Stripping Is Lucrative (Public school alert)
- Thread starter Servo
- Start date
Mustard Seed
New member
I have to agree with the above. One can talk about 'trying things out' and 'making sure' about things before advancing on marraige. The problem with that is the inherent absence of commitment. Even my psychology of love class I took some time ago showed through scientific studies that far and away the single biggest, most successful and by far and away most accurate indicator of a relationship lasting was whether or not the couple decided at the begining that they were going to make it work. Nothing else has been statisticaly shown to come as close to guarenteeing that people will stay together and will remain friends/partners. In fact statisticaly those who 'try' it out are basing their relationship on a foundation of noncertainty. That simple fact, regardless of how fitting they find the relationship later on, will render them less likely to have longevity near that of any couple who enters an arrangemet with complete intention of having it work regardless of the points of seeming 'incompatability' they might find at latter points. To arrive at points of intimacy before one does not really know a person in any depth on other levels makes it very difficult for the friendhip to flourish without being hog tied to the rapidly changing hormonal states associated with such contacts.
When I learned that the scientific community in many ways (not all) had come to identical conclusions as those who have taken the side of religious-faith based convictions I was both amazed and invigorated. I believe that at some point in the future we'ss see all true paths of the pursuit of knowledge converge. Faith in God and true science will at some point dove tail together.
firechyld
New member
Since these posts are really getting quite lengthy, I'll reply to them seperately. 
I think the difference in our perspectives here is clearly based on personal experience. The vast majority of sex workers or ex sex workers that I know ARE healthy, happy and well-adjusted... but I'm obviously moving in different circles to you. Still, I'm well aware of the negatives of the industry, and most I know do have their eyes open to them. We're realistic about our jobs.
It should also be noted that quite a lot of the girls I know who work in the industry are or were in my specific field, which... well, it's kinda elite for the sex industry. We're regarded by our clients as goddesses. That tends to skim out a lot of the nastiness that girls in other areas can be exposed to.
I wish I could get a particular friend of mine in here to discuss this topic with you. She worked as a prostitute for six or seven years, then left the industry to become a physiotherapist. I'd rate her as possibly the single most well adjusted and together person that I've ever met. Not only is she not ashamed of her past, she embraces it. As far as she's concerned, those six or seven years gave her certain insights and skills (not directly connected to the job description) that have proved invaluable in her new field.
As for the question of "women of substantial age", I guess I'm also in a position where I'm bound to have a positive view of that as well. My field is one of the few in the sex industry where older women are actually the preferred model. A Mistress with a lifetime of experience behind her receives far more work than a young beauty who has only been on the scene for a few years. Also, many of the women involved tend to be "lifestylers"... they work in BDSM because it's what they live. As such, it's not something that they leave, even when they quit their jobs.
*shrug*
I've repeatedly acknowledged the down side of the industry. I guess I'm just trying to point out that that isn't all that it is.
Of course not. I hope that you won't dismiss mine on the basis that I am obviously inclined towards the positive.
How many of those destroyed lives have you been involved with personally? And has your research been limited predominantly to America?
*grin* Should I even ask what you think of "retail therapy"?
Again, my perspective on this is coloured by my specific experiences. An individual sees a Mistress for something that they often cannot find anywhere else. It's a very specific skillset for a very specific demographic. And there's a lot of work involved on both sides.
I'd say that over 50% of the people who walk through the door of a professional dungeon are repeat clients of a specific Mistress... some of whom have been seeing her for years. There's a relationship built up there, even though it has a professional basis. It can't really be compared to the guy who buys a standard hour session to see what the deal is.
I guess the same applies to strippers, in a certain way. You see a stripper to watch something you don't see in everyday life. No matter how healthy your relationships are, it's unlikely your partner can or will remove her shirt whilst swinging upside down from a pole. It's a show. It just has a sexual bent.
Having no specific experience with prostitution outside of the stories of some friends, I can't really speak as to what men gain out of that experience or what the dynamic between client and worker consists of. All I know is that many of those girls love their work.
Interesting perspective, but I can't say I agree. I guess I see people in my line of work as more people with specific desirable skills. Not in the line of, say, a doctor... but perhaps in the line of someone who offers professional massage. You don't just ask for a rub down from anyone. You go and see someone who has been trained, and who knows how to provide the service you want. I hesitate to refer to Mistresses as artists, as that's just too self serving, but I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this.
*shrug*
It may be an overly romanticised view, and it's certainly not indicative of how things work across the board in the industry, but that's the perspective my experiences have left me with. I can only speak for myself and throw in the testimony of those I've discussed the matter with.
