"Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Your favorite books and links
ertyu
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by ertyu »

Agree on the age front. When I was young and dumb, I offered a no strings attached arrangement to a friend who accepted. Spoiler: I did not want no strings attached, I wanted a relationship, but I was young, dumb and a metalhead and I thought I had to cultivate a detachment from emotionality because cool aloof lone wolf or some such juvenile bs. Definitely look back on that stage of late teen me and roll my eyes

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

i don’t know, i’ve had such offers from women of all ages. maybe it’s because i’m such an irresistible stud :lol:

but no, really, people sometimes try to use the offer of sex as a way to sneak into a “relationship”. in my experience, it doesn’t work, can backfire into hate.

best to be honest upfront!

oh, i also have been caught having the momentary “croissant chaud” situation with someone, and then being asked about “this relationship” and me honestly answering “what relationship?”, not trying to be a weasel or anything, but a tumble in the sheets isn’t a declaration of love.

anyway, people are a pain in the ass :lol: and i’m so glad to be done with all that. also i knock on wood that it stays that way till the end. i’ve had my fill of trying to build intimacy with strangers, which is such a laborious process, i mean to get to really know someone, and i no longer have the energy or the time to start again from scratch. ooooof! :D

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

a bit related to the last point above

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/fash ... adult.html

User avatar
C40
Posts: 2526
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:30 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by C40 »

classical_Liberal wrote:
Tue Jun 23, 2020 12:42 am
Disagree, because this:

[example...]
Yeah, that's a good point. Having a 'team' with similar goals/mindset and complementary abilities can go a long way.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Alphaville wrote:anyway, people are a pain in the ass :lol: and i’m so glad to be done with all that. also i knock on wood that it stays that way till the end. i’ve had my fill of trying to build intimacy with strangers, which is such a laborious process, i mean to get to really know someone, and i no longer have the energy or the time to start again from scratch. ooooof! :D
Yeah, at this point in my life, I am mostly interested in getting to intimately know stuff like soil microbiology. So, my ideal relationship would be with buff Sea Captain who occasionally sails in to have lusty sex and pay the bills. Unfortunately, most of the men in my dating pool are either retired or on the verge of retirement, so likely to be hanging around bothering me all the time.

Jin+Guice
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:15 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Jin+Guice »

The more I explore romantic relationships the less I think anyone knows. There's so much discussion about difference in personality type, but not in romantic styles.

I've been able to maintain sexual friendships. I've been coerced into long-term romantic relationships with sex that worked out fine. I have no idea about the right away to do anything in the romantic realm and I find it pretty rare that any person at anytime knows exactly what they want or what the are looking for. The best I've been able to come up with is to approach the whole thing with an attitude of curiosity while trying not to hurt or be hurt too badly by those I'm involved with. I'm only sure of one thing:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:14 am
Unfortunately, most of the men in my dating pool are either retired or on the verge of retirement, so likely to be hanging around bothering me all the time.
Having a retired man hanging around bothering me all the time sounds terrible.

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

Jin+Guice wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:22 am
The more I explore romantic relationships the less I think anyone knows. There's so much discussion about difference in personality type, but not in romantic styles.
there is *too much* discussion about personality type in this forum. it’s the law of the hammer (instrument, whatever) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument

i get that socially awkward people with difficulty reading their social milieu find comfort and a sense of security in these typologies, and the types work to an extent, but only to an limited, rough extent, and far from explain everything about people.

in my case, a shrink helped me find out that what wasn’t working in my relationships was possibly due to BIRTH ORDER. that’s right. sounds woo-woo, but here’s the idea:

i’m a first-born son of sons (no sisters). my most unfortunate matches were first-born sisters of sisters (no brothers).

we were both a) accustomed to being in charge of the situation and b) unaccustomed to the “other” (in the hetero sense) gender in this dynamic.

this created a) competition, i mean constant covert and overt headbutting for control and b) difficulties in communication that made it difficult (impossible in my case) to negotiate who controls what, and when, and how to dance without stepping on each other’s toes, which c) led to termination (often dramatic).

my now wife, personality types aside, has an older brother. looking back, and comparing with past failures, i honestly think this has facilitated some of the hard work of keeping a relationship going for the long term. and since i never had a sister, i had A LOT to learn. but being aware of that fact helped me learn it

not that this explains “everything” either... people are extremely complex, but there are many psychological theories for many specific situations, and people here tend to ignore these things because overemphasis on “types.”

e.g. see:

https://www.psychologies.co.uk/birth-order-effect
or
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order

also: big five personality type has more empirical backing than jungian-based myers-briggs

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Fiv ... ity_traits

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Yeah, I think there’s a lot of truth to be found in sibling relationship therapy. Since I am the oldest of 4 sisters, no brothers, I was mystified for many years about many things, such as how men have no real clue about the concept of co-operation.

