No, I told you, he's the male lead in a rom com that thinks he's better off being his own man
never depending on anyone but yourself
leading a fun life that he realizes is ultimately unfulfilling when he meets the sweet girl that convinces him to settle down
I am so not this guy. This isn't about me. I have my own shit figured out. I don't want to be in a commited relationship so I'm not. This is about people that are/have been/ whatever. I'm discussing it because I think it is an interesting topic, not because it personally affects me.
Your objection is "nu uh, i got it all figured out and don't need a relationship"?
? I'm not sure I understand YOUR objection.
@Newblar: Just because something is optional or not applicable to you doesn't mean you can't critcize it. I can critcize a conman even if some people buy into his con and I don't.
Just because something is optional or not applicable to you doesn't mean you can't criticize it. I can criticize a conman even if some people buy into his con and I don't.
You consider your mother, and other homemakers, to be con men and concubines...
Okay, this has gone though the looking glass. You are either a very clever troll or a very silly goose.
Just because something is optional or not applicable to you doesn't mean you can't criticize it. I can criticize a conman even if some people buy into his con and I don't.
You consider your mother, and other homemakers, to be con men and concubines...
Okay, this has gone though the looking glass. You are either a very clever troll or a very silly goose.
I think the situation is more societal than individual. I don't think most individuals arrive in these inequal situations through conscious malicious intent. I pointed this out in my OP.
Society is full of people who, having decided to spend the rest of their lives together, trust each other with their finances.
Instead of an inspiring example of millions of people finding in one other a mutual trust and acceptance, and in themselves the desire to sacrifice personal wealth for mutual and societal satisfaction, you see a conspiracy to defraud the individual of his wealth?
You know, in the sense that both spouses should be contributing equally to the relationship, I have to agree with Cliff. That goes far beyond things as simple and petty as dollars, though. Since Cliff is being a bit cold-hearted about it, I'll point ou
Like, a homemaker does a lot of work. Taking care of kids all day, cleaning, cooking? Those are all things I despise. If my SO would be willing to do these things for our family, I would conversely be willing to provide the income needed to pay for gas, electricity, vehicles+maintenance etc. Dollars after all are an abstract representation of 'value', and I value someone doing those things I listed because a) I am quite lazy and b) am filthy and c) can't cook and have no desire to learn.
I have a decent income, and I think I'd genuinely prefer this arrangement. Never having to worry about a messy house, or the kids being looked after by someone trustworthy, or shopping for groceries or all that stuff? That's very appealing. And to me that's worth money. If someone would contribute that to our relationship, I would feel no issue contributing money. I think it would just be fair.
You might want to get your optical sensors tuned up then, because not every relationship rises and / or falls with money.
You're kinda jumping the gun there. He didn't say he didn't want to be in a long term relationship because of money matters, he just said that he didn't want to be in one, Full Stop.
It is like the difference between not wanting to play a particular MMO, and not wanting to play it enough to justify the subscription fees.
You know, in the sense that both spouses should be contributing equally to the relationship, I have to agree with Cliff. That goes far beyond things as simple and petty as dollars, though. Since Cliff is being a bit cold-hearted about it, I'll point ou
Like, a homemaker does a lot of work. Taking care of kids all day, cleaning, cooking? Those are all things I despise. If my SO would be willing to do these things for our family, I would conversely be willing to provide the income needed to pay for gas, electricity, vehicles+maintenance etc. Dollars after all are an abstract representation of 'value', and I value someone doing those things I listed because a) I am quite lazy and b) am filthy and c) can't cook and have no desire to learn.
I have a decent income, and I think I'd genuinely prefer this arrangement. Never having to worry about a messy house, or the kids being looked after by someone trustworthy, or shopping for groceries or all that stuff? That's very appealing. And to me that's worth money. If someone would contribute that to our relationship, I would feel no issue contributing money. I think it would just be fair.
And according to his OP, Cliff probably would not consider it fair.