Again, I can't really speak for prostitution... all my knowledge of it is second hand.
Well aware of it. Most of the girls I know in the industry are very careful to keep an "outside life", and to keep their communication open with people both inside and outside the industry. Since this is a more personal matter, I really can't speak for anyone but myself... but I know that for me, the opinions of those close to me are very important. I hope that if my experience sours without my knowledge, I'd listen to them.
I do understand where you're coming from, and i appreciate the sentiment.
Not in the slightest. You've been very reasonable and polite in presenting your views. It's much appreciated.
I think the difference in our perspectives here is clearly based on personal experience. The vast majority of sex workers or ex sex workers that I know ARE healthy, happy and well-adjusted... but I'm obviously moving in different circles to you.
Still, I'm well aware of the negatives of the industry, and most I know do have their eyes open to them. We're realistic about our jobs.It should also be noted that quite a lot of the girls I know who work in the industry are or were in my specific field, which... well, it's kinda elite for the sex industry. We're regarded by our clients as goddesses. That tends to skim out a lot of the nastiness that girls in other areas can be exposed to.
I wish I could get a particular friend of mine in here to discuss this topic with you. She worked as a prostitute for six or seven years, then left the industry to become a physiotherapist. I'd rate her as possibly the single most well adjusted and together person that I've ever met. Not only is she not ashamed of her past, she embraces it. As far as she's concerned, those six or seven years gave her certain insights and skills (not directly connected to the job description) that have proved invaluable in her new field.
As for the question of "women of substantial age", I guess I'm also in a position where I'm bound to have a positive view of that as well. My field is one of the few in the sex industry where older women are actually the preferred model. A Mistress with a lifetime of experience behind her receives far more work than a young beauty who has only been on the scene for a few years. Also, many of the women involved tend to be "lifestylers"... they work in BDSM because it's what they live. As such, it's not something that they leave, even when they quit their jobs.
*shrug*
I've repeatedly acknowledged the down side of the industry. I guess I'm just trying to point out that that isn't all that it is.
Of course not.
I hope that you won't dismiss mine on the basis that I am obviously inclined towards the positive. How many of those destroyed lives have you been involved with personally? And has your research been limited predominantly to America?
*grin* Should I even ask what you think of "retail therapy"?
Again, my perspective on this is coloured by my specific experiences. An individual sees a Mistress for something that they often cannot find anywhere else. It's a very specific skillset for a very specific demographic. And there's a lot of work involved on both sides.
I'd say that over 50% of the people who walk through the door of a professional dungeon are repeat clients of a specific Mistress... some of whom have been seeing her for years. There's a relationship built up there, even though it has a professional basis. It can't really be compared to the guy who buys a standard hour session to see what the deal is.
I guess the same applies to strippers, in a certain way. You see a stripper to watch something you don't see in everyday life. No matter how healthy your relationships are, it's unlikely your partner can or will remove her shirt whilst swinging upside down from a pole. It's a show. It just has a sexual bent.
Having no specific experience with prostitution outside of the stories of some friends, I can't really speak as to what men gain out of that experience or what the dynamic between client and worker consists of. All I know is that many of those girls love their work.
Interesting perspective, but I can't say I agree. I guess I see people in my line of work as more people with specific desirable skills. Not in the line of, say, a doctor... but perhaps in the line of someone who offers professional massage. You don't just ask for a rub down from anyone. You go and see someone who has been trained, and who knows how to provide the service you want. I hesitate to refer to Mistresses as artists, as that's just too self serving, but I'm sure you can see where I'm headed with this.
*shrug*
It may be an overly romanticised view, and it's certainly not indicative of how things work across the board in the industry, but that's the perspective my experiences have left me with. I can only speak for myself and throw in the testimony of those I've discussed the matter with.
Again, I can't really speak for prostitution... all my knowledge of it is second hand.
Well aware of it.
Most of the girls I know in the industry are very careful to keep an "outside life", and to keep their communication open with people both inside and outside the industry. Since this is a more personal matter, I really can't speak for anyone but myself... but I know that for me, the opinions of those close to me are very important. I hope that if my experience sours without my knowledge, I'd listen to them.I do understand where you're coming from, and i appreciate the sentiment.
Not in the slightest.
You've been very reasonable and polite in presenting your views. It's much appreciated. 
erinmarie
New member
Firechyld- I guess this is a dumb question, but I'm assuming prostitution is legal in Australia?
