Super Friendly Social and Love Advice v7 - Bro just do it, She prob likes you - General

Getting married isn't on some sort of timeline anyway, unless you set one for yourself, so it's not really a matter of wasting time. Your clock doesn't tick away at minutes until you get married, y'know?

This "Super Friendly" thread is becoming more of non-friendly thread with the amount of dumb ratings and passive-agressive replies (although i think a good few of them are justified since people seem to have some stupid idea that they are entitled to have a certain someone)

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865378]That's exactly what I meant. I know my first post was salty as shit, but ok, let's leave it at that. What's done is done. But this isn't just about celibacy in a relationship. It's about both people wanting to have sex at some point, but only after marriage. I just can't put my mind around it. We left out the fact of it not being about religion. Ok. It's personal. Which raises a few more questions. The way my line of thought goes, I see that a serious relationship is about giving yourself body and soul. But it doesn't necessarily imply marriage for you to give out both. The guy in question here feels open to give himself body and soul to this woman, but she, on the other hand is only willing to give half until marriage. the million dollar question here is, why? Is he going to be a different person after marriage? Does this woman only opens herself 100% when a guy sticks a ring in her finger, while cleverly sliding the marriage subject in the middle of it? This are just the things that are making me wonder what the issue with this relationship is really all about. I'm not telling him to dump her or anything. If he says she makes him happy to make her happy than who am I to say otherwise. He's the one who isn't 100% happy about the whole situation.[/QUOTE] People can remain celibate for all kinds of reasons. While the main one is religion - and it very well COULD be with this girl, yet she doesn't want to frame it like that to keep herself from coming under some form of scrutiny - another might be some form of trauma. Not that those are the only two options, but there's a lot of things that people go through or have ideals about that they don't always openly reveal. Even to their significant other. If he's frustrated then yeah he should definitely be talking to her, as you do in relationships, but I wouldn't assume that she has no real reason for doing what she's doing. There very well could be and she just doesn't want to say. Who knows, y'know.

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;48865359]speaking of marriage and dating imo there's no point in dating if you aren't interested in marriage with the person [/QUOTE] This is so wrong. Why do you already make plans with the person you're dating like that? Dating is a natural part of life and experiencing life. It does not imply one night stands or hookups, though. Sometimes you really like one person, and you start dating, and then after some months, or years you start realizing she might not be the person for you. Sometimes the opposite happens where things start off pretty bad and then start getting better. You don't know what may happen, so why setting a goal for marriage so soon? It's not about pre-planing your life. It's about getting to know the other person and learning to have a life together without the need to validate it through and institutionalized status. If you don't learn this, by taking a chance with the other person and really putting yourself there with body and soul, there is no marriage that's going to save your relationship or make it any better.

[QUOTE=Pascall;48865376]Short relationships can be some of the best ones, though! Marriage is such a long term goal that it's self-defeating to put that as the sole focus of every relationship. Even if you're gonna break up with someone eventually, there are TONS of things you can learn from that person via a relationship that's more than a FWB thing. (Unless you're REALLY GOOD at being intimate, emotionally AND physically with a FWB). Short relationships tend to be good at teaching you about yourself, your goals and ultimate wants/needs, as well as teaching you how to properly care for another person and how to deal with things on a short term/things that don't last forever. Unless marriage is SUPER IMPORTANT to you as an individual, I wouldn't rule out possible short relationships entirely. They can be healthy and happy just like any other.[/QUOTE] While I do feel that you do in fact learn the most from short relationships, from the few i've had, I never rule out that I may or may not be with this person for the rest of my life, and that i should give them as much as i can until it doesn't work out it just wrong to me to date with the intention to break up, because the other person is likely not thinking that at the time of the inception of the dating [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Pascall;48865382]Getting married isn't on some sort of timeline anyway, unless you set one for yourself, so it's not really a matter of wasting time. Your clock doesn't tick away at minutes until you get married, y'know?[/QUOTE] i didn't mean it as it was a clock or anything

It's not wrong, per se. But you do need to be up front with someone if you feel as though your relationship may be more of a short term thing. It may push away some people who are similar in the "marriage or bust" dating philosophy, but there are still plenty other people who are just fine with shorter relationships. Personally, my current relationship may be on a short term track, considering our life goals are vastly different, but we've already talked about it and decided we were both a-okay with it. It wouldn't put a dent in our friendship or anything if we were to break up. Would just mean that we get to enjoy what we have right now while we can.