In that opening post, Cliff said he feels a person should always maintain a level of independence, and be responsible for themselves. So it's less a matter of 'contributing equally to the relationship' and more 'not appearing to be sponging off anyone'. Which goes straight against the very idea of either party in the relationship becoming a homemaker, because no matter how much the homemaker contributes to the relationship, they are dependent upon the breadwinner.
Basically, it's a way of thinking that probably serves him well due to his lack of interest in long term relationships, but doesn't really work for any serious committed relationship, as it devalues people who make any sort of major sacrifice for their relationship.
so you're comparing marriage to a con, and you're fighting the good fight to try and open people's eyes about this scam? hoo boy
At least he isn't extolling the virtues of importing a woman from the third world; that usually accompanies the marriage-is-a-scam rant...
That would be completely contradictory to what I've been saying.
And I wasn't directly linking marriage with a scam. I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
so you're comparing marriage to a con, and you're fighting the good fight to try and open people's eyes about this scam? hoo boy
At least he isn't extolling the virtues of importing a woman from the third world; that usually accompanies the marriage-is-a-scam rant...
That would be completely contradictory to what I've been saying.
And I wasn't directly linking marriage with a scam. I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
When one spouse mooching off another can cause cancer to bystanders, you'll have a point.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Cliff, let's assume we're looking at this from the point of view of the partner who is making the money
what is their rationale for remaining in the relationship if their partner is only in it for the money? why are they still in the relationship if they feel they are being taken advantage of?
so you're comparing marriage to a con, and you're fighting the good fight to try and open people's eyes about this scam? hoo boy
At least he isn't extolling the virtues of importing a woman from the third world; that usually accompanies the marriage-is-a-scam rant...
That would be completely contradictory to what I've been saying.
And I wasn't directly linking marriage with a scam. I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
you're comparing a relationship between two people to something that has been proven (and accepted, even by smokers) to have negative health effects to those who do not engage the activity directly?
really?
more importantly, no one's saying you can't have an opinion even though you aren't in a relationship
I think what's being said here is that your points of view are so devoid of any evidence of human emotion or understanding of human relationships that they are not even wrong... they're just irrelevant
so you're comparing marriage to a con, and you're fighting the good fight to try and open people's eyes about this scam? hoo boy
At least he isn't extolling the virtues of importing a woman from the third world; that usually accompanies the marriage-is-a-scam rant...
That would be completely contradictory to what I've been saying.
And I wasn't directly linking marriage with a scam. I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
When one spouse mooching off another can cause cancer to bystanders, you'll have a point.
This is off topic, but cite please?
Cliff on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Even more baffling is that Cliff's mother was a stay-at-home mum and instead of appreciating the sacrifice she made to take care of him, he insists that she was mooching off his father.
Cliff mentions that she admits to being a "kept" women, but without context as to how this comment was made (i.e., throwaway joke?), I honestly doubt she feels she did a BAD thing for her family by choosing to stay at home and raise her kid(s).
so you're comparing marriage to a con, and you're fighting the good fight to try and open people's eyes about this scam? hoo boy
At least he isn't extolling the virtues of importing a woman from the third world; that usually accompanies the marriage-is-a-scam rant...
That would be completely contradictory to what I've been saying.
And I wasn't directly linking marriage with a scam. I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
When one spouse mooching off another can cause cancer to bystanders, you'll have a point.
I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Optimus wasn't actually trying to share new information, he's trying to point out how ludicrous it is to compare the experience in a long-term relationship vs no experience in a long-term relationship ... to smoking vs non-smokers
so you're comparing marriage to a con, and you're fighting the good fight to try and open people's eyes about this scam? hoo boy
At least he isn't extolling the virtues of importing a woman from the third world; that usually accompanies the marriage-is-a-scam rant...
That would be completely contradictory to what I've been saying.
And I wasn't directly linking marriage with a scam. I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
When one spouse mooching off another can cause cancer to bystanders, you'll have a point.
And I wasn't directly linking marriage with a scam. I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
No, cite proof that occasional second hand smoke causes cancer at a reasonable rate for it to affect the average person. I always hear about the dangers of second hand smoke but never see any legitamate facts on the matter.