So, could the way you look at these " sexual occupations" be partly because of a cultural bias?
Secondly, to all the posters coming "down" on Firechyld, just a quick question. Do you think nude modeling is wrong? Like non-raunchy nudity type modeling? And on the furtherest spectrum, nude modeling; as in figure modeling...i.e. for a college art class.?
So, could the way you look at these " sexual occupations" be partly because of a cultural bias?
Secondly, to all the posters coming "down" on Firechyld, just a quick question. Do you think nude modeling is wrong? Like non-raunchy nudity type modeling? And on the furtherest spectrum, nude modeling; as in figure modeling...i.e. for a college art class.?
firechyld
New member
You're going on what I've said, but you don't believe what I've said to be the truth. How does that make sense?
Man, what is wrong with you people? For the last friggin' time, marriage is not a one-way street! It's not a case of "him not wanting to marry me"... it's a case of the two of us not wanting to get married yet. I am half of this relationship, and half of this decision.
Riiight. Reducing relationships to nothing more than chemicals is exactly what we should do.
Oh, that's right. You're allergic to science.
*grin* Quite.
Hello? Been married, remember? Clearly I'm not afraid of the concept. Besides, there are other forms of commitment.
You have raised a valid point in bringing up my illness, however. It's one of the factors affecting my side of this decision. I want my condition to remain stable for a little longer than it has before I ask someone to make the promise of "in sickness and in health" to me. While I have no doubt at all that he would do so, I can't in good conscience make him promise to be what could essentially amount to a nurse maid. I care too much for him to put him in that position if it is at all avoidable.
*shrug* I've placed a limit of three years without symptoms on myself before I even try to get a drivers license. Why should a marriage be less important than that?
Two points: First, a marriage is also not a guarantee that we'll be together for the rest of our lives. I know from experience that being man and wife doesn't stop someone from "just breaking it off" if they want to. I'd prefer a commitment that means something because it matters to us, not because it's legal, or because a Christian I've never met on the other side of the world thinks it's the only one that matters.
Secondly: Commitments exist in other forms. As our relationship stands at this point, neither of us could just "break it off", even if we wanted to. We have financial, emotional and familial commitments to each other. This relationship is well and truly formalised, even if it's not a marriage.
I think I'd have a better idea of that than you would, don't you?
Yet. For the last freakin' time.
I don't think you have anything worth being arrogant about. But that doesn't stop you.
Again, doesn't stop you.
Semantics.
Damn straight.
Good on you. I hope that works for you.
Of course it will. Relationships develop and grow over time, regardless of their official capacity. Do you honestly think that someone who has been married for a month to someone they met three months ago has a deeper relationship with their partner than two people who have been living together for fifteen years and raised two children together? They're different relationships, sure, but everything is relative.
It'll most likely end at some point, and neither person will care, because they weren't planning on getting marired anyway. But they'll miss the sex.
You're so short sighted. You really think that how much someone cares about the ending of a relationship relies on whether or not they were married? That's ridiculous.
What do you mean "nothing more than"? The label "partner" is very important to me.
Lighthouse, I couldn't help but notice this:
In response to the discussion a couple of pages back about the role of lust in a marriage, you posted this:
You're quite willing to ackowledge (rather flippantly, in fact) that people may be using the same word for different meanings. But when the oh-so-much-more important issue (that's sarcasm, by the way) of what word I use to refer to my partner comes up, you'll fight tooth and nail to convince me and everyone else that I don't really mean what I think I mean by the word, and that your interpretation of it is the more accurate one.
Grow up. He's my partner, which is the word I use to refer to him. It means what I intend it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. You have no special insight into my relationship with a man you've never even had a conversation with, and you certainly can't see into the future of that relationship. It's time to move on.
If that's what I was saying, I wouldn't identify my profession as being part of the sex industry.
I went to the movies with my best friend a couple of times. He's a guy. Does that sound like a date too?
Was there romantic intention? I must say I agree with delmar's definition. It doesn't matter what you're doing, but if you're doing it with romantic intention and interest, it's a date.
I think perhaps "date" has just become a dirty word for you.
The fact that you need to specify that it is "as friends" and "not a date" tends to imply that the default status of such an outing is... *dramatic music*... a date.
No, most of them aren't going to believe it no matter how many times they're told. And you claimed to not be arrogant...
And I've grown up with a different defintion of the word "partner" than you have. Get it?
firechyld
New member
Yep, regulated but legal.
Very likely.