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865378]That's exactly what I meant. I know my first post was salty as shit, but ok, let's leave it at that. What's done is done. But this isn't just about celibacy in a relationship. It's about both people wanting to have sex at some point, but only after marriage. I just can't put my mind around it. We left out the fact of it not being about religion. Ok. It's personal. Which raises a few more questions. The way my line of thought goes, I see that a serious relationship is about giving yourself body and soul. But it doesn't necessarily imply marriage for you to give out both. The guy in question here feels open to give himself body and soul to this woman, but she, on the other hand is only willing to give half until marriage. the million dollar question here is, why? Is he going to be a different person after marriage? Does this woman only opens herself 100% when a guy sticks a ring in her finger, while cleverly sliding the marriage subject in the middle of it? This are just the things that are making me wonder what the issue with this relationship is really all about. I'm not telling him to dump her or anything. If he says she makes him happy to make her happy than who am I to say otherwise. He's the one who isn't 100% happy about the whole situation.[/QUOTE] maybe she doesn't want to give that part of herself until she knows someone is 100% committed and doesn't just want to have sex with her marriage is a pretty high level of commitment, life or death etc

[QUOTE=Pascall;48865394]People can remain celibate for all kinds of reasons. While the main one is religion - and it very well COULD be with this girl, yet she doesn't want to frame it like that to keep herself from coming under some form of scrutiny - another might be some form of trauma. Not that those are the only two options, but there's a lot of things that people go through or have ideals about that they don't always openly reveal. Even to their significant other. If he's frustrated then yeah he should definitely be talking to her, as you do in relationships, but I wouldn't assume that she has no real reason for doing what she's doing. There very well could be and she just doesn't want to say. Who knows, y'know.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I was just working out with the information he provided. I know I can be an asshole sometimes, but there's a soft, mushy heart full of love under this spiked carapace. You know that guys <3 Anyway, then we reached a conclusion. The man of the relationship needs to sort out this mystery and confront her lady (with the utmost respect) about the subject. Try to figure her out and make herself figure out the reasons behind it since the issue raises a lot of questions.

[QUOTE=Pascall;48865444]It's not wrong, per se. But you do need to be up front with someone if you feel as though your relationship may be more of a short term thing. It may push away some people who are similar in the "marriage or bust" dating philosophy, but there are still plenty other people who are just fine with shorter relationships. Personally, my current relationship may be on a short term track, considering our life goals are vastly different, but we've already talked about it and decided we were both a-okay with it. It wouldn't put a dent in our friendship or anything if we were to break up. Would just mean that we get to enjoy what we have right now while we can.[/QUOTE] i suppose it's fine when both people agree to it i just don't feel like it's right when people aren't open about it, it feels emotionally manipulative to tell someone "i'll always be there for you" but knowing in their heart that that person's a sidechick/dude

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;48865456]i suppose it's fine when both people agree to it i just don't feel like it's right when people aren't open about it, it feels emotionally manipulative to tell someone "i'll always be there for you" but knowing in their heart that that person's a sidechick/dude[/QUOTE] Oh well yeah. You really wanna be careful what you tell people in general. Being dishonest isn't good, regardless of what you're being dishonest about.

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;48865447]maybe she doesn't want to give that part of herself until she knows someone is 100% committed and doesn't just want to have sex with her [/QUOTE] And I stubbornly reinforce my position: Why does marriage have to be that 100% commitment goal? Rationally what becomes different the day after you stick a ring in a finger?

