"I will never live alone"

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm having a little difference of an opinion with my girlfriend and I have problems approaching it in an understanding boyfrien-ish manner, so I will talk about it with you guys before talking (read: getting upset and arguing) with her, just to clear my head, ok?

I was absolute stunned a week or two ago when my girlfriend declared that she will only move out of her parents' house when she gets married.

Ok ok, I'm already getting upset here, so it's hard to keep my thoughts together... I understand that people refuse to move in together for religious reasons (or for similar ethical/spiritual reasons). That's ok. I have great respect for religions of all sorts, no problem there. In my girlfriend's case, she wants to be close to her family and she says that she's not so "detached" like I am, since I have lived alone and with other people without my parents in my own country and abroad. I love my parents, and moving around and working hard has made my parents proud. I understand that people love their parents and it's great that you want to stay every second with them, but I think that what really makes our loved ones happy is when we reach our full potentional in life.

My girlfriend has recently finished her bachelor's degree and now she lives in somewhat isolated suburb in a city where finding work seems impossible. Everyone knows that all countries have cities with good employment chances and cities with poor employment chances and this city definitely is not a good one (I've been asking around, believe me). She doesn't have money for master's degree and she doesn't want to relocate. If she doesn't get money, we will never be together. I had a mutual friend talk with her about this, but our mutual friend said that she understands her, since "office work is not for her". But my gf has a business degree, so I don't really understand what offices have to do with this.

So the question is:
Someone close to you, let's say a close relative, tells you that (s)he will not move out unless (s)he gets married. Finding work seems hopeless in the city and in the neighborhood where (s)he lives and (s)he doesn't have a car. You genuinely care about this person. (S)He is 32 years old. Would you...
a... respect his or her point of view and leave it there. Everyone can make their own choices and there's no reason to be judgemental.
b...tell this person that (s)he being stupid/silly/etc. and tell him or her to find a decent job wherever one is available, build a career and/or get the money to get the master's degree.

Ah, ok... I already feel a bit better after writing all this. This is my therapy! Thank you for your understanding guys :-)

[GolemsVoice]

I would put my foot down here and chose option b. You don't have to be rude about it, and telling her she is silly or stuff like that surely won't improve your chances. But, from what I can tell, you have a few good points, namely:

1) she will not find work in the near future, at leat not work she deems suitable. This would pretty much invalidade her bachelor's degree.
2) I understand you are not together all the time? So far, she is sitting pretty with her parents, while you work and earn money. This is not a good foundation for a relationship.
3) she is 32, she can't stay holed up with her parents forever

If she stays, nothing is going to change for the foreseeable future, and I can see why you'd be upset about that. I fear there's not much to be done here, though. The best thing you can do is to talk to her again, tell her how you feel, and what you think. This won't be easy, but it has to be done.

If she cannot be persuaded by any means, you have to ask yourself: is this what you want? How will it go on, and will you be happy? And if the answers are no, maybe let her go. You are not obligated to suffer in a relationship where the partner could change, but absolutely refuses. In the end, it might be that she is keeping YOU down and shackled to a place.

Another interesting thing: what do her parents want her to do? Maybe you could find an ally with them?

But whatever you do, don't be angry or insulting, because this will shut down the discussion instantly.

[Tvtyrant]

Sounds like you should tell her what you want, exactly, and if she doesn't want that then let it go and find someone else. If he doesn't know what she wants in life, and you do, then the difference between where you are is too different.

I would also tell them that this is important to you, but don't try to blackmail them into it. "I will break up with you if you don't..." is terrible because they will resent you later one way or another.

[Ceaon]

Ask her how she sees the future.

[Razade]

Honestly, and I know this isn't the answer you probably want, but you should consider breaking it off with her. If she's so attached to her family, over you even, that she won't even consider moving into you that's a warning light on your relationship.

[Bulldog Psion]

Yes, I can see how this might be problematic.

And I'll second the "don't tell her she's stupid, silly, or whatever." Don't use any words that could be construed as insulting or personally critical. I can tell you, when someone close to you tells you seriously that you're stupid or something similar, it reduces your willingness to cooperate about 1,000%. So if you say that, she won't say, "Oh, you're right, I'm stupid," she'll latch onto her own opinion even more tenaciously out of defiance.

Personally, I'm a pessimist about these things.

The fact that there's a big problem that you can't see the solution to suggests to me that there's a fairly good chance that it can't be solved. People can only "work around" a problem if they both see it as a problem and are willing and eager to cooperate up front in finding a solution. If your relationship starts out as a headache and colossal problem, that's not a good sign for future developments.

Her solution is, "do it my way." If she wanted to find a way out of the situation, she'd be trying to find a compromise. As it is, you're expected to cooperate 100% with her wishes and feelings while she cooperates 0% with your wishes and feelings. And she clearly views this not as a problem, but as "The Way Things Were Meant to Be."

I'm not trying to mean here, but ... after failing totally at a marriage with a person who is 100% sweet, decent, and kind-hearted, but who is also 0% interested in finding compromise on anything in our relationship, I'd say that continuing this relationship will just waste your time and hers. Personally, I'd recommend letting it go. You can find someone else, and she'll presumably find someone in her area, or stay married to her parents, as she prefers.

Otherwise, it's going to fail anyway, IMO. :smallfrown: Just that each of you will be 3, 4, 5 years older and with that much more emotional exhaustion trying to straighten out what cannot be straightened by mortal strength.