Cliff on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
No, cite proof that occasional second hand smoke causes cancer at a reasonable rate for it to affect the average person. I always hear about the dangers of second hand smoke but never see any legitamate facts on the matter.
Why are you trying to focus on a snide remark made by someone? Your comparison is still absolutely ludicrous!
Optimus wasn't actually trying to share new information, he's trying to point out how ludicrous it is to compare the experience in a long-term relationship vs no experience in a long-term relationship ... to smoking vs non-smokers
They both involve subjects that one may not personally be affected by but legitamate topics to discuss/criticize. Which was the only comparison between marriage and [insert topic] that I was refering to.
Cliff on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
Optimus wasn't actually trying to share new information, he's trying to point out how ludicrous it is to compare the experience in a long-term relationship vs no experience in a long-term relationship ... to smoking vs non-smokers
They both involve subjects that one may not personally be affected by but legitamate topics to discuss/criticize. Which was the only comparison between marriage and [insert topic] that I was refering to.
They are not comparable because one is a habit with chemically induced reactions and the other is a relationship that involves emotions and thereby personal experience, you android.
Optimus wasn't actually trying to share new information, he's trying to point out how ludicrous it is to compare the experience in a long-term relationship vs no experience in a long-term relationship ... to smoking vs non-smokers
They both involve subjects that one may not personally be affected by but legitimate topics to discuss/criticize. Which was the only comparison between marriage and [insert topic] that I was referring to.
So you called your mother a concubine because...I'm still not getting it. Why do you place zero value to the services she rendered while simultaneously ignoring the sacrificed potential future earnings she gave up in order to improver her capacity to provide those services when considering just compensation?
moniker on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
more importantly, no one's saying you can't have an opinion even though you aren't in a relationship
I think what's being said here is that your points of view are so devoid of any evidence of human emotion or understanding of human relationships that they are not even wrong... they're just irrelevant
Optimus wasn't actually trying to share new information, he's trying to point out how ludicrous it is to compare the experience in a long-term relationship vs no experience in a long-term relationship ... to smoking vs non-smokers
They both involve subjects that one may not personally be affected by but legitamate topics to discuss/criticize. Which was the only comparison between marriage and [insert topic] that I was refering to.
If that's your goal, you should be comparing it to things that don't have direct, measurable negative effects on those not directly involved.
Other examples you should probably avoid;
Gas guzzling cars, nuclear war and talking on cell phones while driving.
Optimus wasn't actually trying to share new information, he's trying to point out how ludicrous it is to compare the experience in a long-term relationship vs no experience in a long-term relationship ... to smoking vs non-smokers
They both involve subjects that one may not personally be affected by but legitimate topics to discuss/criticize. Which was the only comparison between marriage and [insert topic] that I was referring to.
So you called your mother a concubine because...I'm still not getting it. Why do you place zero value to the services she rendered while simultaneously ignoring the sacrificed potential future earnings she gave up in order to improver her capacity to provide those services when considering just compensation?
The concept of "opportunity cost" seems to elude Cliff here.
Cliff how old are you? Not judging you here, just earnestly curious.
Optimus wasn't actually trying to share new information, he's trying to point out how ludicrous it is to compare the experience in a long-term relationship vs no experience in a long-term relationship ... to smoking vs non-smokers
They both involve subjects that one may not personally be affected by but legitamate topics to discuss/criticize. Which was the only comparison between marriage and [insert topic] that I was refering to.
They are not comparable because one is a habit with chemically induced reactions and the other is a relationship that involves emotions and thereby personal experience, you android.
So marriage isn't comparable to any other topic on any level. It exists in some sort of magic bubble free of criticism. If my neighbor talks down to his wife I shouldn't criticise it because I just don't understand?
I'm 23, turning 24 this month.
And yes, if you read the posts, plenty of people have suggested I shouldn't voice my opinions because it doesn't affect me.
I have a decent income, and I think I'd genuinely prefer this arrangement. Never having to worry about a messy house, or the kids being looked after by someone trustworthy, or shopping for groceries or all that stuff? That's very appealing. And to me that's worth money. If someone would contribute that to our relationship, I would feel no issue contributing money. I think it would just be fair.