Also, all of my longest lasting relationships have been with terribly spoiled first born sons who were sandwiched between older and younger sisters. AKA the Drama Prince, the Drama King, and the Drama Duke. And I have come to the conclusion that it’s really for the best if I have my own realm.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 1669
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by classical_Liberal »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:02 pm
such as how men have no real clue about the concept of co-operation.
:lol:

Ok, we actually can cooperate in positive sum games, but we usually need some form of "coach" or "boss" to help us keep our eye on the prize. It's much harder for us to cooperate in unorganized situations.

Interestingly, from stories I've heard from women in my life, woman on woman lack of cooperation seems to be much more prevalent in these organized situations. Whereas, radom cooperation in the world seems much more prevalent. Like yesterday, the GF and I were on a long bike ride. She was struggling up a hill and a random woman running next to her was encouraging her, "you got this girl!".

Am I off base here in this generalization? if not, why is this?

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:02 pm
Yeah, I think there’s a lot of truth to be found in sibling relationship therapy. Since I am the oldest of 4 sisters, no brothers, I was mystified for many years about many things, such as how men have no real clue about the concept of co-operation.
no cooperation? this is lies. just do what i tell you and spontaneous cooperation will ensue :lol:

[eta: this is why/how in another life you and i would end up having a painful divorce]
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:02 pm
Also, all of my longest lasting relationships have been with terribly spoiled first born sons who were sandwiched between older and younger sisters. AKA the Drama Prince, the Drama King, and the Drama Duke. And I have come to the conclusion that it’s really for the best if I have my own realm.

according to this horoscope (lol) a last brother (of sisters, i would add) would make a good page for you:

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-you ... 017-1?op=1

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

classical_Liberal wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:34 pm
:lol:

Ok, we actually can cooperate in positive sum games, but we usually need some form of "coach" or "boss" to help us keep our eye on the prize. It's much harder for us to cooperate in unorganized situations.

Interestingly, from stories I've heard from women in my life, woman on woman lack of cooperation seems to be much more prevalent in these organized situations. Whereas, radom cooperation in the world seems much more prevalent. Like yesterday, the GF and I were on a long bike ride. She was struggling up a hill and a random woman running next to her was encouraging her, "you got this girl!".

Am I off base here in this generalization? if not, why is this?
women like to pretend that they shun hierarchy and form cooperative “circles” instead of command pyramids, but don’t kid yourself into believing that there is nobody in charge there. it’s the same pyramid, but obfuscated by ritual modesty and denial. ;) :lol:

see: mean girls

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

If women do not hold magical powers of co-operation, how do you explain the fact that there is always enough of every kind of food at a church potluck?

The way it works is that there is a general stated or obvious mission, such as “Let’s put on a show!” or 10 kids who need to be put down for a nap. So, then all the girls or women co-operating just start doing tasks towards that mission on their own initiative, but in open communication.

There may be some hierarchy, but this would be for obvious reason like one woman is older and knows how to do something much better. One thing that finally clicked for me was realizing that most men like to be in the lead to the extent that I would naturally be in the lead relative to my very responsible, competent young adult daughter, and from the male perspective this seems like partnership or teamwork.
according to this horoscope (lol) a last brother (of sisters, i would add) would make a good page for you:
Two problems. The first being how am I possibly going to have sex with somebody in the role of my page. The second being that I have dated a couple of youngest sons and they were both classic bad boys. I guess if I wanted a significant relationship in which I didn’t know whether somebody was drinking at the track with his buddies or cheating on me with the girl with the perfectly feathered hair that might work...