I can't tell you how tired I feel after trying to find a way for a relationship that wasn't working to work. It's like there's ten centuries of ashes in my soul. My body, my mind, my emotions are all utterly exhausted, even if I get a good night's sleep. I've felt ancient and weary for a couple of years now, and I'm still pretty young. And I feel really, really, really bad about wasting my wife's time. She's a great lady, just that we ended up being a bad fit for each other.

I think severing it right now would be less painful for both of you. Sorry if this offensive, but I felt someone should say this so that you can hear this perspective, too -- unvarnished, so to speak.

[Taffimai]

It sounds to me like the two of you want different things. She wants to get married and be a stay-at-home mother, you want an independent partner who shares the financial burdens of a household. My perception might be wrong, so start with yourself: why is it important to you that she find a job? What kind of relationship do you want to have in the distant future?

Once you are sure of your own expectations, ask her where she sees herself in five, ten years. What would your married life look like in her mind? As a side note, did/does her mother work? Don't give your own perspective in that conversation, find out what she wants from life.

Then take your time to think about whether you're compatible. There is no right or wrong here, only the matter of whether or not you have the same goals. If you don't, it's kinder to end the relationship. After all, if she wants to start a family, it would be healthier not to delay that for another decade. Btw, are you sure that's not a typo? In my country, 23 is a much more realistic age to finish a Bachelor's than 32.

[RabbitHoleLost]

If it's not an issue with her parents (and is a view point they share and encourage), I don't really see the problem with her wanting to stay with them until she's married. It was a pretty common thing up until recently, I think.
So, no, I wouldn't tell her she's stupid or silly and I think that judging her as such is really harsh and cruel.
It's her life, so her choices are her own to make and it actually seems more ridiculous to me that you're so angry about this.

Like Taffimai says, it's really about whether or not you two want the same things. If you don't...move on. Better for both of you.

[NichG]

I have to go with option c) Don't respect it, but recognize that this is not something that can be changed just by telling them so.

The reason not to respect it is because this is a form of self-destructive behavior - there's absolutely a reason to be judgmental because this has all sorts of harmful consequences. Treating it as just another quirk is not taking the damage that this can do seriously enough.

But at the same time, this is also something that the other person has internalized, so this is not just going to go away if you tell them 'hey, this is a bad idea'. Directly confronting them about it and insulting them over it will just cause a fight - they'll close off more, and won't listen to anything you have to say on the matter going forward.

The only way that they'll change is if they come to the realization on their own. There's not just some way to make that happen. What you can do though is recognize what factors might be in the way of that, and see whether you're contributing to those factors.

For example, are you protecting this person from the consequences of their own decisions in this matter, or allowing yourself to be taken advantage of? If so, simply pointing out that what she is doing is not just harming her future but also may be putting your finances and stability in jeopardy might be effective (if its true, that is) - not 'you're being stupid', but rather 'I can't financially afford to keep living here so I've started looking for jobs in other cities. I don't want to leave you, but something needs to change because this isn't going to work like this'.

But you aren't going to be able to just say 'feel differently!' and have that happen.

[Jermz]

Could she clumsily and tactlessly be trying to fish for a marriage proposal by forcing your hand?

[Thrawn4]

Ask her how she sees the future.
+1

Also known as option D

Your gf has her own preferences. Obviously you should respect this, but you have your own, and she should also respect these. As a couple, you have to take care of each other, and your comparison with a relative does not work well.
So you should find out what each of you want and how you can combine your wishes. If that does not work, the two of you should find a compromise... or it just does not work out.

[Jay R]

So the question is:
Someone close to you, let's say a close relative, tells you that (s)he will not move out unless (s)he gets married. Finding work seems hopeless in the city and in the neighborhood where (s)he lives and (s)he doesn't have a car. You genuinely care about this person. (S)He is 32 years old. Would you...
a... respect his or her point of view and leave it there. Everyone can make their own choices and there's no reason to be judgemental.
b...tell this person that (s)he being stupid/silly/etc. and tell him or her to find a decent job wherever one is available, build a career and/or get the money to get the master's degree.

If you're going to examine options, consider all of them. It seems likely that the option she wants you to consider is
c... ask her to marry you.

[veti]

If you're going to examine options, consider all of them. It seems likely that the option she wants you to consider is
c... ask her to marry you.

Before you do anything so rash, consider:
Can you afford to support a married lifestyle, very likely with a kid within the next 2 years, on just what you earn alone? Because if she is fishing for a proposal in this heels-dug-in manner, it makes me suspect that she's got no interest in building a career of her own, and is pining for the lifestyle of a 20th-century housewife.

The fact that she evidently attaches a lot of importance to the "marriage" thing itself, also seems to point that way.

Ask her where she wants to be in 2 years time, 5 years, 15 years. If none of the answers involve her having a job, then examine your own resources and whether you want to live in that kind of relationship.

[Aliquid]

Are you assuming that she cares about a career?

You are fixated on the path that she is taking (or failing to take) towards an end-goal. What if the path isn't the issue... what if your difference of opinion is on the actual end goal? Maybe getting a good paying job and then getting a Masters degree isn't really that important to her.

Focus on that. Is this something that she cares about? Is this a goal she wants to achieve? If so, how does she plan on achieving it under her current circumstances? If not... well then back off.

[Tyndmyr]

So the question is:
Someone close to you, let's say a close relative, tells you that (s)he will not move out unless (s)he gets married. Finding work seems hopeless in the city and in the neighborhood where (s)he lives and (s)he doesn't have a car. You genuinely care about this person. (S)He is 32 years old. Would you...
a... respect his or her point of view and leave it there. Everyone can make their own choices and there's no reason to be judgemental.
b...tell this person that (s)he being stupid/silly/etc. and tell him or her to find a decent job wherever one is available, build a career and/or get the money to get the master's degree.


