70863 Dealbreakers

[Marduk]

I think I've made clear my position on the issue, and I'd still like an answer (to both questions, preferably.) You've made some pretty strong claims sociologically in this thread, and I don't think it is too much to ask that you defend them.

(If you must, treat this as an academic exercise. Whether or not two people agree on something does not mean that laying out one's position will be entirely futile.)

[thatonemom]

Sorry to go back in the thread, but I wanted to comment on the idea of the wife staying at home.

I feel like this is such a catch-22 for women. Like others have said, if a women pursues certain majors/careers, some people just assume that they have no interest in kids or staying home with them. Which obviously isn't the case for every woman. But at the same time, no one can control exactly when in their lives they'll get married (or become parents). So what are women supposed to do, have no academic or career or life goals? The time a mom spends at home with small kids is such a small chunk of her life. But I have seen plenty of women hide behind the idea of being a mom as a way of almost excusing themselves from developing personal goals or interests outside of mommyhood. I always want to ask them what they plan to do with themselves when their kids have grown, or if they can't have them, or don't get married when they'd hoped to.

But, it sucks that women who do have goals or pursuits outside of the family (that they don't even have) get dinged in the local dating culture. Sometimes it just bugs me that single men get a free pass to pursue their interests as well as a family, but that if single women do the same, they get labeled. And what about women who marry later, and are already established in their careers? If you've invested time and money in higher education, I don't know that it's fair to expect the woman to quit cold turkey to stay home full time.

Anyway, those are my jumbled thoughts on the matter. I'm not anti-staying home. (I stay home with my kids full time. It works for me and my family) But it is a more complex issue than some make it out to be.

[TheAnswerIs42]

It's a higher form of relationship that takes a lot more work but can be much more rewarding.

By referring to it as a "higher form of relationship," you're implying that "successful" polygamy (i.e., people who are happy in a polygamous relationship) is somehow superior to "successful" monogamy. I find that insulting to those of us who have stated we would prefer the latter.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I'm sorry you find it insulting, but just as being able to sing and dance and act makes someone a more successful performer, being able to have a healthy and intimate relationship makes you more successful at relationships. Not everyone needs to be at that level, but we can't deny that they're better than we are in that respect.

Sure I can. Just because something is harder does not mean that the end result is better. By any stretch. I could build a rowboat out of milk jugs and use a plastic spoon to get across the English Channel instead of taking the Chunnel. But if you still get from France to England, who cares? Are you going to start telling me that there is some even higher level of heaven devoted to those who practiced polygamy on earth? Because, last I checked, if I am doing what our Church outlines as the way to return to Him, then I'll take my way and you take yours. Every person's path has different challenges, obstacles, and mountains to climb. Mine is not inferior nor superior. If I get from point A to point B, mine is exactly perfect for me. And maybe you should try one marriage first (ideally, you should try polygamy first as well) before you declare things inferior. I certainly don't think I have the authority to declare that.

[bobtheenchantedone]

I could build a rowboat out of milk jugs and use a plastic spoon to get across the English Channel instead of taking the Chunnel.

I don't think it's like that, and unfortunately I can't find a way to use your analogy to mean what I mean, so allow me another analogy: it's more having the skills to build your house yourself rather than buying a pre-made house. For most people, that's going far above and beyond to the point of being a little strange and even unnecessary. But, in my mind at least, that's by far going to get you a better house.

Again, it's not necessary or even desirable or possible for everyone to do it. But those who can are, in my mind, a cut above.

[UffishThought]

Hoo-eee! getting heated in here.

I don't think I'd like being in a polygamous relationship. I can, however, see one benefit--if I were to get along well with my sister wives and manage my jealousy--then I'd be in a relationship with several awesome people instead of just one. Husband and best friends, all in the same house! (or neighborhood, or whatever) It could be fun, and might be more rewarding to me than a monogamous relationship alone.

I'm not convinced a monogamous relationship plus some regular friendships wouldn't do just as well for me, though.