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865465]And I stubbornly reinforce my position: Why does marriage have to be that 100% commitment goal? Rationally what becomes different the day after you stick a ring in a finger?[/QUOTE] it's like signing a contract or well you literally sign a contract that says you'll never leave that person

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;48865456] it feels emotionally manipulative to tell someone "i'll always be there for you" but knowing in their heart that that person's a sidechick/dude[/QUOTE] And isn't that what life's all about too? Learning about who you trust? Isn't love and relationships all about that too? Trust? [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fire Kracker;48865475]it's like signing a contract or well you literally sign a contract that says you'll never leave that person[/QUOTE] And then there's divorce, and there goes the sanctity of the contract. Poof! In real life you only sign contracts in order to make sure the other person goes through with the deal. In a relationship you're supposed to "sign" that deal with mutual trust and love. There is no real reason, other than the social perks a married status gives, to validate that love in pen and paper. (this sounded cliché, but hey I really mean it).

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865477]And isn't that what life's all about too? Learning about who you trust? Isn't love and relationships all about that too? Trust? [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] And then there's divorce, and there goes the sanctity of the contract. Poof! In real life you only sign contracts in order to make sure the other person goes through with the deal. In a relationship you're supposed to "sign" that deal with mutual trust and love. (this sounded cliché, but hey I really mean it).[/QUOTE] you're less likely to divorce than you are to break up [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] especially since breaking up is easy

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865419]This is so wrong. Why do you already make plans with the person you're dating like that? Dating is a natural part of life and experiencing life. It does not imply one night stands or hookups, though. Sometimes you really like one person, and you start dating, and then after some months, or years you start realizing she might not be the person for you. Sometimes the opposite happens where things start off pretty bad and then start getting better. You don't know what may happen, so why setting a goal for marriage so soon? It's not about pre-planing your life. It's about getting to know the other person and learning to have a life together without the need to validate it through and institutionalized status. If you don't learn this, by taking a chance with the other person and really putting yourself there with body and soul, there is no marriage that's going to save your relationship or make it any better.[/QUOTE] I can't fathom why you would date someone long-term with the goal of it not being a long-term relationship. I've heard people date for the reason of "personal growth" but what exactly are you growing here..? Obviously when dating you get to know someone better but dating for the sake of dating is stupid. If you want sex then do the casual thing until you realize an LTR is more satisfying. Yeah it doesn't have to be institutionalized but marriage does hold significance; the only reason you could want to avoid marriage is because you're not committed. Tying your finances together is, believe it or not, significant and meaningful. [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865477]And isn't that what life's all about too? Learning about who you trust? Isn't love and relationships all about that too? Trust?[/QUOTE] Dude how are you learning trust when you date someone long-term just so you can date someone else long-term

Well not necessarily, statistics say otherwise (Don't know how it is around there, but here divorce rates are pretty high). But let's not break it down to numbers. I have the views that I have about marriage but I'd still like to marry one day. (Of course not just because of the social perks). But I'm still young, 24, still finishing my degree. I still have a long road ahead, so why complicate? I'd rather keep it real. However, not without making sure that before that I am already 100% committed to the person I'm with. Heart and Soul. I currently have a girlfriend who I love very very much, and I have no doubt she feels the same way because she has done a lot for me. But if you ask me if I'm going to marry her one day, my answer will be "I have no idea". And we talked about marriage, if we thought about getting married, if we wanted to have kids one day, all that, but everything in it's due time. There's a lot of things to build in the relationship at the moment, experiences to share and all that. There isn't really a reason to give a bigger step than our legs at the moment. [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Disseminate;48865518]I can't fathom why you would date someone long-term with the goal of it not being a long-term relationship. I've heard people date for the reason of "personal growth" but what exactly are you growing here..? Obviously when dating you get to know someone better but dating for the sake of dating is stupid. If you want sex then do the casual thing until you realize an LTR is more satisfying. Yeah it doesn't have to be institutionalized but marriage does hold significance; the only reason you could want to avoid marriage is because you're not committed. Tying your finances together is, believe it or not, significant and meaningful. [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] Dude how are you learning trust when you date someone long-term just so you can date someone else long-term[/QUOTE] Because there's a hierarchy of planing once you start dating and you start building a relationship. I'm not saying marriage is stupid, of course it has significance, I'm just commenting it on THIS specific context. Once you start dating you don't plan your marriage right away. You plan things to do together, then you go from that to planing living together, buying things together, etc, etc.. and then marriage comes near the end of that road. But first you need to walk it to know for sure. What I'm saying is - if you haven't walked it before marriage, it isn't marriage that's gonna make things nice and dandy. I'm not saying I don't want to marry because I think there might be someone better out there. I'm being realistic. You don't know how things are going to turn out. You learn as you go. That being said, then why plan so far ahead?