I think I may have mentioned that before.Certain aspects of the nastiness that seems to permeate the American sex industry don't seem to be as prevalent over here. It's not really for me to say whether that's because of it's legal status or other factors, but I'm sure it comes into it.
Good question.
Mustard Seed
New member
Hasta luego todos
Hasta luego todos
Being realistic and having a full respect for what one weilds can be quite different things.
So you would conceed that your experience is likely very atypical?
The designation "goddess" can either be one that denotes litteral worship and the accompanying reverence or it can be on par with more materialistic conotations as to giving supercilious designation to a woman or feminine figure. One may well have reverence while the other have quite the antithesis of reverence.
My stance is not simply that it has it's bad parts but that it is inherently something unhealthy. Even in your upper echelons you are first a commodity and afterwords a human. In the family unit, as it is suppose to be, the husband and wifes are equals. They have different roles but one is not in the employ of the other at any time. I cannot see how a setup in which those feelings that are the most intimate and sacred (I believe they are very sacred) are part of some business arangement regardless of how profesional it seems. I do not see the acceptance of such interaction as a form of profit making is remotely healthy even if the person is able to maintain the appearance of thriving. Many in the past, many connected to many supposed religious traditions, have been able to have economies and cultures that give the appearance of thriving for some time. I do not think that means that they were healthy cultures or that those in their societies were healthy. Spartan society was a society that lasted for quite sometime. It is considered by some to be the most musical oriented. In sexual matters it was both 'contained' in respects but also quite liberal in many others. Just because they had a society that was sustainable and was 'healthy' in the sight of many does not mean that it was inherently healthy.
I hope I can always judge with as much justice as is possible for a mere mortal. I hope to judge as I believe God would.
I've been in both ends of the spectrum. I've lived in California (the Bay area) for two years (recently) and I've been in Utah for a good portion of my life. I've been witness to probably the greatest extreems I could be without leaving the states. The diversity available in both locals with regard to culture, socioeconomic, ideological and other diversity is quite high. In Utah it's far higher than stereotypical treatments I've seen give it credit for. Between the University of Utah (likely one of the most 'liberal' intellectual communities in the Nation if not the World) next to one of the seemingly most conservative institutions in the world. My international forays, at present are limited to Canada and Mexico but in both of my primary residences I've had a great deal of access to cultures and ideologies originating from all over the world. I may be deluding myself but I think I'm far more literate in various views on the world than I think many think any died in the wool born in the faith 'Mormon boy' can be.
Hasta luego todos
Originally posted by firechyld
Since these posts are really getting quite lengthy, I'll reply to them seperately.
I think the difference in our perspectives here is clearly based on personal experience. The vast majority of sex workers or ex sex workers that I know ARE healthy, happy and well-adjusted... but I'm obviously moving in different circles to you.
Being realistic and having a full respect for what one weilds can be quite different things.
So you would conceed that your experience is likely very atypical?
The designation "goddess" can either be one that denotes litteral worship and the accompanying reverence or it can be on par with more materialistic conotations as to giving supercilious designation to a woman or feminine figure. One may well have reverence while the other have quite the antithesis of reverence.
My stance is not simply that it has it's bad parts but that it is inherently something unhealthy. Even in your upper echelons you are first a commodity and afterwords a human. In the family unit, as it is suppose to be, the husband and wifes are equals. They have different roles but one is not in the employ of the other at any time. I cannot see how a setup in which those feelings that are the most intimate and sacred (I believe they are very sacred) are part of some business arangement regardless of how profesional it seems. I do not see the acceptance of such interaction as a form of profit making is remotely healthy even if the person is able to maintain the appearance of thriving. Many in the past, many connected to many supposed religious traditions, have been able to have economies and cultures that give the appearance of thriving for some time. I do not think that means that they were healthy cultures or that those in their societies were healthy. Spartan society was a society that lasted for quite sometime. It is considered by some to be the most musical oriented. In sexual matters it was both 'contained' in respects but also quite liberal in many others. Just because they had a society that was sustainable and was 'healthy' in the sight of many does not mean that it was inherently healthy.
Of course not.
I hope I can always judge with as much justice as is possible for a mere mortal. I hope to judge as I believe God would.
I've been in both ends of the spectrum. I've lived in California (the Bay area) for two years (recently) and I've been in Utah for a good portion of my life. I've been witness to probably the greatest extreems I could be without leaving the states. The diversity available in both locals with regard to culture, socioeconomic, ideological and other diversity is quite high. In Utah it's far higher than stereotypical treatments I've seen give it credit for. Between the University of Utah (likely one of the most 'liberal' intellectual communities in the Nation if not the World) next to one of the seemingly most conservative institutions in the world. My international forays, at present are limited to Canada and Mexico but in both of my primary residences I've had a great deal of access to cultures and ideologies originating from all over the world. I may be deluding myself but I think I'm far more literate in various views on the world than I think many think any died in the wool born in the faith 'Mormon boy' can be.