[TheAnswerIs42]

So . . . I'm "buying a pre-made house"? My marriage isn't any work, I'm just coasting, because I'm fulfilled in my marriage and have no desire to have a another person in this relationship? Because to me, the difference is more like whether you used modern tools to build a house or used pioneer tools. One is harder, both people worked hard and grew from the process, but in the end, you both have the exact house you wanted. If I am fulfilled and happy as a person in my single marriage and other people are happy and fulfilled by a plural marriage, then we got to the same place in the end. One is not better than the other, one is better FOR ME than another. A different one might be better FOR YOU than another.

Bob, we're all trying to allow you to think differently than us. I don't have a problem with that. I just wish you would stop insulting everyone who thinks differently than you as "inferior". Throwing stones at the majority in the room isn't winning you any points, for someone so hung up on who is the best at relationships. I mean, you've even offended Katya, and she's the nicest internet person I've never met!

[Giovanni Schwartz]

I mean, you've even offended Katya, and she's the nicest internet person I've never met!

+1234567890

[bobtheenchantedone]

So . . . I'm "buying a pre-made house"? My marriage isn't any work, I'm just coasting, because I'm fulfilled in my marriage and have no desire to have a another person in this relationship? Because to me, the difference is more like whether you used modern tools to build a house or used pioneer tools. One is harder, both people worked hard and grew from the process, but in the end, you both have the exact house you wanted. If I am fulfilled and happy as a person in my single marriage and other people are happy and fulfilled by a plural marriage, then we got to the same place in the end. One is not better than the other, one is better FOR ME than another. A different one might be better FOR YOU than another.

Bob, we're all trying to allow you to think differently than us. I don't have a problem with that. I just wish you would stop insulting everyone who thinks differently than you as "inferior". Throwing stones at the majority in the room isn't winning you any points, for someone so hung up on who is the best at relationships. I mean, you've even offended Katya, and she's the nicest internet person I've never met!

And polygamy isn't a boat made of milk jugs. : )

I will admit to feeling a little chastised at this point. Not all of my ideas have been as well stated as the could have been (though I am very grateful for how much this discussion has helped me solidify my thoughts), and I admit that though I knew this was a touchy subject for a lot of people I haven't kept that in mind as much as I should have. Then again, part of the reason I have stayed in this conversation as long as I have is because so many people have such a visceral reaction to the thought of polygamy, and I am becoming quite the advocate of thinking. Yes, I've been somewhat harsh at times, but my biggest regret is that it has largely only made people upset with me instead of allowed us to get past the surface disgust to really consider the idea, and I am sorry for those who have felt insulted. I suppose that just means I still have more to learn about debate.

I do think it takes an extra-ordinary kind of person to have a happy and fulfilling polygamous relationship, but I don't feel threatened by it. In the same vein, though I am very proud of my vocal abilities, I am not insulted when I realize that there are performers who are at a level I have not reached, especially if I don't consider it necessary for me to reach that level. You don't want a polygamous relationship. I don't want to be a famous singer. These are okay things. But it's also okay to realize that even if I may not want what they have, they do have skills that I do not have.

In case anyone would like to be upset at how intimate relationships are nothing like singing ability, know that I'm someone who would rather be blind than lose my voice, and who uses singing as anti-anxiety medication. I do not make the comparison lightly.

[pillowy]

Yes, I've been somewhat harsh at times, but my biggest regret is that it has largely only made people upset with me instead of allowed us to get past the surface disgust to really consider the idea, and I am sorry for those who have felt insulted. I suppose that just means I still have more to learn about debate.

I do think it takes an extra-ordinary kind of person to have a happy and fulfilling polygamous relationship, but I don't feel threatened by it. In the same vein, though I am very proud of my vocal abilities, I am not insulted when I realize that there are performers who are at a level I have not reached, especially if I don't consider it necessary for me to reach that level. You don't want a polygamous relationship. I don't want to be a famous singer. These are okay things. But it's also okay to realize that even if I may not want what they have, they do have skills that I do not have.