I would have a very serious talk with this person. I will note that, in all likelihood, this would not happen to me solely because I screen out folks who have never lived genuinely on their own.

Why? Because, yes, leaving your support structure sucks. I understand disliking it. But hey, I did it. Lots of other people can. Sometimes in life, you gotta buckle down and make the decision that's tough in the short term. If someone is not willing to ever consider that, then they are simply not the kind of person that I want in the long haul. I don't exist to provide people with easy choices, I want someone who is on par with me, and whom can take care of themselves.

Statements of "office work is not for her" is really kind of bewildering for someone with a business degree. Seriously, that's the sort of degree you get if you intend to work in an office. It's okay to take a different path, like starting your own business, or commuting to the right business, or something creative...but this looks suspiciously like not actually pursuing any path. Just...waiting.

Waiting for marriage, evidently. Now, think, how exactly is marriage the solution to someone with no work experience, no prospects locally, and no car? Why...you'll be supporting her, presumably. Because marrying you won't provide her a job.

It seems probable that what you two want is very, very different.

[Scarlet Knight]

The question you ask has been asked by men for thousands of years.

If you were my son, I'd say: go get a job, and when you can support her then ask her to marry you.

If she was my daughter I'd say you weren't worth moving in with unless you can support her.

A man who cannot support a wife has no right to ask her to leave her family. It's sounds like you want the benefits of a wife without the responsibility.

Are you unable to work? Or is your profession one that can't be practiced in her home town? Are you asking her to leave the most important people in this world to her? What are you offering her? Love? Then the reverse applies: if you love her, you should be willing wait and earn her hand.

[Starwulf]

The question you ask has been asked by men for thousands of years.

If you were my son, I'd say: go get a job, and when you can support her then ask her to marry you.

If she was my daughter I'd say you weren't worth moving in with unless you can support her.

A man who cannot support a wife has no right to ask her to leave her family. It's sounds like you want the benefits of a wife without the responsibility.

Are you unable to work? Or is your profession one that can't be practiced in her home town? Are you asking her to leave the most important people in this world to her? What are you offering her? Love? Then the reverse applies: if you love her, you should be willing wait and earn her hand.

That is an incredibly old fashioned view. I don't usually have issues with more traditionalist views(like no sex before marriage, or not having sex with a ton of different people while dating), but saying that it's a mans job to support a woman is honestly kinda...well, ridiculous. In this modern day and age it's just as much a woman's responsibility to have a job and be capable of supporting herself and/or contributing to the bills that keep a household running, as it is a man's responsibility. And the comment of "The benefits of a wife"? That sounds suspiciously like you believe it's the woman's job to keep the household clean, balance the budget, pay the bills using the man's money, and raising the children. That is honestly kind of offensive, not to me personally(though again, I find it very odd), but to the millions of women who have been fighting for equality for the last 100 years.

I mean, it's kinda bad when my first thought on reading your post was to flash to the Progressive car insurance commercial, the black and white one where the guy is talking about a woman being able to balance the budget and having all the car insurance options that her little heart desires, while the man goes out to make the money. It's obviously a parody of days long past, but it seems like in your mind they should still be like that.

I personally tell my daughters every day that they need to work hard in school so they can go to college, get a degree in something they enjoy so that they can rely on themselves and support themselves, so that when they do decide they want to get married, they can do so from a standpoint of love and trust, and not because they need someone else to help pay their bills. Any relationship founded on the premise that one is going to solely support the other is doomed to failure, and honestly deserves to fail. Of course things can happen that change that dynamic, an accident that prevents one or the other from working, but if the relationship was originally based on a solid structure, things will usually work out just fine(and I speak from personal experience here).

[GolemsVoice]

The question you ask has been asked by men for thousands of years.

If you were my son, I'd say: go get a job, and when you can support her then ask her to marry you.

If she was my daughter I'd say you weren't worth moving in with unless you can support her.

A man who cannot support a wife has no right to ask her to leave her family. It's sounds like you want the benefits of a wife without the responsibility.

Are you unable to work? Or is your profession one that can't be practiced in her home town? Are you asking her to leave the most important people in this world to her? What are you offering her? Love? Then the reverse applies: if you love her, you should be willing wait and earn her hand.

Aside from everything Starwulf said, if SHE loves HIM, why should she not be willing to leave her comfort zone for him?

[Jay R]

That is an incredibly old fashioned view.

Of course. He said that, and you even quoted it: "The question you ask has been asked by men for thousands of years."

Note also that this is neither a positive nor a negative statement - just a descriptive one. "Don't stick your hand in the fire" is equally old, but just as relevant as ever.


I don't usually have issues with more traditionalist views(like no sex before marriage, or not having sex with a ton of different people while dating), but saying that it's a mans job to support a woman is honestly kinda...well, ridiculous.

We are dealing in a specific situation, in which we are told that she does not have a job, and lives where she's not likely to find one. That fact alone makes saying that he should plan to support her if they are married an exactly correct response.


In this modern day and age it's just as much a woman's responsibility to have a job and be capable of supporting herself and/or contributing to the bills that keep a household running, as it is a man's responsibility.

Only in the statistical sense. Ten years ago, when my wife was in school, it was my job alone. Right now, while I'm trying to write a book, it's her job alone. There has never been a time in which it was "just as much her responsibility as mine". The truth is that it is the collective pair's responsibility to meet all the responsibilities of the family, doling out tasks as seems appropriate to their current situations and skill sets.