The bolded part is something practically everyone agrees with; I just don't see how you can place no monetary value whatsoever on your mom staying at home and raising you and also going so far as to say no one should do it unless they want to gamble with their life. This entire thing strongly implies that your mom did a poor job and it shaped you into disliking the practice.
You've indicated that's not the case, however. I'm curious, what exactly makes you believe that anyone who wishes to be a homemaker should make such huge sacrificies?
This boggles my mind: what is the reasoning behind leaving your loving, caring mother financially ruined because she took care of you?
No, cite proof that occasional second hand smoke causes cancer at a reasonable rate for it to affect the average person. I always hear about the dangers of second hand smoke but never see any legitamate facts on the matter.
Why are you trying to focus on a snide remark made by someone? Your comparison is still absolutely ludicrous!
I would like you to answer some of the questions I posed to you in this thread. Namely the ones further up this page.
This isn't a smoking thread, but those reports are rather vague and I couldn't find any statistics in there about how many people actually suffer health problems because of casual second hand smoke.
I have a decent income, and I think I'd genuinely prefer this arrangement. Never having to worry about a messy house, or the kids being looked after by someone trustworthy, or shopping for groceries or all that stuff? That's very appealing. And to me that's worth money. If someone would contribute that to our relationship, I would feel no issue contributing money. I think it would just be fair.
The bolded part is something practically everyone agrees with; I just don't see how you can place no monetary value whatsoever on your mom staying at home and raising you and also going so far as to say no one should do it unless they want to gamble with their life. This entire thing strongly implies that your mom did a poor job and it shaped you into disliking the practice.
You've indicated that's not the case, however. I'm curious, what exactly makes you believe that anyone who wishes to be a homemaker should make such huge sacrificies?
This boggles my mind: what is the reasoning behind leaving your loving, caring mother financially ruined because she took care of you?
*mind asplode*
I should clarify that in recent years my mom has done some business in real estate so if my parents got divorced she could support herself with that.
Also, I love and respect my mom. I totally appreciate what she's done for our family. That doesn't mean she couldn't have worked more often during our childhood.
Cliff on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
So marriage isn't comparable to any other topic on any level. It exists in some sort of magic bubble free of criticism. If my neighbor talks down to his wife I shouldn't criticise it because I just don't understand?
no, I'm not saying that marriage is incomparable to other topics
I'm saying your SELECTION of comparable topics is poor and actually indicates pretty well how you feel about marriage in general
and as to other people saying you shouldn't voice your opinions, well, I'm sorry you feel so defensive about it... but maybe they're saying it because your opinions are so disconnected from reality that they are irrelevant, not necessarily that they are WRONG
and that irrelevance indicates a lack of familiarity with relationships and emotional connectivity in general, which basically means: you don't know what you're talking about
Also, I love and respect my mom. I totally appreciate what she's done for our family. That doesn't mean she couldn't have worked more often during our childhood.
Why do you believe that the only thing which constitutes 'work' requires a direct deposit slip?
If I were your mother, hell even your father, and I knew you felt that way about her, I'd lay into you for disrespecting the woman that raised you.
While I certainly wouldn't put it as bluntly as I have here, she knows somewhat how I think about it. I tease her sometimes when she gives me job advice.
Cliff on
0
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Evidence of your complete disconnection from the concept of a relationship:
How can you respect some one who will accept your money while the only tangible thing she is giving you in return is sex?
Only tangible things matter in a relationship. Got it.
Seriously, dude, its your money. I know alot of people, including your fiance, are going to try and dissuade you of this fact because of "love," and other emotional bullshit. But in reality that is all smoke and mirrors.
Love, emotion, connection, affection... all bullshit. It's all this great big magic trick that has been perpetuated for centuries and we've all been deluded by it. So glad you're here to help see us through.
On the contrary, emotional trickery works both ways, she is probobly just as blind to reality as any number of people.
I'd say SHE'S not the one blind to the reality here.
I will tell you this, you will never be as happy as you can be if you marry this woman. Resentment will always fester in the back of your mind.
Why?