I think this encapsulates the issue right here. Bob, you think that people are reacting with "surface disgust" to polygamy, when really we're disagreeing with you that there is "a level [we] have not reached" or cannot reach with monogamy. We don't feel threatened with the idea that there are people who are okay with polygamy. We just think that we can reach just as high a level - emotionally, spiritually, eternally - with monogamy.

God gives us all the commandments we need to reach the highest levels there are. He's not hiding any commandments from us. And right now (and clearly for a large portion of Book of Mormon history, if you read Jacob 2) God is commanding us to be monogamous. If we follow this commandment, does that mean we can't receive the greatest eternal rewards? Clearly, no. We will become just as good of people, and develop just as strongly the qualities of unselfishness, patience, love, and charity, in monogamous relationships as polygamous ones.

[Zedability]

Yes, I've been somewhat harsh at times, but my biggest regret is that it has largely only made people upset with me instead of allowed us to get past the surface disgust to really consider the idea, and I am sorry for those who have felt insulted. I suppose that just means I still have more to learn about debate.

I do think it takes an extra-ordinary kind of person to have a happy and fulfilling polygamous relationship, but I don't feel threatened by it. In the same vein, though I am very proud of my vocal abilities, I am not insulted when I realize that there are performers who are at a level I have not reached, especially if I don't consider it necessary for me to reach that level. You don't want a polygamous relationship. I don't want to be a famous singer. These are okay things. But it's also okay to realize that even if I may not want what they have, they do have skills that I do not have.

I think this encapsulates the issue right here. Bob, you think that people are reacting with "surface disgust" to polygamy, when really we're disagreeing with you that there is "a level [we] have not reached" or cannot reach with monogamy. We don't feel threatened with the idea that there are people who are okay with polygamy. We just think that we can reach just as high a level - emotionally, spiritually, eternally - with monogamy.

God gives us all the commandments we need to reach the highest levels there are. He's not hiding any commandments from us. And right now (and clearly for a large portion of Book of Mormon history, if you read Jacob 2) God is commanding us to be monogamous. If we follow this commandment, does that mean we can't receive the greatest eternal rewards? Clearly, no. We will become just as good of people, and develop just as strongly the qualities of unselfishness, patience, love, and charity, in monogamous relationships as polygamous ones.

Word.

[Laser Jock]

So, going way back to before the polygamy discussion...

All through my 20s and into my early 30s, I would have assumed that I would quit my job and stay home if I ever got married, but recently I realized that I really enjoy working and I don't want to give that up. So, I guess I'm looking for a stay-at-home dad or a dad who wants to work part time. Also, I'm not changing my name if I get married. (Dealbreakers galore!)

Just curious; why does this imply that you're looking for a stay-at-home dad / one who wants to work part time? Would it not work to have both parents working? (I'm guessing you feel like it's less than ideal to have both parents gone that much, but I don't want to assume something you haven't said. )

[Portia]

Reviving an old thread rather than starting a new one.

I guffawed at the expert use of the "neg" technique shown by this question-asker:

I don't care that he likes sci-fi and Star Wars, I can handle it

People like this legitimately make me want to punch them in the face. (I don't, but I want to.) Contempt is the #1 indicator of divorce, and I can't imaging starting a relationship with someone who was so dismissive of the things I enjoy, much less wanting to marry her.

[UffishThought]

So angry! I didn't read that as contempt. I think the questioner was just noting that being into sci-fi is stereotypically unattractive, but that that's not the issue at hand.

My boyfriend plays Minecraft. I don't see the appeal. I tease him a little bit about it, but I also don't mind that he plays and he knows it. I love Bollywood. My boyfriend isn't a big fan. He teases me a little bit about it, but he's fine with me having Bollywood movie nights from time to time. Each of us might say that we don't care that the other likes ______, and we can handle it. That's not contempt. That's being aware that we have different non-mainstream interests, and that's okay.


