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.
My brother's coworkers are telling him to remarry so he has someone to cook, clean, and do laundtry for him. I told him it's cheaper to pay a stranger to do the work, instead of losing thousands of dollars more in another divorce settlement!
...or, y'know, to treat another human being as his personal slave (and emotionally mislead them into the bargain).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auraliea
I never understood the "you need someone so they can do stuff for you" argument in terms of justifying getting into a relationship. I can't imagine doing all the stuff necessary to have a relationship just for basically....servitude. Sounds miserable and exhausting. People come up with all kind of reasons why everyone should do what THEY themselves want to do in their personal life. Just say "I want a relationship" and go lol you don't have to justify it lmaoooo it's a personal choice.
I know, right?
And this is where it comes down to "needing" a man (or woman). In my opinion and experience, it's much better to not "need" another person but rather to *want* them. But, many people confuse "want" and "need"-- or, rather, they confuse "need" and "love." Me, I'd rather be with someone who's with me because they want to be, out of completely free choice, because they feel I add value to their life, than because they're stuck with me because they "need" me for something. You can need someone and neither like nor respect them... you're just with them because you don't know what else to do. I wouldn't want that for my romantic *or* platonic relationships.
My mom, who grew up in the 50s and 60s, would always tell me I shouldn't be so independent because men would like to feel like I needed them. I pointed out to her that they should find it much more flattering that I don't need them but have them around anyway because I genuinely like and care about them and want them in my life. Unfortunately, for some men (and people in general), they do have this confusion about "need" (yet if many posts here are any indicator, some men want a woman who "needs" them, yet they then hate that she's "needy"-- women can't win). Some women are the same way... they think if a man needs them, it means he loves them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle
It's similar to the "if you don't have kids, who will take care of you when you're old?" argument that's equally as flawed.
Ugh, yes. Not too long ago there was a Dear Abby (or maybe it was Dear Amy) letter about this, a guy who wrote in saying he didn't want a relationship or kids. And yes, the "who will take care of you when you're old" argument came up-- can't remember if it was the columnist, another person who wrote in to respond, or both-- and it was so annoying I almost wrote a response myself. Just total condescension from both columnist and the responder. I thought we were in the 21st century, here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
Even if you're in a relationship, you can still 'die alone'. So, being in a relationship is no guarantee of companionship at death.
And, how many stories do you hear of people who have family in their hospital room... and die as soon as the family member(s) step out to get lunch or a change of clothes or go to the bathroom?
It also assumes the person has no friends or family members to be with them when they die, help them with things they need help with, watch out for them, provide companionship, etc. I mean, in a relationship (or many friendships, for that matter), chances are the person will be around you age and there's probably a 50% chance they'll die first or need *your* care (maybe that's why so many men want younger women).
Besides which... relationships end, even if both of you die on the exact same day in perfect health. I used to know someone who said their grandfather had left their grandmother for another little old lady in a nursing home. Apparently you're never safe.
It amazes me the people who know what the divorce rate is, how some people end life with a partner who's dead or disabled/ill, and still act like marriage is some sort of guarantee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
The moment you wrote "But", you negated everything before that.
Some people can be perfectly happy without an intimate relationship. There's no "But..." about it. Not, "But...life can be so much better WiTH one..." No "But...how you going to cope in your later years without one?" No "But...what about SEX?"
Not "buts" about it.
Some people have already tried...and failed...a NUMBER of times. Some haven't tried at all, yet they're perfectly happy without an intimate partner.
Why can't so many understand...or accept...that some people are happy WITHOUT a life-time partner?
Precisely. And why do people "come onto threads like this and start pointing out who does or can do whatever"? Because most of society gives them the attitude of the person you're responding to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
You seem to want an argument. Women find relationships in many things to fill their needs, unlike men. Women are more agreeable, less likely to have conflict, and find community comforting. Women need other women. Women really don't need intimacy later in life, but may want it at a level that brings them joy. This has nothing to do with sexual intimacy. I never speak in absolute terms. There is always an atypical individual.
Yes, need is the right word. Need is rooted in biology and 'want' is rooted in feelings. We can not deny our biology and the way we are made, but we can overcome our feelings of wanting something.