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:38 pm
If women do not hold magical powers of co-operation, how do you explain the fact that there is always enough of every kind of food at a church potluck?
just the usual social hierarchy at work. meeting expectations. lots of competition through display. who makes the best dish. hostess with the mostest. women’s equivalent of sportsball.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:38 pm
The way it works is that there is a general stated or obvious mission, such as “Let’s put on a show!” or 10 kids who need to be put down for a nap. So, then all the girls or women co-operating just start doing tasks towards that mission on their own initiative, but in open communication.
yeah, women are generally more social, or more verbal anyway, all other things being equal. but the menzes can achieve a lot with grunts and gestures and such :P . shipbuilding, skyscrapers, cathedrals, bridges, etc.—camille paglia has been strident about this since forever, and now jordan peterson copied her.

i watch a bit of sportsball too and it’s all about cooperation with flashes of individual brilliance. did you ever witnessed fc barcelona at its peak? or liverpool’s run to glory before the pandemic hit?

maybe not having brothers you missed on this secret code, i don’t know. i remember one brotherless ex trying to play with me (transactional analysis, child-child mode) like i was her sister, and just nope. it’s not just that we couldn’t connect, i actually felt repelled by it. she was also... repressive of my rambunctiousness hahaha. she wasn’t used to macho ebullience. didn’t last long. 3 months?

my wife on the other hand likes and understands masculine grunts and gestures though, having grown up with them. huge relief for me. we also watch sportsball together, hahahaha.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:38 pm
There may be some hierarchy, but this would be for obvious reason like one woman is older and knows how to do something much better. One thing that finally clicked for me was realizing that most men like to be in the lead to the extent that I would naturally be in the lead relative to my very responsible, competent young adult daughter, and from the male perspective this seems like partnership or teamwork.
but it’s the same thing with men, as @c_L said: boss, coach, etc.

men may be more overt about their competitiveness and wanting to climb the status ladder. women can be more covert... but also more vicious. a pissed off man will punch another man in the face, a pissed off woman will smile at another woman while spreading gossip and ruining her target’s reputation. women can be meeeeeeeeean to each other.

there’s this expression, i don’t know who coined it: “women would rule the world if they didn’t hate each other” :lol:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 5:38 pm
Two problems. The first being how am I possibly going to have sex with somebody in the role of my page. The second being that I have dated a couple of youngest sons and they were both classic bad boys. I guess if I wanted a significant relationship in which I didn’t know whether somebody was drinking at the track with his buddies or cheating on me with the girl with the perfectly feathered hair that might work...
if you like to be in charge but want someone to be in charge of you that’s going to short-circuit a bit. i don’t envy you that. tough problem to solve but it can be worked on.

and a last kid doesn’t need to be irresponsible. again, types are not all. e.g., my dad is the last of a bunch of kids, grew up with older sisters running the household, a couple older brothers above him. my mom is the first-born child followed by 3 boys. and yet they both fit traditional gender stereotypes.

my dad is a superresponsible highly competent retired executive that worked internationally, my mom a very competent office person who worked (for my dad!) till they got married, and she tells these stories of putting the boss in his place, hahahaha. but once married she became a traditional homemaker (because birth order is not everything, culture matters, history matters, etc.)

they’ve had their clashes over the decades, lololol, but ultimately... he’s been working for her all this time :D (also, took financial care of his mom till her last day)
Last edited by Alphaville on Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

ertyu
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by ertyu »

lol Alphavile telling a woman that he knows better than her how women really are -- because women clearly must be just like men, but pretending. the proof? holywood movies. women are clearly like on mean girls :lol:

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Alphaville wrote:maybe not having brothers you missed on this secret code, i don’t know. i remember one brotherless ex trying to play with me (transactional analysis, child-child mode) like i was her sister, and just nope. it’s not just that we couldn’t connect, i actually felt repelled by it. she was also... repressive of my rambunctiousness hahaha. she wasn’t used to macho ebullience. didn’t last long. 3 months?
Well, I did have a very good, rambunctious father who was always trying to organize his 4 mostly nerdy, klutzy daughters into "sports-ball" type activities. When we were little, we would play "The Dog and the Fleas" with him or all try to pile up on his shoulders in the swimming pool until we toppled over screaming, have snowball fights etc. Meanwhile, my mother would be off to the side, coolly flipping through a magazine, inattentively saying something like "Dear, you're over-exciting the girls." So, I like that sort of rambunctiousness. What I don't like, for instance, is somebody rudely shoving me aside in the kitchen saying "That's not how to chop the onion." etc. If we switch over to Freudian analysis, at core I like/trust men and enjoy sex, because I had a secure relationship with my father at age 6. It just took me a while to learn that I can't expect my male peers to be as unconditional in their love or as deserving of my trust as my father. I was a bit of a dodo bird in that way until early in my 30s, but that was almost 25 years ago now! My own rambunctious, occasionally shithead behaving son is in his 30s! and I have a very good relationship with him too.
but it’s the same thing with men, as @c_L said: boss, coach, etc.