In the specific case we're discussing, she doesn't have a job. Therefore he must support them at the start of the marriage.


And the comment of "The benefits of a wife"? That sounds suspiciously like you believe it's the woman's job to keep the household clean, balance the budget, pay the bills using the man's money, and raising the children.

But he didn't say any of this. You did. You made it all up.

That sounds suspiciously like you read the post looking for some way to sneer at it, and had to come up with your own description because his didn't justify the emotional response you wanted to feel.

[Does that invented description of your position seem unfair and untrue? It probably is, and I withdraw it. I had no business making up that guess. But it was patterned on your post.]


That is honestly kind of offensive, not to me personally(though again, I find it very odd), but to the millions of women who have been fighting for equality for the last 100 years.

Of course, standing up to defend women even when they don't ask you to do so is part of the exact same old-fashioned approach. Let's face it, that background is part of all of us.


I mean, it's kinda bad when my first thought on reading your post was to flash to the Progressive car insurance commercial, the black and white one where the guy is talking about a woman being able to balance the budget and having all the car insurance options that her little heart desires, while the man goes out to make the money. It's obviously a parody of days long past, but it seems like in your mind they should still be like that.

Yes, that Progressive ad, and your description, are obviously a parody of days long past, andf a parody of what he wrote. Let's get back to his actual approach, rather than the one you invented.

I agree with everything he said.

But if the original poster had been a woman talking about a man who was living at home and out of work, I'd have said exactly the same things. She can't marry him if she can't support him, and he can't move in with her unless she can support him.

All the sexism you're trying to infer was simply using the actual genders in the actual situation.

[Telonius]

To the OP..

It seems like there's a lot that's being left unsaid (and possibly unknown). Has she said exactly why she'll only move out when she gets married? There could be a number of reasons, and a number of concerns (some justified, some not so much). It could be a financial thing; I'm not sure how all of the "financial dependent" rules work when you're no longer a minor, but it's possible that's a concern. It could be a moral or religious thing . It could be that she's afraid to be on her own, for any number of reasons. It could be that she really wants to be a stay at home mom, and have that sort of a relationship with somebody.

It could be any of that stuff, or something else entirely. You won't know what the answer is unless she tells you, so I'd suggest you ask her. If you are going to stay in a relationship with her, taking about that sort of major topic openly and honestly is something you both need to practice.

Regarding parents in general, every situation is a bit different. For me, living with parents as an adult is a completely normal thing. I'm 34, married 10 years with a 6-year-old daughter, and have spent the majority of my life in a multigenerational household. Growing up, my grandmother lived with us. My mother-in-law has been living with us for the last 7 years. In our situation, it's worked pretty well.

[Knaight]

If it's not an issue with her parents (and is a view point they share and encourage), I don't really see the problem with her wanting to stay with them until she's married. It was a pretty common thing up until recently, I think.
It still is a pretty common thing in a lot of places, and there's a very real possibility that this is less a matter of someone in a culture where the standard model is a small nuclear family you move out of as close to adulthood as possible not doing so as it is a matter of someone in a culture where staying with family until married is the standard. Considering that this is a Jon Dahl thread and that "in any country" bit at the beginning, I'm betting on option two.


I have to go with option c) Don't respect it, but recognize that this is not something that can be changed just by telling them so.

The reason not to respect it is because this is a form of self-destructive behavior - there's absolutely a reason to be judgmental because this has all sorts of harmful consequences. Treating it as just another quirk is not taking the damage that this can do seriously enough.
If I'm correct about this being the standard, it's hardly a form of self-destructive behavior, and it's literally the opposite of a quirk. It's causing some inconveniences in an indirect way due to living with the parents also meaning living in a city that's not exactly a hot spot for the relevant field, but if this is the standard then there's also a good odd of going against this having its own troubles, particularly if the family is opposed to them leaving and the rest of the culture has the family's back.

Given all that, I suspect the situation is one where the only way the woman can leave without damaging parental relations is to move in with her husband, and she's probably not going to be talked out of that. Jon Dahl's option B is a great way to start a fight, and nothing else. So, that leaves three real options.
A) Accept this standard, decide that it's not a deal breaker, keep the relationship going despite it not being preferable to you.
B) Accept this standard, decide that it is a deal breaker, end the relationship.
C) Accept this standard, marry the person.

Which of those options is best in this situation, I don't know. I personally would probably pick option B, but that's pretty meaningless information for what is a fundamentally personal choice.

[Knaight]

If it's not an issue with her parents (and is a view point they share and encourage), I don't really see the problem with her wanting to stay with them until she's married. It was a pretty common thing up until recently, I think.
It still is a pretty common thing in a lot of places, and there's a very real possibility that this is less a matter of someone in a culture where the standard model is a small nuclear family you move out of as close to adulthood as possible not doing so as it is a matter of someone in a culture where staying with family until married is the standard. Considering that this is a Jon Dahl thread and that "in any country" bit at the beginning, I'm betting on option two.


I have to go with option c) Don't respect it, but recognize that this is not something that can be changed just by telling them so.

The reason not to respect it is because this is a form of self-destructive behavior - there's absolutely a reason to be judgmental because this has all sorts of harmful consequences. Treating it as just another quirk is not taking the damage that this can do seriously enough.
If I'm correct about this being the standard, it's hardly a form of self-destructive behavior, and it's literally the opposite of a quirk. It's causing some inconveniences in an indirect way due to living with the parents also meaning living in a city that's not exactly a hot spot for the relevant field, but if this is the standard then there's also a good odd of going against this having its own troubles, particularly if the family is opposed to them leaving and the rest of the culture has the family's back.

