So this was inspired by Sierra's thread, and I'm not certain this is the right forum for it, but considering it relates to relationships/LDRs in ways, I figure that this forum most closely fits the bill.
Based on the varying responses given on the thread, it seems that a lot of people (simply my interpretation of what was said/the information that was given) lump relationships into two categories: the serious and the not so serious, the "long-term" and the "casual." People seemed to lump relationships in which marriage was considered/seen as a possibility into being a serious relationship that was comprised of loyalty, love, devotion, and commitment, whereas there was the implication that these qualities are not there in a relationship they consider "casual"; furthermore, it seems that serious and long-term relationships were seen in terms of dating-for-marriage, whereas everything else seemed to fall under the wayside category of casual.
My relationship with my ex lasted a year and a half. No, I couldn't see marriage with him, not from the beginning, not later on, but in the moment that we were dating, we were both happy. We both immensely enjoyed one another's company, especially in the beginning. No, we didn't have plans for marriage and futures, but we didn't need them. We were both content with where we were at. Despite the fact we (or I) did not see marriage in our futures, our relationship was serious while it lasted. We still worked as hard as any of you to make our relationship work. We were still committed and devoted to one another and to continuously improving our relationship. Now, I look at my relationship with my boyfriend. I see a much healthier relationship and I do see the possibility of forever in our future. While I will admit my boyfriend, and maybe I too, seems to put more effort into our relationship than my ex, I'm hesitant to pin this to the fact our futures have been considered and more inclined to pin it to the differences in morals, values, and characteristics between my ex and my current partner. The relationship I have with my partner is serious, but it's serious in a different way. I would not say it is any more "serious" than my last relationship as far as what I put into it because marriage has been talked about, other than the fact I'm a little bit more flexible (such as considering a gap year) than I was in my previous relationship.
I'm simply curious as to if people really do view relationships as being either you're serious or you aren't? Even excluding cases in which someone doesn't believe in marriage or in which someone has no desire to be married, what about the person who remains in a relationship - even without seeing marriage - simply because they're happy in that relationship? If both partners are committed to making the relationship work while it lasts, does this make it any less serious than two partners who are committing to make a relationship work because they both want it to last forever? I suppose where I'm coming from is I don't see how being in a relationship where you're serious but not thinking marriage (and may never think marriage with that particular person) means you're any less committed or devoted to your partner, or that you're any less serious about the relationship, and that seems to be the stigma. If in today's society you fall somewhere in between casual dating or dating-for-marriage, you seem to be the "odd one out" and generally lumped into dating casually, even if your relationship is far from a casual arrangement.
There seems to be a negative stigma around remaining in a relationship where you don't see a long-term future, even if the relationship itself is long-term; people tend to look at it like "why would you stay with someone you don't see a future with?" and "I'm too devoted/mongamous/committed/relationshippy/etc. to be with someone I don't see a future with" whereas I tend to put the focus on happiness and how happy I am in a relationship, in that sort of arrangement. I didn't expect to find the man I was going to marry at 17-going-on-18. I didn't expect to marry my first boyfriend. I'm glad that I didn't, but it was an experience from which I learned and gained a lot that I wouldn't trade. I can't say I was as happy as I deserved to be, but in that moment, I was happy, and that is what mattered to me. I suppose I see dating and being with someone as being more about the experience and seeing where life takes me, as opposed to being focused on the ultimate destination. And I'm not saying that happiness isn't a factor for people who date-for-marriage either; of course it is! I suppose I personally feel that whether or not you can see yourself marrying someone after a year of being with them shouldn't be the most important piece of criteria, and I don't think people who don't put a focus on marriage and on years down the line should be looked down upon for it.
So, thoughts/opinions?
Based on the varying responses given on the thread, it seems that a lot of people (simply my interpretation of what was said/the information that was given) lump relationships into two categories: the serious and the not so serious, the "long-term" and the "casual." People seemed to lump relationships in which marriage was considered/seen as a possibility into being a serious relationship that was comprised of loyalty, love, devotion, and commitment, whereas there was the implication that these qualities are not there in a relationship they consider "casual"; furthermore, it seems that serious and long-term relationships were seen in terms of dating-for-marriage, whereas everything else seemed to fall under the wayside category of casual.
My relationship with my ex lasted a year and a half. No, I couldn't see marriage with him, not from the beginning, not later on, but in the moment that we were dating, we were both happy. We both immensely enjoyed one another's company, especially in the beginning. No, we didn't have plans for marriage and futures, but we didn't need them. We were both content with where we were at. Despite the fact we (or I) did not see marriage in our futures, our relationship was serious while it lasted. We still worked as hard as any of you to make our relationship work. We were still committed and devoted to one another and to continuously improving our relationship. Now, I look at my relationship with my boyfriend. I see a much healthier relationship and I do see the possibility of forever in our future. While I will admit my boyfriend, and maybe I too, seems to put more effort into our relationship than my ex, I'm hesitant to pin this to the fact our futures have been considered and more inclined to pin it to the differences in morals, values, and characteristics between my ex and my current partner. The relationship I have with my partner is serious, but it's serious in a different way. I would not say it is any more "serious" than my last relationship as far as what I put into it because marriage has been talked about, other than the fact I'm a little bit more flexible (such as considering a gap year) than I was in my previous relationship.
I'm simply curious as to if people really do view relationships as being either you're serious or you aren't? Even excluding cases in which someone doesn't believe in marriage or in which someone has no desire to be married, what about the person who remains in a relationship - even without seeing marriage - simply because they're happy in that relationship? If both partners are committed to making the relationship work while it lasts, does this make it any less serious than two partners who are committing to make a relationship work because they both want it to last forever? I suppose where I'm coming from is I don't see how being in a relationship where you're serious but not thinking marriage (and may never think marriage with that particular person) means you're any less committed or devoted to your partner, or that you're any less serious about the relationship, and that seems to be the stigma. If in today's society you fall somewhere in between casual dating or dating-for-marriage, you seem to be the "odd one out" and generally lumped into dating casually, even if your relationship is far from a casual arrangement.
There seems to be a negative stigma around remaining in a relationship where you don't see a long-term future, even if the relationship itself is long-term; people tend to look at it like "why would you stay with someone you don't see a future with?" and "I'm too devoted/mongamous/committed/relationshippy/etc. to be with someone I don't see a future with" whereas I tend to put the focus on happiness and how happy I am in a relationship, in that sort of arrangement. I didn't expect to find the man I was going to marry at 17-going-on-18. I didn't expect to marry my first boyfriend. I'm glad that I didn't, but it was an experience from which I learned and gained a lot that I wouldn't trade. I can't say I was as happy as I deserved to be, but in that moment, I was happy, and that is what mattered to me. I suppose I see dating and being with someone as being more about the experience and seeing where life takes me, as opposed to being focused on the ultimate destination. And I'm not saying that happiness isn't a factor for people who date-for-marriage either; of course it is! I suppose I personally feel that whether or not you can see yourself marrying someone after a year of being with them shouldn't be the most important piece of criteria, and I don't think people who don't put a focus on marriage and on years down the line should be looked down upon for it.
So, thoughts/opinions?
I think that people who are dating-for-marriage are often less serious because they hold back a lot, whereas people who aren't focused on marriage as an end goal are likely to give the relationship their all from an early stage.
Comment