men may be more overt about their competitiveness and wanting to climb the status ladder. women can be more covert... but also more vicious. a pissed off man will punch another man in the face, a pissed off woman will smile at another woman while spreading gossip and ruining her target’s reputation. women can be meeeeeeeeean to each other.

there’s this expression, i don’t know who coined it: “women would rule the world if they didn’t hate each other” :lol:
The mean girl thing is real, but I have never suffered or evinced it very frequently. Maybe because in spite of being a blatant nerd, I was first-born and almost always the second tallest girl in my class. I mean, I did get exposed to humiliation by the cool girls for not knowing who Aerosmith was after committing the sin of tempting one of the cool boys to comment on my "great legs,", but most females pretty much leave that behind in 7th grade, and I have never been inclined towards hanging out with the "ballet mom" types who don't. I'm much more likely to hang out with other females who co-operate sexually (kind of like much more nerdy version of the characters in "Sex in the City") than those who compete. During my mom years, I was more likely to trade babysitting or books with my peers than brag to them about my kids accomplishments. I did strive to ruin the reputation of a younger woman who was hitting on husband-father-of-my-children at his place of employment, but that was a one-off during a period when I was feeling economically vulnerable, and I almost immediately regretted my behavior, mostly because my ex wasn't really worth fighting over.

I also grok that men are very status seeking in relationship with each other. Jacob mentioned something about the experiences of people who change gender being very revelatory, and I had a friend who did female to male and then back to female transition, and very much not liking this was one of her reasons for switching back. She also didn't like constantly feeling horny.
if you like to be in charge but want someone to be in charge of you that’s going to short-circuit a bit. i don’t envy you that. tough problem to solve but it can be worked on.
Yeah, this is why I thought polyamory might be a good solution. I think this occurs at the level where innate personality type is more important than other factors such as birth order. You don't self-actualize as your birth order and it's very possible to grow out of it to the extent that it's noticeable when you assume the role again when you are in the company of your FOO. One saying about ENTPs is that we only lead because we don't want to follow. It's like how extroverts get energized by people and introverts get exhausted by them. I am flexible enough to spend time either in the lead or the follow, but I get exhausted being in either role for much of the time. I need a great amount of autonomy. That's why I want a Sea Captain, somebody who is happy in the lead, but gone most of the time. I once read the memoir of a female writer/gardener whose 3rd marriage was to a very attractive masculine sculptor who had his studio in the city, while she had her own cottage and garden in the country, and they would visit each other's realms on the weekend. Something like that might work too.

That's nice how big sister/younger brother worked out for your parents, but the sexually attractive role label for the man in follow to The Queen is The Knight, not The Page (ick.)

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

ertyu wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:32 am
lol Alphavile telling a woman that he knows better than her how women really are -- because women clearly must be just like men, but pretending. the proof? holywood movies. women are clearly like on mean girls :lol:
lololol... but mean girls is real! :D

well, in the sense that it was based on a memoir, yeah. not that one has to believe a movie plot literally, but this shit happens all the time, and there’s likely an evolutionary reason to do so.

e.g. see: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2013.0080

and seriously, women will smile and kiss each other on the cheek then turn around and tell you “i hate this bitch” rather than tell it to each other face to face. it’s very funny (to me) when i happen to witness this.

here’s a woman writing about it
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/opin ... other.html

here’s the story of a minor internet scandal
https://www.marieclaire.com/beauty/a713 ... s-rivalry/

here’s another woman writing about queen bees (mean girls was based on a book called “queen bees and wannabes”, maybe the author coined the term, not sure)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ce/534213/

etc. etc. it’s very common stuff. not that it’s the only thing that happens between women, obviously, but it happens. we see it all the time.