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865528]Because there's a hierarchy of planing once you start dating and you start building a relationship. I'm not saying marriage is stupid, of course it has significance, I'm just commenting it on THIS specific context. Once you start dating you don't plan your marriage right away. You plan things to do together, then you go from that to planing living together, buying things together, etc, etc.. and then marriage comes near the end of that road. I'm not saying I don't want to marry because I think there might be someone better out there. I'm being realistic. You don't know how things are going to turn out. You learn as you go. That being said, then why plan so far ahead?[/QUOTE] Because it shows you're committed...? Why does it have to come near the end? If I date someone, I'm assuming I'm going to be with them forever. I'm pretty certain the idea of "don't talk to your SO about living together/marriage/kids/etc!" is just a social construct (just because nobody seems to want to commit to anything). It's not like I lose anything in the long term by expecting a future together if we were to break up. Personally, I think it's silly to break up if your personalities work together, but that's just me. Also, 'someone better out there' - why are you investing in this person if you think it's a shaky investment?

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865528]Well not necessarily, statistics say otherwise (Don't know how it is around there, but here divorce rates are pretty high). But let's not break it down to numbers. I have the views that I have about marriage but I'd still like to marry one day. (Of course not just because of the social perks). But I'm still young, 24, still finishing my degree. I still have a long road ahead, so why complicate? I'd rather keep it real. However, not without making sure that before that I am already 100% committed to the person I'm with. Heart and Soul. I currently have a girlfriend who I love very very much, and I have no doubt she feels the same way because she has done a lot for me. But if you ask me if I'm going to marry her one day, my answer will be "I have no idea". And we talked about marriage, if we thought about getting married, if we wanted to have kids one day, all that, but everything in it's due time. There's a lot of things to build in the relationship at the moment, experiences to share and all that. There isn't really a reason to give a bigger step than our legs at the moment. [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] Because there's a hierarchy of planing once you start dating and you start building a relationship. I'm not saying marriage is stupid, of course it has significance, I'm just commenting it on THIS specific context. Once you start dating you don't plan your marriage right away. You plan things to do together, then you go from that to planing living together, buying things together, etc, etc.. and then marriage comes near the end of that road. But first you need to walk it to know for sure. What I'm saying is - if you haven't walked it before marriage, it isn't marriage that's gonna make things nice and dandy. I'm not saying I don't want to marry because I think there might be someone better out there. I'm being realistic. You don't know how things are going to turn out. You learn as you go. That being said, then why plan so far ahead?[/QUOTE] its not a plan, it's just knowing where your relationship is headed and if you were confident or open about what you want to do with your relationship, you'd already know the end(whether if it's going to end in break up or you'll be married), like pascall, she's confident enough to admit that her relationship may be a short term one, and with me and my SO we're confident enough to admit that it is a long term one(even if we could be wrong in the end) but that aside this is about you marginalizing marriage saying that it's not important to the relationship, but it is, even moreso than sex you're saying it on paper that you will commit to this person for the rest of your life, you literally give them half of your life by linking your income, and in the US you're counted as one person it's security for the other person and for you

sex is unimportant, you can have it and just enjoy it, yet at the same time, one of the most intimate acts you can perform with someone you allow yourself to be at your most vulnerable state, and there's no problem if people don't want to reveal that until they have the commitment of marriage to back it up that said there's nothing wrong with not waiting sex for it's own sake is totally fine, but there's nothing wrong with people who want to wait oops mean't to merge that with my original post lol

Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with wanting either a short-term relationship or having long-term in mind. It's just silly to completely rule out the alternative to what you've chosen. You want to be open minded to all possibilities. Just helps you keep things in perspective and keeps things realistic for you.

