Patronage/Matronage

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

Gotcha, but my bias is (okay, was)that I care more about sex and other stuff you are de facto “all in” on in marriage than I care about money, so it’s like in for a dollar in for a dime

[classical_Liberal]

Since you can never really know why your partner is staying or leaving (as in my current situation),you only need to concern yourself with reasons that might keep you stuck.

Well, this was basically my point. I don't need to know why. As long as neither party is "stuck" due to over dependence on each other for some reason, then either one can walk away relatively unscathed as an individual, even if the other tries "stupid" tactics when it's obvious the relationship is doomed. This means, theoretically and assuming relative "health" in emotional and psychological terms, that both parties are choosing to remain together on a daily basis because it's what they want.

strict egalitarian division of financial matters constitutes boundary placed waaaay over the line of self-care towards rigid self-protection, and this will result in lost opportunity/potential, just like highly conservative passive investment plan.

I'd agree, in certain circumstances, if it become a means of control. The same could be said for any form of joint capital though. Like social connections. I know plenty of people who lost their entire social network when a relationship breaks down because one partner was the primary friend in their social network, while the other was just the primaries SO. That can be devastating, and just as much a motivator for someone to stay in a bad relationship as financial.

The point is no one goes into a relationship on completely equal footing in all forms. That would be horrible, like dating myself! Yes, I agree that goal should be to work out any human changes that occur, and resolve conflicts at an adult level. Also agree that the burdens should be shared. So a more a socialist motto of each to their ability should be followed. Where one can pick of the slack for another in any given realm to help the unit maximize potential. Even so, not all things (ie human changes through time) are reconcilable, and sometimes people make bad decisions that can't be fixed. My point is that in those cases, if one person controls "all the X", it sets up for the other partner to feel trapped. Enter negative spiral, where "stupid" conflict resolutions become much more likely.

To me, it seems that as long as both are able to function as both individuals AND as a unit, then neither will ever have that trapped feeling. As long as the unit is better than either of the individuals alone, relationship continues. Even if it eventually dissolves due to irreconcilable difference, both parties feeling secure as individuals will likely help ensure "stupid" resolution is unlikely to happen.

EDIT: To function as an individual, this means you hold onto a little bit of everything that's important to you. This might mean a private stash of money for one who doesn't work, or a best friend for one who doesn't do the socializing. Hence not "all in".

[7Wannabe5]

@classical_Liberal:

I guess my perspective is colored by the fact that I was in a marriage therapy group that became a divorce therapy group and I have known/dated many other divorced people. So, I believe that barring infirmity that would also qualify you for social security disability, doing the needful practical work in order to free yourself from marriage, inclusive perhaps of getting a job if you were financially dependent, is a breeze compared to the emotional and psychological work. It’s just like the few minutes of sharp pain when the baby emerges compared to the endless hours of labor before.

That said, I must admit that I have no interest in getting married again, and I mean that very literally, the project/process simply doesn’t interest me. I would rather spend my life energy doing goofy stuff.

[Alphaville]

That said, I must admit that I have no interest in getting married again, and I mean that very literally, the project/process simply doesn’t interest me. I would rather spend my life energy doing goofy stuff.

it’s funny to me to read this because i have the same feelings about dating. PLEASE NEVER AGAIN! seriously, majorly eff that noise. DO NOT WANT.

i gotta say though, rereading before i click post: my marriage is eminently goofy, so there’s that.

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

Yeah, blech, I have no interest in dating again either.

I feel like I am still not explaining my take very well. It’s like if the man I have been exclusively romantically dating for two years knows I am 55, but he is still using a condom every time we have sex, it’s not likely my feeling about this is going to be “How admirably prudent!”

[Alphaville]

I feel like I am still not explaining my take very well. It’s like if the man I have been exclusively romantically dating for two years knows I am 55, but he is still using a condom every time we have sex, it’s not likely my feeling about this is going to be “How admirably prudent!”

i swear im not trollin, but i don’t know what you meant by that

[classical_Liberal]

So, I believe that barring infirmity that would also qualify you for social security disability, doing the needful practical work in order to free yourself from marriage, inclusive perhaps of getting a job if you were financially dependent, is a breeze compared to the emotional and psychological work. It’s just like the few minutes of sharp pain when the baby emerges compared to the endless hours of labor before.

