
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