[QUOTE=Pascall;48865875]Ultimately, there's nothing wrong with wanting either a short-term relationship or having long-term in mind. It's just silly to completely rule out the alternative to what you've chosen. You want to be open minded to all possibilities. Just helps you keep things in perspective and keeps things realistic for you.[/QUOTE] This is what I think, I mean saying you MUST know at the start of a relationship whether you want it to be headed toward marriage or a break-up sounds really fatalistic. I think it's ok to not know what you want out of a relationship when it's just starting out, and I don't think you're a worse person for wanting one over the other, or for being on the fence for a long time.

When l'm with my girlfriend it means l'm commited. Doesn't mean that it is a shaky relationship just because l'm being honest when l tell people l don't know, at leadt at this point, if we're gonna stay together forever. No one knows how life will be in 10 years let alone forever. So instead of focusing too much on long term goals so soon, l'd rather build up with my gf what l can right now. Sure we make plans. Just not marriage. But anyway. We drifted from the original point. You don't NEED marriage to validate your love and make it ok. However that doesn't mean that marriage has no value. I just want to clear that out because l think l'm getting misunderstood here. [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fire Kracker;48865751]sex is unimportant, you can have it and just enjoy it, yet at the same time, one of the most intimate acts you can perform with someone you allow yourself to be at your most vulnerable state, and there's no problem if people don't want to reveal that until they have the commitment of marriage to back it up that said there's nothing wrong with not waiting sex for it's own sake is totally fine, but there's nothing wrong with people who want to wait oops mean't to merge that with my original post lol[/QUOTE] You talk about sex like it's a power game, man. It's not. It isn't about vulnerability and loss of power. I don't get where you come up with these notions but it is not at all. I can see now why you think sexuality is unimportant because you have such a prejudiced view of it. Sexuality is a vital part of a relationship and of being human. Repressing it is so wrong on so many levels. Bottom line is. If you feel vulnerable when having sex with your SO then you're doing it wrong.

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865960]When l'm with my girlfriend it means l'm commited. Doesn't mean that it is a shaky relationship just because l'm being honest when l tell people l don't know, at leadt at this point, if we're gonna stay together forever. No one knows how life will be in 10 years let alone forever. So instead of focusing too much on long term goals so soon, l'd rather build up with my gf what l can right now. Sure we make plans. Just not marriage. But anyway. We drifted from the original point. You don't NEED marriage to validate your love and make it ok. However that doesn't mean that marriage has no value. I just want to clear that out because l think l'm getting misunderstood here. [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] You talk about sex like it's a power game, man. It's not. It isn't about vulnerability and loss of power. I don't get where you come up with these notions but it is not at all. I can see now why you think sexuality is unimportant because you have such a prejudiced view of it. Sexuality is a vital part of a relationship and of being human. Repressing it is so wrong on so many levels. Bottom line is. If you feel vulnerable when having sex with your SO then you're doing it wrong.[/QUOTE] i don't know where you're getting that it's a power game here from anywhere you're both vulnerable when you have sex, and if it's such an important part of a relationship to you, then you should agree with me that you are infact vulnerable during this state there's no prejudice about being sexual at all, i even state there's literally nothing wrong with it, but you're saying it's wrong for people to not want give up that vulnerability to someone else even though it's not wrong you're the one who's not understanding right now, you say it's so important, but then why say it's wrong to wait? some people want a commitment before they give up all of their vulnerabilities, it's healthy to both have sex before and after marriage and when that person chooses to be ready is their choice, there's no wrong decision here