Again, my perspective on this is coloured by my specific experiences. An individual sees a Mistress for something that they often cannot find anywhere else. It's a very specific skillset for a very specific demographic. And there's a lot of work involved on both sides.
'It's a show' is likely the biggest lie our society has been telling itself. We go to movies that would have left traditional Roman gladiator fans aghast yet since we see it as 'just a show' or 'make believe' that all it is is 'entertainment'. I've not read clockwork orange (I think that's the title of the story) nor seen the movie but the concept I believe I've heard originating from it of an entire society having minds that are constantly dwelling on that which is something society could never permit to go into the open in any large scale is something both frightening and inherently destructive. We can chalk it up to 'just' a show with just a 'bent' of something but the reality is that we are deluding ourselves. We are developing apeteits and drives that if ever they lost the current outlets they would drive the people en mass into actions that would destroy the society as we now know it. Regardless of how 'refined' we make it looks or how much we try and link it to the 'arts' or 'culture' the biological time bomb is being armed regardless. At some point the chips will fall and any people in that society tied to those drives that have been illegitimately fostered will seek some outlet that will not be restrained by any semblance of logic, reason, or civility. Society as a whole can and does self destruct on such seemingly little things as 'shows' and 'entertainment'.
All I can do is offer my knowledge and experience with respect to the matter.
Well aware of it.
I realise I am not in your close knit circle of friends, as we've never met to my knowledge, but I hope you will listen to me when I tell you that regardless of your current view there will come a time when you will regret your associations. I can't say when it will come but, forgive the seemingly dogmatic certainty of my assertion, it will come and it will not be a passing remorse if you do not heed that part of you that is telling you there is a problem.
I do understand where you're coming from, and i appreciate the sentiment.
I couldn't say I completely understand where you're coming from but I equally appreciate the civility you approach this subject with.
Not in the slightest.
I'm not perfect, but one must try. Thank you for your patience. As I will likely not be able to post here for quite some time I wish to leave you something that is important to me and linked to the topic at hand.
THE FAMILY
God will be the final Judge, no doubt. Is that not obvious?
That light that people have received? What does that mean? Have you received more "light" than firechyld or I?
My own perception. So you were not judging me?
And I quoted scriptures that put the scriptures that you quoted in context. Was my observation incorrect?
Originally posted by lighthouse
You can't talk without trying to drag my name through the mud, can you?
I do not agree with Shimei. I know people can date withour having sex. I've said that already in this theread. So learn to read and put a sock in it, dogboy. Shut your mouth and eat your vomit.
Go Pats, you floppy minimum wage sexually-repressed porn grubbing Jesus fanatic.
:shut:
Pornography is wrong, whether raunchy or "classy." But the human form is a thing of beauty.
If it doesn't make a statement, it's pornography.
You contradict yourself. You say one thing, then another. GOing by what you originally said, the contradicition is a lie. Therefore, I don't believe it.
When did I say it was a one-way street? Neither of you want to marry. We get that. But you say he loves you, but doesn't want to marry you. You probably say that you love him, but don't want to marry him either.
No. I just prefer not to reduce relationships to science. They are personal, science isn't.:doh:Oh, that's right. You're allergic to science.
If you lie to yourself long enough, you might just believe it.
:doh:
Your last marriage fell apart. He was abusive. Are you saying that didn't put you off the idea? And just because you've been married once, that doesn't mean you're not afraid of committment now.
Riiiight. Because it would inconvienience him, and he would despise you for it, right?
If he loves you as much as you say he does, he's going to be there for you whether you're married or not. So why does the paper matter?Because a driver's license doesn't have someone else in it. If he loves you, he's not going to care.
If he loves you, as you say he does, and you love him, then you're not going to break it off. So why not get married? It's because you're afraid that he might leave you if you get sick, and you don't want to go through a divorce. You want to make it easy for you. But, like I said, if he loves you, he won't leave.
:blabla:
Sure it is.
Let me guess, if you break up, one of you has to move out?
You already said you didn't want to get married. Which is it?
Why not? Because it would be easier to break up?
So, I'm arrogant?
Prove it.
You don't have a clue.
Then shut up about it.Damn straight.