Sure, but that might not be the case (need for all the psychological/emotional work) if a relationship were ended before deterioration to such a degree that it was required, and/or if a person maintained enough of themself throughout, that loss of the relationship was not so traumatic. IOW, if a person wasn't "all in", wrt relationship. This doesn't mean traditional marriage should be off the table, just that it should be entered into with respect for the retention of each others individuality and freedom, whatever that might entail for each person. For some that may be a prenup. For others that may mean, don't hang around my best friend without me.

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

No worries. It was likely another weak attempt. The reason why I hesitated to answer classical_Liberal’s question in the first place is that I am struggling to make use of my inferior functions of Fe and Si. IOW, it’s difficult for me to clearly express in writing the part of my decision making which is emotionally based, especially if I am also harkening back to the different state of mind I would be in when younger and contemplating the possibility of entering into a traditional marriage.

@classical_Liberal:

Yes, what I am saying is then why sexual exclusivity? One could as readily conceive of a thoroughly modern relationship in which financial matters were merged, but individuated ownership of sexuality was boundaried. I mean, when you have separate finances, you are maintaining the freedom to form financial contracts with others without consulting partner. So, why not maintain the freedom to form sexual contracts with others without consulting partner? Why is it that the realm where women are likely to feel more cultural pressure to stay stuck in the traditional mode, which is also the realm where their open market availability is more likely of greater value, is the one most usually still privileged to define “couple-hood?” How is that not indicative of a rip-off being perpetuated?

[Alphaville]

@7w5

oh i didn't meant to comment on your exchange with @c_L, it was just a reaction to the idea of "never again," which to me is big incentive to work hard to keep a marriage healthy

i guess if something else was in the back of my head it was the general idea that "the market" is always out there, because *the market is hell* .

a good marriage is achieved and maintained, not simply "found"; hence the promise of "the market" is a dangerous illusion. the market may have attractive offers, but what lies beyond the marketing presentations... different story, and good luck trying to those who believe in them.

a marriage breaking apart is a massive trauma “the market” can’t fix.

[jacob]

Yes, what I am saying is then why sexual exclusivity? One could as readily conceive of a thoroughly modern relationship in which financial matters were merged, but individuated ownership of sexuality was boundaried. I mean, when you have separate finances, you are maintaining the freedom to form financial contracts with others without consulting partner.

Exclusivity has value (sex is a non-rival excludable good, cf. club membership). It's not surprising that people seek to control what they value the highest and be more relaxed about things further down the list. On average sex is pretty high up there for reasons of DNA propagation. Many have thus tied their emotions and logic into rationalizing such arrangements---this with the full support of how society is currently structured (tradition, laws). Since I value financial planning very highly, I can provide similar rationalization for putting boundaries/restrictions on spousal financial behavior, e.g. no affairs with credit card debt. Ultimately it just comes down to trust and the existence of a common cause. That cause can be arbitrary but it usually isn't since humans tend to adopt the behavior of what they see others do.

[Alphaville]

On average sex is pretty high up there for reasons of DNA propagation.

in this age of easy vasectomies and cheap contraception, health and the transmission of STDs is also a big one. it’s not often discussed, because it’s as pleasant a subject as the contents of bowel movements, but it’s not a trivial issue.

it’s no surprise that after the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s a new sexual conservatism arose in the shadow of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. but even now, with new antivirals, widespread use of condoms, and HIV eventually “cured,” there are other diseases rampant, and we have more knowledge about them today.

e.g. the connection between hpv and cervical cancer, the debate on teenage vaccination, and the connection between anal and throat cancer. e.g. see this poor couple: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/06/entertai ... index.html (pretty easy to figure what happened there).

herpes, the gift that keeps on giving, once thought basically harmless, has been hypothesized as the cause of alzheimer’s. see: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... rs-disease.

syphillis has been on the rise again: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ck/488375/

etc.etc., ad infinitum.

straying might be a forgiveable indiscretion emotionally—but bringing home deadly or debilitating “presents” is a different matter altogether, further compounded if it involves a pregnancy. “sorry honey i didn’t know” just won’t cut it.