Given all that, I suspect the situation is one where the only way the woman can leave without damaging parental relations is to move in with her husband, and she's probably not going to be talked out of that. Jon Dahl's option B is a great way to start a fight, and nothing else. So, that leaves three real options.
A) Accept this standard, decide that it's not a deal breaker, keep the relationship going despite it not being preferable to you.
B) Accept this standard, decide that it is a deal breaker, end the relationship.
C) Accept this standard, marry the person.

Which of those options is best in this situation, I don't know. I personally would probably pick option B, but that's pretty meaningless information for what is a fundamentally personal choice. I also expect, from this and other Jon Dahl threads that this is much easier for me to say, as I'm the one who hasn't moved - and I'm guessing here - somewhere about 4 to 5 thousand miles southeast.

[Aliquid]

Of course. He said that, and you even quoted it: "The question you ask has been asked by men for thousands of years."

Note also that this is neither a positive nor a negative statement - just a descriptive one. "Don't stick your hand in the fire" is equally old, but just as relevant as ever.
I'm with Starwulf on this one. "don't stick your hand in the fire" is still relevant. Expecting people to live up to outdated gender roles is not still relevant.


We are dealing in a specific situation, in which we are told that she does not have a job, and lives where she's not likely to find one. That fact alone makes saying that he should plan to support her if they are married an exactly correct response.But that's not what was said. The original comment was "A man who cannot support a wife has no right to ask her to leave her family". That was very gender specific.


Only in the statistical sense. Ten years ago, when my wife was in school, it was my job alone. Right now, while I'm trying to write a book, it's her job alone. There has never been a time in which it was "just as much her responsibility as mine". The truth is that it is the collective pair's responsibility to meet all the responsibilities of the family, doling out tasks as seems appropriate to their current situations and skill sets.
Absolutely true.
When two people become a couple, all tasks and responsibilities should be divided fairly and evenly. The important thing is that there should not be expectations based on old fashioned gender roles. It should not be assumed that the "man" should have the job, or that the "woman" should raise the kids.

If that's the way it works out... fine. But it shouldn't be an expectation.


In the specific case we're discussing, she doesn't have a job. Therefore he must support them at the start of the marriage.In the specific example, he is frustrated that she is making no effort in getting a job. That's the whole point of his post. She won't move to a more lucrative job market. If she did that, he wouldn't have to support her.


But he didn't say any of this. You did. You made it all up.It is a fair assumption to make. There is a long history of these views being tied to such comments. Hopefully it is a false assumption.



Of course, standing up to defend women even when they don't ask you to do so is part of the exact same old-fashioned approach. Let's face it, that background is part of all of us.This isn't standing up to defend a woman. This is standing up to promote equality. It effects everyone, not just women.

For example, a man should be able to stay home with the kids while the wife works without being looked down upon as a pansy by those who enforce traditional gender roles.


But if the original poster had been a woman talking about a man who was living at home and out of work, I'd have said exactly the same things. She can't marry him if she can't support him, and he can't move in with her unless she can support him.That's great, but the problem was with Scarlet Knight's post, not yours. If he were to say "If the roles were reversed, I would say the same"... then this all was a misunderstanding.

This whole argument is based on all sorts of assumptions though. We don't know what she really wants. The OP seems to be under the assumption that she would want to get a job and go for her Masters... yet she isn't making the life changes required to achieve that goal. What's really going on?

1) She really wants to have a career and is making bad decisions to achieve that goal;
2) A career isn't really important and she wants to have someone else support her (currently her parents, and in the future her married partner);
3) Something else;

How to respond completely depends on these facts.

[Starwulf]

snip

Really though, I wasn't trying to twist Scarlets post at all, I read it exactly the way he posted it. I mean I'm pretty sure there is only a few ways to interpret "If she were my daughter I wouldn't let you date her unless you could support her", and the most absolute common way would be mine. Same with the rest of his post, and like I said I don't necessarily have an issue with it personally, but it does really come off as extremely "I"m the man, it's my job to support, she's the woman, it's her job to take care of the household". If Scarlet doesn't believe that, then he can come on here and defend his statement or clear it up, I don't think he needs Jay R coming along and doing it for him. Scarlet posted, I responded.

Edited post, to personal. In the end though I do ask you to not respond to any of my posts Jay R. I've had you blocked for over a year, I don't like any of your views, I don't like how you've responded to my posts in the past, I'd just much rather we have absolutely zero interaction on these forums.

[Space Pumpkin]

Just saying, from excessive lurking, I can report that both Jay R and Scarlet Knight are men in their late 50s or 60s. That's probably relevant to this discussion.

[Starwulf]

Just saying, from excessive lurking, I can report that both Jay R and Scarlet Knight are men in their late 50s or 60s. That's probably relevant to this discussion.

Maybe, maybe not. I think it more depends on just how well you adjust with the times/change in general. My dad is very close to 70 at this point, and while he was more along their lines when I was younger, now that I'm an adult with kids my own(2 daughters) he's actually become considerably more moderate. He's always telling my oldest she needs to pull her grades up so she can get a scholarship and go to college and find a good job, which is pretty much a 100% reversal from when I was growing up, and he would tell me I need to buckle down and find a good job right out of highschool so I can support a wife and kids. He used to not do any housework when I was a kid, stating "I earn the money, I don't do the dishes". Now though, he's the one who does the dishes almost exclusively, LOL. He used to be quite racist when I was growing up, but nowadays he's....alright with people of other color. Doesn't go out of his way to speak to them, but if they talk he won't flat out ignore them like he used to.