Because it is your logical mind screaming the obvious truth behind the fog of emotion. You are paying someone to spend their time with you.
Logic is all that matters. Logic dictates who we are as human beings. Emotions are just smoke and mirrors and lies and ways for us to manipulate people into giving us money.
All this, and MORE of what you've said in this thread, indicates that you have no idea what it means to be emotionally connected and committed to somebody. You measure value solely in tangible benefits and completely disregard that feeling you get when you wake up next to someone you love. THIS is why people are telling you not to talk about it... because it's pretty clear you don't get it and the only way someone like YOU will ever get it is if you're in a committed, long-term relationship of your own.
Also, I love and respect my mom. I totally appreciate what she's done for our family. That doesn't mean she couldn't have worked more often during our childhood.
Why do you believe that the only thing which constitutes 'work' requires a direct deposit slip?
I was using work in the occupational sense. Of course a bunch of the shit she did/does is work in the general sense.
Posts
? I'm not sure I understand YOUR objection.
@Newblar: Just because something is optional or not applicable to you doesn't mean you can't critcize it. I can critcize a conman even if some people buy into his con and I don't.
You consider your mother, and other homemakers, to be con men and concubines...
Okay, this has gone though the looking glass. You are either a very clever troll or a very silly goose.
I think the situation is more societal than individual. I don't think most individuals arrive in these inequal situations through conscious malicious intent. I pointed this out in my OP.
Instead of an inspiring example of millions of people finding in one other a mutual trust and acceptance, and in themselves the desire to sacrifice personal wealth for mutual and societal satisfaction, you see a conspiracy to defraud the individual of his wealth?
Like, a homemaker does a lot of work. Taking care of kids all day, cleaning, cooking? Those are all things I despise. If my SO would be willing to do these things for our family, I would conversely be willing to provide the income needed to pay for gas, electricity, vehicles+maintenance etc. Dollars after all are an abstract representation of 'value', and I value someone doing those things I listed because a) I am quite lazy and b) am filthy and c) can't cook and have no desire to learn.
I have a decent income, and I think I'd genuinely prefer this arrangement. Never having to worry about a messy house, or the kids being looked after by someone trustworthy, or shopping for groceries or all that stuff? That's very appealing. And to me that's worth money. If someone would contribute that to our relationship, I would feel no issue contributing money. I think it would just be fair.
You're kinda jumping the gun there. He didn't say he didn't want to be in a long term relationship because of money matters, he just said that he didn't want to be in one, Full Stop.
It is like the difference between not wanting to play a particular MMO, and not wanting to play it enough to justify the subscription fees.
And according to his OP, Cliff probably would not consider it fair.
In that opening post, Cliff said he feels a person should always maintain a level of independence, and be responsible for themselves. So it's less a matter of 'contributing equally to the relationship' and more 'not appearing to be sponging off anyone'. Which goes straight against the very idea of either party in the relationship becoming a homemaker, because no matter how much the homemaker contributes to the relationship, they are dependent upon the breadwinner.
Basically, it's a way of thinking that probably serves him well due to his lack of interest in long term relationships, but doesn't really work for any serious committed relationship, as it devalues people who make any sort of major sacrifice for their relationship.
At least he isn't extolling the virtues of importing a woman from the third world; that usually accompanies the marriage-is-a-scam rant...
That would be completely contradictory to what I've been saying.
And I wasn't directly linking marriage with a scam. I was using the con artist example of why it is silly to say you shouldn't critcize things not directly affecting you. Another example would be smoking, plenty of non-smokers critcize smoking.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
what is their rationale for remaining in the relationship if their partner is only in it for the money? why are they still in the relationship if they feel they are being taken advantage of?
you're comparing a relationship between two people to something that has been proven (and accepted, even by smokers) to have negative health effects to those who do not engage the activity directly?
really?
more importantly, no one's saying you can't have an opinion even though you aren't in a relationship
I think what's being said here is that your points of view are so devoid of any evidence of human emotion or understanding of human relationships that they are not even wrong... they're just irrelevant
This is off topic, but cite please?