Why do you feel you're vulnerable when you have sex? Are you afraid of being eaten by a grizzly bear or something while you're at it? Sex is amazing when done with someone you love. Learning what makes the other person tick, learn about their kinks, exploring, getting better and better at it each time you make it and being able to reach the most intense climaxes together is one of the best sensations in the world. It's like having your two souls merging in together. Vulnerability implies loss of power and control, which as nothing to do with what I've described. (unless you're into BDSM :v: ) Sure there might be some insecurity and discomfort the first time you do it, I get it. But damn, once you get through it, it's the best thing in the world.

do you not know what it means to be vulnerable to someone or what [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] well i guess english isn't your first language so i guess you just think of it as literally vulnerable to death

It's either that, or I'm just finding out I'm some kind of perverted sex addict. :frown: [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Fire Kracker;48866100]do you not know what it means to be vulnerable to someone or what [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] well i guess english isn't your first language so i guess you just think of it as literally vulnerable to death[/QUOTE] Indulge me, then. Because first language or not, the word vulnerable is vulnerável in Portuguese. However, what I'm trying to understand some posts ago is how sex makes you feel "vulnerable".

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48866105]It's either that, or I'm just finding out I'm some kind of perverted sex addict. :frown: [editline]9th October 2015[/editline] Indulge me, then. Because first language or not, the word vulnerable is vulnerável in Portuguese. However, what I'm trying to understand some posts ago is how sex makes you feel "vulnerable".[/QUOTE] it's not about the word itself so much but it's about how it's used in each language, since english is confusing n such(it's not my first language either lmao) you don't "feel" vulnerable so much as you ARE vulnerable you open up your emotions to each other, and allow each other to full experience each other through the act of love making it's not that you feel uncomfortable, or you're afraid of dying, its more that you've opened up to allow yourself to feel that pleasure with the other person it's that you're allowing yourself to get hurt(emotionally), and if that act truly did mean something to you other than just for each others pleasure, then you will get hurt if everything falls through afterwards it's less about fear and feeling vulnerable being physically hurt than it is about being open to being hurt emotionally and so you shouldn't chastise others for wanting to wait, as much as they shouldn't chastise anyone about not waiting it's not something you have to wait for, but if they prefer to, there's nothing wrong with it like you were saying there was

I understood the vulnerability part. I don't think that on you end you understood that "being attacked by grizzly bears" was a sarcastic response to my interpretation of your vulnerability argument. (sorry, I can't resist being funny. It's nothing personal). Also, my point in vulnerability is exactly that. Why would you feel vulnerable and afraid of being hurt emotionally by being naked in front of someone? You can get emotionally hurt the same way without having to put your peepee out either. So why use that as an argument for ruling out sex or waiting for it? If that's your notion of vulnerability in a relationship then you've been vulnerable since the moment you gave your first kiss. So why complicate? I'm not saying there's something wrong with not having sex or waiting for sex, per se. I mean people have their reasons. (although I don't understand most of them, hence my confusion). I'm saying I don't understand it, because I feel that people are missing out on a lot of stuff they don't know sex has to offer, because of that. Saying it's wrong (which I'm not) and saying people are missing out on important stuff because they don't do it, are two different things.

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48865960]You talk about sex like it's a power game, man. It's not. It isn't about vulnerability and loss of power. I don't get where you come up with these notions but it is not at all. I can see now why you think sexuality is unimportant because you have such a prejudiced view of it. Sexuality is a vital part of a relationship and of being human. Repressing it is so wrong on so many levels. Bottom line is. If you feel vulnerable when having sex with your SO then you're doing it wrong.[/QUOTE] Sex is fun, sure, but it's not necessary. I like sex but when I lose my libido I'm not gonna force it. People over 60 don't not have sex because their relationship sucks, it's because they have no libido. They're still committed. If old people can stay together without sex, it's clearly not a vital part of a relationship. Flopping around on someone then having an orgasm then pillow talking for 10 minutes doesn't strengthen your relationship. It's fun and it's a nice gesture but it's not imperative.

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;48866493]I don't think that on you end you understood that "being attacked by grizzly bears" was a sarcastic response to my interpretation of your vulnerability argument. (sorry, I can't resist being funny. It's nothing personal).[/QUOTE] Your sarcasm seems to be flying past people pretty often in this thread