And it's because I don't see the point in a relationship that doesn't want to go anywhere.
Once again, you haven't a clue what I'm talking about.
And you're an idiot. I didn't say anythign about them being married. I said they weren't even planning on it. They don't care that the relationship ended because they weren't planning on moving to the next level, anyway.:doh:
Because it distances you, right?
Different word. And I never said anything about what you actually meant. I asked you what you meant.
Apparently you can't see a future to the relationship, or you would move on. But you prefer to stay "partners" with no promise of spending the rest of your lives together.:nono:
Then it stands that you performed sexual acts for money.
Agreed. So, like I said, I can hang out with a female friend, without it being a date. And I can get to know her. Which is what would lead me to wanting to marry her in the first place. Then I can pursue a relationship. Why pursue a relationship to find out if we'd make a good couple? If we don't know that we would, then our relationship coudl sour quickly, and go nowhere. It's better to find out if there's an interest, beyond initial impressions.
Now that's being stupid. I thought you said you were intelligent.
You're missing the point. I'm emphasizing to get the point across to you and granite. I never said anything about emphasizing it to the girl. If we don't see it as a date, it isn't a date.:doh:
They don't have to be told. I know plenty of people who think granite is an idiot.
:blabla:
So, why is it you don't want to get married? Really.
Football sucks.
firechyld
New member
It's that exact same feeling of exhasperation I felt when anami kept dragging me back into a pointless discussion. But, still, I keep responding. More fool me, I guess.
*sigh*
Here we go...
Please be specific. Where have I contradicted myself on that specific matter? Provide quotes.
I don't want to marry him yet. He doesn't want to marry me yet. You seem to have some sort of hysterical illiteracy when it comes to that word. Dictionary.com provides three relevant definitions:
Is it starting to sink it? Or not yet?
Everything can be reduced to science. You seem to find that threatening. To me, it's somewhat reassuring.
Lol! I don't need to lie to myself about my sense of personal security. Unlike some, I don't need to cling to emotional crutches to make myself feel like a whole human being. I know that I don't need a partner. That's why I appreciate the one I have... he's not there because I need him to be, he's there because I want him to be.
Seriously, lighthouse, do I strike you as an insecure shrinking violet type? That's pretty amusing. I'm hardly defined by my man. He's a complement, not a crutch.
Nope. Put me off abusive and unfaithful prats... my anger was more directed at the fact that he sullied a marriage with his behaviour, rather than at the marriage itself. I would like to one day have a functional and happy marriage. Possibly with my current partner. But I see no need to rush frantically towards that ideal. I... and perhaps we... will get there at my/our own pace.
True, one doesn't equal the other. But it's still not the case. And you insisting it, from your position of just above absolute zero knowledge of my situation, doesn't make it so.
You really don't get it, do you?
That's my point exactly. I'm not worried that he'll "despise" me for it. I know that he won't care. I know that he'd stick around and care for me, even if he lost everything else in the process. I know that now, lighthouse. And I have enough respect and love for him that I will try my damndest to make sure he never has to be put in that situation before I will make him swear it on a legal document. He'll stay by me no matter what. He's proven that already.
The "illness" category on my list of "reasons I don't want to get married to my partner yet" has nothing to do with my fear of him running off if I get really ill again. It's about me wanting to be sure that, if I do marry him, the woman who says those vows will be giving him the healthiest and wholest self that she possibly can... not a legal commitment to servitude. He deserves that much.
See how much you don't know about him and our relationship dynamic?
Again, having been married before, I know that a divorce really isn't too hard. It's the dissolution of a cherished relationship and bond that rips you apart. You insist that I don't really love my partner, so by your argument that problem wouldn't exist. There'd be no trauma of seperation. So, by lighthouse logic, I should be jumping to marry the man if I don't really care about him! But wait... then I'd be married, so that means I must love him at that point!
Jeebus. Trying to follow your logic is like trying to view a relationship through the eyes of a writer for the Bold and the Beatiful. Then, I guess TV is the closest you've come to experiencing these things you spout off about, isn't it?
My point exactly. See above.
Move out, divide everything we own, deal with long term financial commitments for the next ten years or so that are being met jointly, deal with the emotional backlash from our combined families (they seem to think that our relationship is for the long haul... and they, at least, have seen it), change practically every legal record in existence of either of us since we're registered as a legal de facto couple, have my government benefits reassessed, get our various insurance policies re-evaluated... the list goes on and on. Two lives that are very much enmeshed don't come apart too easily. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia legal de facto couples have almost the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples.