[Dacia Brabant]

Is it culturally accepted where you and your girlfriend live for an unmarried son (or, more likely, daughter) to live with his or her parents until marriage? If so, then you don't have any easy options, which have already been detailed in this thread.

If what she's doing is not a culturally accepted practice--or if it is but only within certain subcultures that you have no intention of being a part of--then unfortunately you still don't have any easy choices, and again these have already been detailed.

My advice, in either case, is to follow your heart. If your heart tells you that you need to be with her, then do what you need to do to make it happen. If your heart tells you otherwise, then you need to cut her loose. Neither of those are easy for their own reasons, but doing the right thing rarely is.

[Scarlet Knight]

A lot of good points have been made on both sides, & I should try to clarify my opinion.

Yes, I am in my 50’s and that certainly colors my view. Jon’s question was one I asked when I was young and was asked again by my son before he married. Old answers become traditional often because they work for others previously in your position.

I did not intend it to be about gender, but about responsibility and love. True love is willing to endure hardship together, but does not create unneeded hardship for loved ones – except in rare cases.

What I am saying is that Jon is asking a lot of his girlfriend. He is asking her to leave her home and family to be with him, but he is not willing to marry her to do so. That leads me to guess that he’s either unsure of a life together or doesn’t wish to commit to her. I am sure she sees this, too. Thus I asked about his ability to support her as a sign that his commitment is not only words.

When I spoke of the benefits of a wife, I confess I was thinking of sex, not housework. But she is 32, and I guess if she wants children, they will need to start a family in just a few years. Again, marriage becomes very important when raising a family and building a home.

I admit there are many variables that may turn my argument upside down. She is 32 and most people leave college in their early 20’s. Has she been home all this time and built up a tidy nest egg? Or has she been supporting her parents? Has she been not working and supported by her parents? Has she only recently gotten her degree and if so, why? Has she and Jon been together a long time or is he a new romance? Or her first?

I hope this clarifies what I meant and why I gave the advice I did.

[Razade]

A lot of good points have been made on both sides, & I should try to clarify my opinion.

Yes, I am in my 50’s and that certainly colors my view. Jon’s question was one I asked when I was young and was asked again by my son before he married. Old answers become traditional often because they work for others previously in your position.

I did not intend it to be about gender, but about responsibility and love. True love is willing to endure hardship together, but does not create unneeded hardship for loved ones – except in rare cases.

What I am saying is that Jon is asking a lot of his girlfriend. He is asking her to leave her home and family to be with him, but he is not willing to marry her to do so. That leads me to guess that he’s either unsure of a life together or doesn’t wish to commit to her. I am sure she sees this, too. Thus I asked about his ability to support her as a sign that his commitment is not only words.

When I spoke of the benefits of a wife, I confess I was thinking of sex, not housework. But she is 32, and I guess if she wants children, they will need to start a family in just a few years. Again, marriage becomes very important when raising a family and building a home.

I admit there are many variables that may turn my argument upside down. She is 32 and most people leave college in their early 20’s. Has she been home all this time and built up a tidy nest egg? Or has she been supporting her parents? Has she been not working and supported by her parents? Has she only recently gotten her degree and if so, why? Has she and Jon been together a long time or is he a new romance? Or her first?

I hope this clarifies what I meant and why I gave the advice I did.

Actually I think it makes your argument sound worse. The idea that all relationships that are meaningful have to end in marriage is insanely antiquated as is the idea that the parents of a child need to be married to raise a child.

[Dacia Brabant]

It is antiquated, but only in contemporary cultures within the developed world--with the exception of certain ethnic and/or religious subcultures within the developed world. If the original poster's girlfriend either lives outside of our cultural frame of reference where patriarchal arrangements have fallen or are falling out of favor, or lives within one of the subcultures where it hasn't, then it's not for us to judge. It only matters if it matters to the original poster, and only within the context of how it affects their relationship going forward.

Now where comments like the one you quoted chafe are where he makes assumptions about the individuals in question (perceived level of commitment, and what they should want out of a committed monogamous relationship), as well as statements that at the very least imply that the two-parent nuclear family consisting of a breadwinner husband and a nurturer wife are and always have been the best or most natural or even the most traditional family arrangements. This in fact is, like everything humans do, an invention of their circumstances that happened to become normative through social conditioning--in this case, the Industrial Revolution and its aftermath--but is slowly becoming just another a subculture as other models become economically and socially viable.

[Razade]

It is antiquated, but only in contemporary cultures within the developed world--with the exception of certain ethnic and/or religious subcultures within the developed world. If the original poster's girlfriend either lives outside of our cultural frame of reference where patriarchal arrangements have fallen or are falling out of favor, or lives within one of the subcultures where it hasn't, then it's not for us to judge.

Few things. Fairly certain that Scarlet lives in a Western, developed Nation. Secondly any culture that denies anyone living within them basic human rights or liberties or otherwise marginalizes them is a culture to be scorned and ridiculed and to be rejected. Not because I feel I live in an "Enlightened" society and not because I view my own society as better than theirs but because I, as a member of the human species, understand that any culture that attempts to control others because of their choices are wrong. I understand Cultural Relativism, I'm a Relativist to a point, but to then turn around and say that because culture is relative we can't judge them when they do appreciable harm to those who live under harsh, totalitarian and domineering societies is harmful and cruel. Telling someone their relationship only matters if it ends in male and female marriage and it's harmful to children not to be in a family that is married is archaic, outmoded and antiquated whether the person claiming such a viewpoint lives in Tennessee or Beijing.