Cliff mentions that she admits to being a "kept" women, but without context as to how this comment was made (i.e., throwaway joke?), I honestly doubt she feels she did a BAD thing for her family by choosing to stay at home and raise her kid(s).
No, cite proof that occasional second hand smoke causes cancer at a reasonable rate for it to affect the average person. I always hear about the dangers of second hand smoke but never see any legitamate facts on the matter.
Why are you trying to focus on a snide remark made by someone? Your comparison is still absolutely ludicrous!
But here: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/ , http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8hk6960q , http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/04/0912820107.full.pdf ... but let's keep this on-topic, okay?
I would like you to answer some of the questions I posed to you in this thread. Namely the ones further up this page.
They both involve subjects that one may not personally be affected by but legitamate topics to discuss/criticize. Which was the only comparison between marriage and [insert topic] that I was refering to.
So you called your mother a concubine because...I'm still not getting it. Why do you place zero value to the services she rendered while simultaneously ignoring the sacrificed potential future earnings she gave up in order to improver her capacity to provide those services when considering just compensation?
Other examples you should probably avoid;
Gas guzzling cars, nuclear war and talking on cell phones while driving.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Cliff how old are you? Not judging you here, just earnestly curious.
So marriage isn't comparable to any other topic on any level. It exists in some sort of magic bubble free of criticism. If my neighbor talks down to his wife I shouldn't criticise it because I just don't understand?
I'm 23, turning 24 this month.
And yes, if you read the posts, plenty of people have suggested I shouldn't voice my opinions because it doesn't affect me.
The bolded part is something practically everyone agrees with; I just don't see how you can place no monetary value whatsoever on your mom staying at home and raising you and also going so far as to say no one should do it unless they want to gamble with their life. This entire thing strongly implies that your mom did a poor job and it shaped you into disliking the practice.
You've indicated that's not the case, however. I'm curious, what exactly makes you believe that anyone who wishes to be a homemaker should make such huge sacrificies?
This boggles my mind: what is the reasoning behind leaving your loving, caring mother financially ruined because she took care of you?
*mind asplode*
This isn't a smoking thread, but those reports are rather vague and I couldn't find any statistics in there about how many people actually suffer health problems because of casual second hand smoke.
I should clarify that in recent years my mom has done some business in real estate so if my parents got divorced she could support herself with that.
Also, I love and respect my mom. I totally appreciate what she's done for our family. That doesn't mean she couldn't have worked more often during our childhood.
no, I'm not saying that marriage is incomparable to other topics
I'm saying your SELECTION of comparable topics is poor and actually indicates pretty well how you feel about marriage in general
and as to other people saying you shouldn't voice your opinions, well, I'm sorry you feel so defensive about it... but maybe they're saying it because your opinions are so disconnected from reality that they are irrelevant, not necessarily that they are WRONG
and that irrelevance indicates a lack of familiarity with relationships and emotional connectivity in general, which basically means: you don't know what you're talking about
Why do you believe that the only thing which constitutes 'work' requires a direct deposit slip?
While I certainly wouldn't put it as bluntly as I have here, she knows somewhat how I think about it. I tease her sometimes when she gives me job advice.
Only tangible things matter in a relationship. Got it.
Love, emotion, connection, affection... all bullshit. It's all this great big magic trick that has been perpetuated for centuries and we've all been deluded by it. So glad you're here to help see us through.
I'd say SHE'S not the one blind to the reality here.
Logic is all that matters. Logic dictates who we are as human beings. Emotions are just smoke and mirrors and lies and ways for us to manipulate people into giving us money.
All this, and MORE of what you've said in this thread, indicates that you have no idea what it means to be emotionally connected and committed to somebody. You measure value solely in tangible benefits and completely disregard that feeling you get when you wake up next to someone you love. THIS is why people are telling you not to talk about it... because it's pretty clear you don't get it and the only way someone like YOU will ever get it is if you're in a committed, long-term relationship of your own.
smooth
I was using work in the occupational sense. Of course a bunch of the shit she did/does is work in the general sense.
You can be a better man than me Druhim, I really don't give a fuck.