[classical_Liberal]

So, why not maintain the freedom to form sexual contracts with others without consulting partner?

Indeed, why not. You just have to find someone else who wants that arrangement and is happy with it.

Why is it that the realm where women are likely to feel more cultural pressure to stay stuck in the traditional mode, which is also the realm where their open market availability is more likely of greater value, is the one most usually still privileged to define “couple-hood?” How is that not indicative of a rip-off being perpetuated?

Either by women tolerating such arrangements if they don't want them, or by enough women preferring them, even if you don't.

Look, I'm all for people setting up arrangements that are not culturally normative, if it works for them. In fact, I like to learn from those situations. I also recognize that relationships will not work as perfect socialistic entities, just as governments can't. So, there will always be some level of inequality and power distribution. I just think you can make it not rise to the level of problem or resentment if both parties in a relationship have "enough" power in each realm that they can also maintain individuality if desired. One controlling all the money is just as bad as the other controlling all the sex.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

What if you found her in bed reading Suze Orman?

@Alphaville:

I used to enjoy dating. I’m bored with it now.

@classical_Liberal:

I agree that most women and a greater % than men would say they prefer sexual exclusivity.

I find that I no longer possess the will to continue this argument since I am now self-describing as asexual non-romantic. The only thing I personally care about anymore is strict boundaries around my hobby space. As in, if/when I hear a grouchy old man say something like “Why did you plant so many zinnias?”, my response will be “Get the f*ck out of my garden.”

[classical_Liberal]

@7WB5
I didn't want it to feel like an argument, sorry. I was just trying to learn from your points to see if I was missing something in my views. IOW, see if there was insight to glean that I was missing from my perspective.

Personally, I view you as the epitome of what my GF would call "a strong independent woman". Don't let any grouchy old man (or me) impede on your space!

[7Wannabe5]

@classical_Liberal:

No worries. I meant argument as synonymous with debate. I , obviously, also very much enjoy it as a method of learning. I find that I no longer care that much about the topic of best practices in marriage for the same reason I don’t care much about debating how much screen time is appropriate for toddlers. BTDT no longer my problem.

I must admit I am still somewhat pissed at somebody (most productively myself) about the series of unfortunate events that led to the sale of my last permaculture project to my project partner. Kind of like losing or having to give up the dog you brought into the relationship. I am done with having to give up gardens due to variety of break-ups. At this point in my life, I actually care more about having and keeping my own garden than any relationship with a man.

[Alphaville]

At this point in my life, I actually care more about having and keeping my own garden than any relationship with a man.

if that’s a riff on voltaire—great choice

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

Not consciously, but Voltaire is also ENTP and was also reflecting on what is of value after series of misadventures. However, I was being quite literal. I keep losing gardens in which I invested significant energy after big break-ups.

[Alphaville]

but Voltaire is also ENTP

oh please... he was a scorpio with gemini rising and the moon in aquarius! which explains everything about him
https://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Voltaire

anyway, yeah, candide is funny as hell, one of my favorite books, ever.

and i know you meant literally so i have to ask... what’s keeping you from cultivating your own garden? i mean the next one...

[7Wannabe5]

@Alphaville:

Well, obviously, Covid is making any new project difficult, and I want to save up enough money to pay cash for property that has grandfathered housing on it, so I can avoid some level of code difficulties. That’s one of the reasons why I am mooching off my BF. Do I feel a little bit guilty for mooching off of him in order to buy property which I fully intend to kick him off of any time he gets bossy? Yes, but not enough to weaken my resolve.

[Alphaville]

well, covid is not gonna be here forever, or, covid is gonna be here forever and we’re just gonna have to get used to it like pakistan. which is to say: things will get moving again one way or another, yeah?

you looking for property in detroit? (i thought you were in detroit? no?)

do they still have the bombed-out places left from the 2008 crash or did the gentrifiers snap them all up forever?