[Aliquid]

What I am saying is that Jon is asking a lot of his girlfriend. He is asking her to leave her home and family to be with him, but he is not willing to marry her to do so. That leads me to guess that he’s either unsure of a life together or doesn’t wish to commit to her.I think you are jumping to a conclusion that isn't actually in Jon's post.

Nowhere does he say that he wants her to move in with him or even to be closer to him. He says he wants her to relocate so she can find a better job, earn more money and afford to go to grad school. Looking at the title of the post "I will never live alone", suggests that he expects her to move out on her own, not move in with him.

I get the impression that his problem is that
- He thinks it is in her best interest to get a good job and go to grad school
- She is making decisions that go against this
- He cares about her and wants her to succeed in life
- It drives him crazy that she won't succeed in life due to bad choices
- It drives him crazy that she won't "listen to reason"

Also, of course he believes that he needs her to succeed in life for him to be with her, so there is the selfish side of it too.

My biggest concern with this whole thing is his perceived notion of what are "good" and "bad" life choices for her. I'm thinking that her life goals are not the same as what he thinks they should be, and he might be oblivious to this.

I don't know though, he didn't clarify many points.

[Ceaon]

Jon, as you can see from this thread, people have many different ideas about life choices and priorities. One of the difficulties with dating outside your own culture is that these ideas will differ even more between you and her. This is why my advice was to ask her about how she sees things, so you can root out any unspoken assumptions on your part and see things from her perspective (as opposed to yours, or a perspective you have assigned to her). You should also tell her how you see things and why. If you two stay respectful to each other during that conversation, you've solved half of the problem. The only thing left then is to see if you can move to a solution that works for the both of you.

[GolemsVoice]

I take from John's post that he already has found work. Even if they were to get married today, this isn't the 50s, and one income is often not enough to support a family. I feel like asking his girlfriend of 32 (!) years to be able to provide support should the move in together is a reasonable demand.

I mean, he's not throwing her out of her house and telling her to not come back until she has made her first million. He's merely asking her to take steps towards a future he sees as more rewarding.

I am currently in a relationship where my wife can't work because she does not yet speak the local language, and I can tell you that such a state can put a big strain on any relationship, because one partner will constantly feel like they're asked to pay for everything, while the other partner will feel like they have to beg for everything. This is not the foundation for a happy relationship.

[Jon_Dahl]

Some of the you asked me to talk about the future (It was a consensus?), so I asked her where she sees herself five years from now. She only mentioned a professional ambition, which I saw extremely unrealistic (Something along the lines of "I will be a famous politician, even though I'm a freshly graduated engineer.") and she didn't tell me anything more than this. The answer made me lose the track of my thoughts so I couldn't build a discussion from it and we changed the subject.

I will try again, but making additional questions seems more than necessary.

[Razade]

Some of the you asked me to talk about the future (It was a consensus?), so I asked her where she sees herself five years from now. She only mentioned a professional ambition, which I saw extremely unrealistic (Something along the lines of "I will be a famous politician, even though I'm a freshly graduated engineer.") and she didn't tell me anything more than this. The answer made me lose the track of my thoughts so I couldn't build a discussion from it and we changed the subject.

I will try again, but making additional questions seems more than necessary.

Is this someone you see yourself being with for the rest of your life? Do you love her more than any woman you've ever met? Because if not and you're this different to this level it's time for you to leave.

[NichG]

If I'm correct about this being the standard, it's hardly a form of self-destructive behavior, and it's literally the opposite of a quirk. It's causing some inconveniences in an indirect way due to living with the parents also meaning living in a city that's not exactly a hot spot for the relevant field, but if this is the standard then there's also a good odd of going against this having its own troubles, particularly if the family is opposed to them leaving and the rest of the culture has the family's back.

I've seen people and their families slip further and further into poverty because of this kind of thing - not wanting to move away from an economically shrinking area. Just because something is in the culture or tradition or family history doesn't mean that it will actually work in the current realities of the situation. There's this assumption that it should, but then that becomes a trap where people feel like they have to figure out some way to 'make it work' in the framework of that tradition, rather than thinking 'maybe the world today isn't the same as in my parents' day' or 'maybe I can't actually have exactly what I want here'.

[veti]

Some of the you asked me to talk about the future (It was a consensus?), so I asked her where she sees herself five years from now. She only mentioned a professional ambition, which I saw extremely unrealistic (Something along the lines of "I will be a famous politician, even though I'm a freshly graduated engineer.") and she didn't tell me anything more than this. The answer made me lose the track of my thoughts so I couldn't build a discussion from it and we changed the subject.

Yeah... I'm sorry, but that really sounds like she's not taking the question seriously. It sounds as if she's treating it as an exam question, trying to give an answer that you'll accept, rather than an honest answer that she really means.

If you're still unsure which way to jump - I'd suggest a different tack. Talk about what might happen if you were married. Ask her if she wants children.

If the answer is "yes", then you know she's going to want them pretty soon, because 32 is already (probably) past the optimal age for a woman to have her first child. Then talk through the simple (?) mechanics of juggling childcare and work. That conversation might be awkward, but it has the potential to give you a much more realistic picture of what your life together might be like in five years' time.

Then it's up to you. Is that the life you want?