speaking of hollywood (and tv)... emily gilmore is real too :lol:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X0KpbyrdcUY

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:03 am

That's nice how big sister/younger brother worked out for your parents, but the sexually attractive role label for the man in follow to The Queen is The Knight, not The Page (ick.)
hahahaha, oh, i hope i didn’t mix this up. my dad is no page, he’s a latin american macho man with military school training. my point about him was that not every last-born kid has to be a fuckup, and his competitive career provided well for his family.

anyway it was nice to read about your relationship with your dad. i’ll reply more later, but now this here knight has to go take out a heavy pile of trash and do other knightly things for his queen. i just wanted to urgently keep from involuntarily smearing the old man by speaking of 2 separate things at the same time.

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:03 am
Something like that might work too.
I’m back from dealing with my chores among the covidiots, and now properly sanitized i wanted to reply to the rest of your thoughtful post re: the solution to the conundrum.

i’ve heard about such independent arrangements too, and yes they tend to happen post-youth, i think quite frequently.

but the possible point of short circuit i see here may be where you‘d want the cap’n to pay the bills.

for such an arrangement to work happily you’d have to be fully independent, so that you can raise or lower the drawbrige at your own discretion. otherwise the realm is vulnerable to pirates.

i’ve actually seen the dependent version of this during my travels (i was fairly adventurous back in the day). i worked briefly on a boat, and some sailors would actually keep girls on shore, like in a hotel room they’d pay for, and they’d show me the photos of their little harems very proudly. a couple of times i got an invitation (never took them up on it though, lol, i made up excuses, it all seemed a bit sordid, i was a middle class kid). anyway i don’t think you’d want that. the gardener/sculptor works better, in my opinion.

the key here is to have independent realms though. that’s what makes the egalitarian relationship possible, so that visiting each other is a fun surprise. and financial freedom is difficult indeed, but we’re in this forum to help each other achieve that, so there are options. may not be as eco-friendly as lentil baby, but it’s nice to have “fuck you” money so one doesn’t have to put up with shit from others.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6106
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Alphaville:

Yeah, I used to think that financial independence/ownership was the solution too. The problem is that people with dominant personality types or druthers do not really respect these boundaries. For example, let's say that either I am driving a very expensive car, or I am riding on a junky bike, or I am hitchhiking. Obviously, if I am hitchhiking, the dominant-type guy who has a car is going to give me a lift and I will be in the passenger seat and he will not be inclined to listen the first through 20th time when I try to convey map/directions information to him. If I am riding the junky bike, he will still offer to throw my bike in the back of his truck, pay to fix my bike, or fix it for me; and then I will still wind up in the passenger seat...etc. Even if I am the one driving the expensive car, if Dom Guy is in the car with me, either he will be driving or giving me instructions every minute...etc. So, it's pretty much a waste of money for me to buy my own car if I am doing it in the hopes that it will keep somebody with a dominant personality type from trying to be dominating when I am in his company.

Also, even if the purpose of owning the car is it gives me the ability to choose to no longer be in the presence of dominant personality type person, I still have just as much ability to maintain that boundary without owning a car if I am just as okay with hitchhiking away from the presence of dominant personality type person. So, the question becomes what is the true minimalist size of the skill/resource set I need in order to readily maintain this boundary? I am also asking myself if it is easier for me to kick somebody out of my car or tell him to stop so I can get out of his car? Actually, I think the second is easier.

Alphaville
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Walkscore 92, Bikescore 93

Re: "Marriage, a history" Stephanie Coontz

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:40 am
So, the question becomes what is the true minimalist size of the skill/resource set I need in order to readily maintain this boundary? I am also asking myself if it is easier for me to kick somebody out of my car or tell him to stop so I can get out of his car? Actually, I think the second is easier.
3rd option, then: find another cyclist to ride with when you want to, and give drivers the finger together. why get into a car in the first place?

or: find someone to ride a tandem with, like this:

https://www.welovecycling.com/wide/2018 ... -a-tandem/

since independence is paramount to you, avoid becoming beholden to someone else’s car. just keep pedaling.

shared values are important.

Post Reply