sound world wrote: Sometimes nowadays it's more like Norman Bates,anyway [:o]
At least she keeps you interested, mate.
all with a hint of cynicism....hm...blue wrote:Funny to read through this thread again. Love burns very bright at first, it's easy to forget that.
Still together, though marriage as a state has proved a much tougher psychological adjustment for me than I anticipated. I wonder if I'm essentially just too self-contained. Something in me seems to very strongly resist the idea of becoming 'other'. I think love is love, and marriage is marriage. The two are not necessarily comfortable bedfellows.
I'm a little ray of sunshine, aren't I.
Tiffany, you're in a delightful moment. Enjoy it, and may it long continue.
Not quite.ruth1998 wrote:I had to master an independence streak too, but years ago. Now, I'm more of a submissive housewife (minus the cooking everyday for him, I refuse to until we get married) most of the time and a bitch when I need to be. I'm used to doing things alone, so he knows I can take care of myself, though he sometimes gets insulted if I try to. Maybe it's the same with you?
well, you'll all probably hold me for being crazy, but i see falling in love and love can be compared, of all things, to..... the space shuttle!blue wrote:Funny to read through this thread again. Love burns very bright at first, it's easy to forget that.
the psychologist and writer M.Scott Peck proposed that a successful marriage is never the meeting of two halves becoming a whole, rather two complete individuals coming together to create a mysterious (in a positive sense) but tangible third 'enitity'; effectively a 'holy trinity'. i really believe in that and think that is the ideal worth aiming for - and elizabeth, you sort of back that up in what you say - i think resisting subsumation is totally correct and healthy. it's somehow about creation and not merging. y'know what i'm trying to get at? anyhow, is the barrier more with the word 'marriage' than anything else? (i suppose that depends on what changes in lifestyle came when in relation to the day itself.)blue wrote:Still together, though marriage as a state has proved a much tougher psychological adjustment for me than I anticipated. I wonder if I'm essentially just too self-contained. Something in me seems to very strongly resist the idea of becoming 'other'. I think love is love, and marriage is marriage. The two are not necessarily comfortable bedfellows.
Oh, I don't mean a whole Donna Reed thing, just that my 'prime impulse' was being too independant - to a fault. That and pride. Which is why it's so amazing to me that I have this man that I love enough to better my personality and try to improve in things like communication.blue wrote:Not quite.![]()
I'm a different generation to you, so I don't see things in quite those terms, for a start. I don't see why any woman should have to 'master' her independence, and I certainly reject the patriarchal characterisation of women as either 'submissive housewife' or 'bitch', with no room between the two for an actual human being.![]()
Couldn't agree more.The thing I'm talking about is genderless, it's not about woman versus man. It's older than that, deeper. It's about what's in your soul as an individual. I think everyone has certain prime impulses, who knows where they come from - what's a soul made of? - that act like governing regulators of interaction with the world and other souls. The farther I go through life, the more convinced I am that this is true.
But it's also rather heavy conversation for this time in the morning, so I'm off to feed my errant soul some breakfast.