[Ceaon]

Some of the you asked me to talk about the future (It was a consensus?), so I asked her where she sees herself five years from now. She only mentioned a professional ambition, which I saw extremely unrealistic (Something along the lines of "I will be a famous politician, even though I'm a freshly graduated engineer.") and she didn't tell me anything more than this. The answer made me lose the track of my thoughts so I couldn't build a discussion from it and we changed the subject.

I will try again, but making additional questions seems more than necessary.

Just be honest with her. If I understand correctly, you're worried about her chances in her field of work and worried what that might mean for the both of you. Just tell her everything you told us, show her this thread if need be. In a relationship, it is easier to share your worries and, yes, know about what you and the other disagree about.

If you do not communicate, it would be awfully coincidental if you grow close to eachother's points of view over time. If you are worried, she should care. Likewise, if she herself is unworried about her situation, that should also be cause for you to trust her and worry a bit less.

If you can't simply ask her be open or clear about how she sees stuff, be open yourself and so invite her into being open in return.

[Dacia Brabant]

Few things. Fairly certain that Scarlet lives in a Western, developed Nation. Secondly any culture that denies anyone living within them basic human rights or liberties or otherwise marginalizes them is a culture to be scorned and ridiculed and to be rejected. Not because I feel I live in an "Enlightened" society and not because I view my own society as better than theirs but because I, as a member of the human species, understand that any culture that attempts to control others because of their choices are wrong. I understand Cultural Relativism, I'm a Relativist to a point, but to then turn around and say that because culture is relative we can't judge them when they do appreciable harm to those who live under harsh, totalitarian and domineering societies is harmful and cruel. Telling someone their relationship only matters if it ends in male and female marriage and it's harmful to children not to be in a family that is married is archaic, outmoded and antiquated whether the person claiming such a viewpoint lives in Tennessee or Beijing.

Due to forum rules I'm not going to debate this point further, but I will say that I agree with your underlying premise; where I disagree is the means. Cultures have to realize and actualize individual liberty for themselves, in their own time and their own way that makes sense to them socially as well as economically, if it's going to be successfully implanted and carried forward by future generations.


Is this someone you see yourself being with for the rest of your life? Do you love her more than any woman you've ever met? Because if not and you're this different to this level it's time for you to leave.

Wholeheartedly agreed.

[Scarlet Knight]

I think you are jumping to a conclusion that isn't actually in Jon's post.
Nowhere does he say that he wants her to move in with him or even to be closer to him…
Perhaps I did jump to a conclusion. I took his statement “If she doesn't get money, we will never be together” and combined it with “she will only move out of her parents' house when she gets married”. I figured he wasn’t talking about dating, since they can do that if she lives with her parents, nor marriage since that would solve the problem, and concluded he was discussing living together.

I am currently in a relationship where my wife can't work because she does not yet speak the local language, and I can tell you that such a state can put a big strain on any relationship, because one partner will constantly feel like they're asked to pay for everything, while the other partner will feel like they have to beg for everything. This is not the foundation for a happy relationship.
When you are married, the two of you are in it together and for the long haul. Imagine how much worse the strain would be if you were simply living together? Still a marriage isn’t 50-50; it’s 100-100 because at any time (as you well know), one spouse may have to be complete caregiver for the other. That’s the point I was trying to make, not that it’s better if Jon is the sole breadwinner, but is he ready or willing to be? Only then would it be fair to ask her to leave her home for him.

… at the very least imply that the two-parent nuclear family consisting of a breadwinner husband and a nurturer wife are and always have been the best or most natural or even the most traditional family arrangements. This in fact is, like everything humans do, an invention of their circumstances that happened to become normative through social conditioning…but is slowly becoming just another a subculture as other models become economically and socially viable.
I do not want to derail the thread into one about the benefits of marriage. We all know of non-traditional households that are happy and successful. However, I believe that there are far more studies showing that married households are far more economically and socially viable than unmarried households. Perhaps there is a sociologist in the playground who can verify or refute this.

Few things. Fairly certain that Scarlet lives in a Western, developed Nation… is archaic, outmoded and antiquated whether the person claiming such a viewpoint lives in Tennessee or Beijing.
I live in NY but I am fond of Bluegrass. :smallsmile:

[Chen]

When you are married, the two of you are in it together and for the long haul. Imagine how much worse the strain would be if you were simply living together? Still a marriage isn’t 50-50; it’s 100-100 because at any time (as you well know), one spouse may have to be complete caregiver for the other. That’s the point I was trying to make, not that it’s better if Jon is the sole breadwinner, but is he ready or willing to be? Only then would it be fair to ask her to leave her home for him.

Divorce is a thing, so it's not like the marriage itself is what somehow makes things better than just living with someone. I lived with my now wife for many years before we actually got married for a variety of reasons. A year or so in we both knew we were in for the long haul. While marriage can be an indicator of a long term commitment, it is not a necessary condition for one. Hell I would go so far to say it's not even a sufficient condition for one (not all marriages result in long term commitment).


I do not want to derail the thread into one about the benefits of marriage. We all know of non-traditional households that are happy and successful. However, I believe that there are far more studies showing that married households are far more economically and socially viable than unmarried households. Perhaps there is a sociologist in the playground who can verify or refute this.

Even if married households are generally more happy and successful, this doesn't necessarily mean it's somehow magically the "marriage" that does that. It might mean people who are generally working out well together like going along with the societal and monetary benefits that marriage bestow upon them. For the most part the people who are happily married will stay married and be happy. For those that are not happily married, well they'll divorce and then no longer be in the married group when looking at statistics. It's a bad metric to judge by.