I have a myotic, limited view of women, but my wife is part of women's groups, has a posse' of single friends and shares her experiences. Single women do MUCH better than men over all. Women get lonely, men are alone... there is a difference.
So... what's the solution to this? Women should get involved with men because men can't fulfil their own needs and need to use them to do so? Doesn't sound appealing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNC4Me
Yeah, I used to do that plus tapping the rim of the jar with a spoon. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. The purchase on Amazon works every single time. It was a well spent $20 for me.
Also, running hot water over the lid. (I use the heavier handle of a butter knife rather than a spoon. Give it some good whacks... also good if you need to get out any aggression, I suppose, even just annoyance over not being able to open the jar! )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
I get it. Also get that you and hubs both have arthritis, so your purchase makes sense.
My mom...at 81...REFUSED to get an electric can opener...
...even though she struggled with opening a can of cat food with a manual can opener.
Go figure.
She just hasn't met the right manual can opener? LOL (Although, who knows. The one I have right now works like butter... easier than some I've had in the past, which were in no way a struggle for me, but, while only slightly more difficult to use, noticeably so, and maybe enough to make a difference for someone who has trouble.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
Me too...
I hear ya...
I think the problem is that society expects that romantic love is the end-all-BE-all of any other kind of love. Love of friends doesn't compare...love of children and/or family doesn't compare...nothing is 'greater than' "romantic" love. It's the best kind, the REAL kind, the ONLY kind of love there is!
Hogwash.
Oh, no. Haven't you spent enough time listening to the 'BUT YOU MUST HAVE CHILDREN!!111" camp to know that love for your child (at least if you're a woman. Not sure if fatherhood is seen quite the same way) is TEH ONLY LOVE THERE IZ EVAR?
So those of us past childbearing age, we're good with that whole not needing a man, right?
Absolutely.... I think I made that abundantly clear that you (just you) get to choose and your choice is not a universal one. Clearly your need for a man is necessary to actually bear children, even if the sperm is donated, but you do not need a man at any time in your life to have a life.
You also don't need two eyes, or two legs, but it makes it easier even if the eyes are failing and your legs are a source of a lot of pain.... right?
Mansplaining can be technically correct information, its still presented in a way to make the teller a patronizing tool.
Did I do that? if I did show me.
And people can know what is true and good for them and because of what they hear is processed through emotional damage, they get triggered. Virtually everything they hear makes them respond like an condescending emotional basket case.
Knowledge is power over our emotions. Truth and virtue is the key to unlock our emotional shackles.
Have the ladies ever defined the difference between needing and wanting?
Needs are requirements, no different than breathing or eating. Wants are feelings to fulfill some subjective criteria no different than wanting a new car or shoes.
Needs are mostly rooted in biology and are objective. Wants are rooted in emotions and feelings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn
Was I condescending? or disrespectful? After all that is what mansplaining means... right?
Your post asked if "the LADIES" ever defined the difference between needing and wanting. You did not ask if PEOPLE (including both MEN and women) could define this difference.
Therefore, your post could have come across to condescending to "the LADIES".
Your post asked if "the LADIES" ever defined the difference between needing and wanting. You did not ask if PEOPLE (including both MEN and women) could define this difference.
Therefore, your post could have come across to condescending to "the LADIES".
Being respectful is condescending now? Holy shi* ... really?
These are fairly simple tasks one should be taught as a child, or learned through necessity as a single young adult living on their own.
Exactly! My son was cleaning and doing his own laundry at 10 years old. I helped, of course, but he learned all of the basics. He started cooking simple stuff a couple years later.
Being respectful is condescending now? Holy shi* ... really?
What part of my post did you miss?
Again, you we're talking about "ladies", not PEOPLE. You weren't being respectful to women.
Quite a number of PEOPLE...including women AND MEN...don't get the definition.
If you address ONLY "ladies", you'd being condescending to WOMEN.
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.
Women find relationships in many things to fill their needs, unlike men. Women are more agreeable, less likely to have conflict, and find community comforting. Women need other women. Women really don't need intimacy later in life, but may want it at a level that brings them joy. This has nothing to do with sexual intimacy. I never speak in absolute terms. There is always an atypical individual.
)
Also get that you and hubs both have arthritis, so your purchase makes sense. 