Do I need to post the definition of the word "yet" again?
If you honestly think that something this complex can be summarised in a few lines of text, you've been spending too much time online.
We are, and I am, not ready yet.
That's a pretty good example.
I'm not the one insisting a rhombus and a diamond are two different things.
And, again, I hope that works out for you. I, however, view the situation differently.
Then enlighten me, and point out where I've misinterpreted.
Do you even understand that "not planning to" is not the same as "planning not to"?
No. I've explained that the term "partner" is a significant one to me. Since my view on the terms I use to refer to my partner is one of only two that matter, I'm getting rather tired of trying repeatedly to explain it to you.
You know how people use different words to refer to their grandparents? For one person, "grandma" might be a term that refers to a very close and significant relative, whereas to another it's a distant person they see every third Christmas and when someone gets married. There's no universal implication as to what the label means outside of "person who is parent to one of your parents".
I took the time to do another dictionary.com search, this time for the word "partner". It gave me three relevant definitions:
Most of the relevant entries were about "spouses" and "spousal equivelants". Nowhere did I see anything even vaguely indicative of "distance". Seems that that is a preconception that you're bringing to the table, not me.
Yep. You asked what I meant... and then proceeded to argue with me and accuse me alternately of lying, and of being wrong in my definition.
That's how I define that word. That's how I use it. Enough said. It's not a point of debate. It's personal syntax and idiom.
I see a future. It's there when I look at tomorrow, because I know he'll be there. Right now, I don't need anything more than that. I don't need to force a promise on paper when the unwritten promises he gives me are so much stronger. One day, we might make that other promise. But it will be because we feel that we want it, not because we need to validate our relationship in the eyes of people like you. In those terms, doll, people like you are the least significant in the picture.
*shrug* Define sexual acts.
I've never claimed that my work is non-sexual. Quite the contrary. What I denied was that I have had sex with people for money.
I say again: I hope that model works for you.
*grin* No, doll, I don't need to tell people.
Emphasis on we. If you think it's a date and she doesn't, what is it?
The question is why they think that. It takes all types.
*sigh*
Here we go...
Please be specific. Where have I contradicted myself on that specific matter? Provide quotes.
When did I say it was a one-way street? Neither of you want to marry. We get that. But you say he loves you, but doesn't want to marry you. You probably say that you love him, but don't want to marry him either.
I don't want to marry him yet. He doesn't want to marry me yet. You seem to have some sort of hysterical illiteracy when it comes to that word. Dictionary.com provides three relevant definitions:
[1]At this time; for the present: isn't ready yet.
[2]Up to a specified time; thus far: The end had not yet come.
[3]At a future time; eventually: may yet change his mind.
Is it starting to sink it? Or not yet?
Everything can be reduced to science. You seem to find that threatening. To me, it's somewhat reassuring.
Lol!
I don't need to lie to myself about my sense of personal security. Unlike some, I don't need to cling to emotional crutches to make myself feel like a whole human being. I know that I don't need a partner. That's why I appreciate the one I have... he's not there because I need him to be, he's there because I want him to be.Seriously, lighthouse, do I strike you as an insecure shrinking violet type? That's pretty amusing.
I'm hardly defined by my man. He's a complement, not a crutch.Nope. Put me off abusive and unfaithful prats... my anger was more directed at the fact that he sullied a marriage with his behaviour, rather than at the marriage itself. I would like to one day have a functional and happy marriage. Possibly with my current partner.
But I see no need to rush frantically towards that ideal. I... and perhaps we... will get there at my/our own pace.True, one doesn't equal the other. But it's still not the case. And you insisting it, from your position of just above absolute zero knowledge of my situation, doesn't make it so.
Riiiight. Because it would inconvienience him, and he would despise you for it, right?
You really don't get it, do you?
That's my point exactly. I'm not worried that he'll "despise" me for it. I know that he won't care. I know that he'd stick around and care for me, even if he lost everything else in the process. I know that now, lighthouse. And I have enough respect and love for him that I will try my damndest to make sure he never has to be put in that situation before I will make him swear it on a legal document. He'll stay by me no matter what. He's proven that already.
The "illness" category on my list of "reasons I don't want to get married to my partner yet" has nothing to do with my fear of him running off if I get really ill again. It's about me wanting to be sure that, if I do marry him, the woman who says those vows will be giving him the healthiest and wholest self that she possibly can... not a legal commitment to servitude. He deserves that much.
See how much you don't know about him and our relationship dynamic?