The thing that did give me pause in that question was the assumption that this guy would want to be exposing his kids to his R rated movies. While I love and own a handful of R rated movies, if my spouse were uncomfortable about our kids and those movies, I could easily store them somewhere out of sight and only watch them when the kids were asleep. In fact, I might do that even if my spouse doesn't worry about it. Keeping the kids and the movies separate seems easy to me--not a potential dealbreaker. If she's uncomfortable just having them in her home, though, I guess those solutions don't help.

[Portia]

So angry! I didn't read that as contempt. I think the questioner was just noting that being into sci-fi is stereotypically unattractive, but that that's not the issue at hand.

My boyfriend plays Minecraft. I don't see the appeal. I tease him a little bit about it, but I also don't mind that he plays and he knows it. I love Bollywood. My boyfriend isn't a big fan. He teases me a little bit about it, but he's fine with me having Bollywood movie nights from time to time. Each of us might say that we don't care that the other likes ______, and we can handle it. That's not contempt. That's being aware that we have different non-mainstream interests, and that's okay.


The thing that did give me pause in that question was the assumption that this guy would want to be exposing his kids to his R rated movies. While I love and own a handful of R rated movies, if my spouse were uncomfortable about our kids and those movies, I could easily store them somewhere out of sight and only watch them when the kids were asleep. In fact, I might do that even if my spouse doesn't worry about it. Keeping the kids and the movies separate seems easy to me--not a potential dealbreaker. If she's uncomfortable just having them in her home, though, I guess those solutions don't help.

Oh, I tease my boyfriend about his geek interests, too! I mean, he just dedicated the last year of his life to The Wheel of Time. This kind of literary monogamy baffles me. And yes, I do want to expose him to some of the "high culture" things that appeal to me. But he's easygoing and doesn't make me feel like crap because I have a weird obsession with Jazz Age novelists or the violin player Augustin Hadelich.

I guess I just find it to be very arrogant and snobbish on this girl's part when she isn't even dating the Geek and there's no sign that he's even into her anyway. The geek I happen to be dating is hands down the most physically attractive I've ever dated, so yeah, it's not like watching Star Wars (so obscure!) puts you in the "ugly" category. (Now, a Magic tournament player, I don't know if I could handle that. Not that it's not a fun game, I'm sure, but some people have a cult-like level of love for it.)

I just think she sounds too immature to be married, but as I get older, I think that of about everyone under 25. I just would be so annoyed to have my entertainment choices scrutinized with such a microscope all the time! Maybe this man sees his R-rated pictures as a weakness that he'd like help overcoming, but I suspect not.

It just seems a little like "OMG I always thought I'd marry a blond and he has brown hair." I mean, I know it's a deeply moral issue to some, but her sense of entitlement is a moral failing, arguably.

[UffishThought]

Now, a Magic tournament player, I don't know if I could handle that.

Sounds a little arrogant and snobbish, to me. You're not even dating one, and there's no sign that one's into you!

[Portia]

Now, a Magic tournament player, I don't know if I could handle that.

Sounds a little arrogant and snobbish, to me. You're not even dating one, and there's no sign that one's into you! ;)

Ha. Choose me or your twelve-sided die, young man! (Substitute "tennis" for "Magic," and my point stands. I like a guy who spends his attention on me. ;) ) I know I am a bit of a snob. (Duh.) I mean, puh-lease. Doesn't mean it's not something I'm actively trying to combat.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

one of my friends made me play Magic: The Gathering: The Card Game with him once. I was surprised by how entertaining it was.

[Whistler]

I scoff at your collectible card games, which ultimately depend on spending lots of money on specific cards (although I agree that a casual game can be entertaining). I do like the new "living card games" which don't require collecting, like Netrunner.

[Portia]

one of my friends made me play Magic: The Gathering: The Card Game with him once. I was surprised by how entertaining it was.

Maybe I'm just scared I'd get addicted to it, like I was to online Dominion.

[Giovanni Schwartz]

Just so we're all clear, I've never owned a card of any collectible type in my whole life. Not even Pokemon, and I was in the middle of the rage in elementary school.