Again, having been married before, I know that a divorce really isn't too hard. It's the dissolution of a cherished relationship and bond that rips you apart. You insist that I don't really love my partner, so by your argument that problem wouldn't exist. There'd be no trauma of seperation. So, by lighthouse logic, I should be jumping to marry the man if I don't really care about him! But wait... then I'd be married, so that means I must love him at that point!
Jeebus. Trying to follow your logic is like trying to view a relationship through the eyes of a writer for the Bold and the Beatiful. Then, I guess TV is the closest you've come to experiencing these things you spout off about, isn't it?
My point exactly. See above.
:blabla:
Sure it is.
Let me guess, if you break up, one of you has to move out?
Move out, divide everything we own, deal with long term financial commitments for the next ten years or so that are being met jointly, deal with the emotional backlash from our combined families (they seem to think that our relationship is for the long haul... and they, at least, have seen it), change practically every legal record in existence of either of us since we're registered as a legal de facto couple, have my government benefits reassessed, get our various insurance policies re-evaluated... the list goes on and on. Two lives that are very much enmeshed don't come apart too easily. I don't know how it is in the US, but in Australia legal de facto couples have almost the exact same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples.
Do I need to post the definition of the word "yet" again?
If you honestly think that something this complex can be summarised in a few lines of text, you've been spending too much time online.
We are, and I am, not ready yet.
So, I'm arrogant?
Prove it.
That's a pretty good example.
I'm not the one insisting a rhombus and a diamond are two different things.
And, again, I hope that works out for you. I, however, view the situation differently.
Then enlighten me, and point out where I've misinterpreted.
Do you even understand that "not planning to" is not the same as "planning not to"?
No. I've explained that the term "partner" is a significant one to me. Since my view on the terms I use to refer to my partner is one of only two that matter, I'm getting rather tired of trying repeatedly to explain it to you.
You know how people use different words to refer to their grandparents? For one person, "grandma" might be a term that refers to a very close and significant relative, whereas to another it's a distant person they see every third Christmas and when someone gets married. There's no universal implication as to what the label means outside of "person who is parent to one of your parents".
I took the time to do another dictionary.com search, this time for the word "partner". It gave me three relevant definitions:
[1]A spouse.
[2]A domestic partner.
[3]Either of two persons dancing together.
Most of the relevant entries were about "spouses" and "spousal equivelants". Nowhere did I see anything even vaguely indicative of "distance". Seems that that is a preconception that you're bringing to the table, not me.
Yep. You asked what I meant... and then proceeded to argue with me and accuse me alternately of lying, and of being wrong in my definition.
That's how I define that word. That's how I use it. Enough said. It's not a point of debate. It's personal syntax and idiom.
I see a future.
It's there when I look at tomorrow, because I know he'll be there. Right now, I don't need anything more than that. I don't need to force a promise on paper when the unwritten promises he gives me are so much stronger. One day, we might make that other promise. But it will be because we feel that we want it, not because we need to validate our relationship in the eyes of people like you. In those terms, doll, people like you are the least significant in the picture.*shrug* Define sexual acts.
I've never claimed that my work is non-sexual. Quite the contrary. What I denied was that I have had sex with people for money.
I say again: I hope that model works for you.
*grin* No, doll, I don't need to tell people.
Emphasis on we. If you think it's a date and she doesn't, what is it?
The question is why they think that. It takes all types.
firechyld
New member
Mustard Seed: I might take advantage of the fact that you aren't going to be around to get back to your post a little later. Thanks again for the discussion.
Oh... and I don't think that being a "dyed in the wool born in the faith Mormon boy" is, at least in your case, anything negative.
Oh... and I don't think that being a "dyed in the wool born in the faith Mormon boy" is, at least in your case, anything negative.
Greywolf
New member
Reading through the posts on this thread I've noticed that you've listed numerous criteria for what a date isn't, but what would make you consider it to be a date? You said that it would involve more than just hanging out. Can you provide a few examples of some of those things?
On another topic, I've noticed that you seem to be implying in your discussion with firechyld that her and her partner not getting married is a sign that they are not committed to their relationship in the long run. Is this an accurate assessment of your opinion?
Greywolf
New member
Originally posted by firechyld
Yeah, amusing for you. Emphasis on "firechyld has to deal with 'em".
:chuckle:
You mean you don't need relationship guidance from a stranger who's never even so much as been on a date? :noway:
(Of course we're not sure if he's ever been on a date or not, as we can't seem to nail down what exactly constitutes a "date".)
Last edited:
