The DOs and DON’ts of Sex in 2012

When sharing living space and financial responsibilities, it is important to divide these respectfully. Every situation is unique, and things like working hours, working schedule, income disparity, personal health and energy, absence or presence of children will all determine who does the domestic duties, some of which (cleaning the bathroom) are less pleasant than others.

I just can't get my head around how sharing these things is somehow prostituting oneself or blackmail for BJ's, lol. Raised with chores and responsibilities, I have no problem in prioritizing these and my partner feels my allocation is very reasonable. I pull more than my share of the heavy work since his heart attack three years ago and he volunteers to do additional tasks when his energy levels are optimum.

Do set time aside for personal recreation, whether that time is shared or spent in pursuit of one's own interests. Even in close relationships, people need a bit of 'me' time.
 
Or one cleans some things better than the other. Like I do good cleaning bathrooms even though I don't wanna do it, but I'm good at it. So my wife likes how I do it so I do it for her. I don't do it for incentives. Or special favors.

Speaking for the guy that lives alone. If it get's done tomorrow that's okay.:D
 
FR your comment about marriage vs defacto is interesting. My uncles marriage lasted 18 months his defacto relationship has so far lasted 20 or so years, guess which women out auntie is. My brother is about to get divorced, his marriage lasted about 4 years, PB and I are still together happily.
My first marriage lasted four years. The second will be 35 next month. Last year I had been married to Mrs. Fraggle for exactly half my life. A nice milestone.
What does a piece of paper really matter?
Like many abstractions, it can be a powerful symbol to people who are affected by it. After all, money is an abstraction (in fact some of it is only "pieces of paper" ;)), and worse yet, it is only a myth (to quote Joseph Campbell). Yet this myth is the glue that keeps modern economies running, in a globe-spanning community of strangers for whom barter is impractical.

But depending on the laws of the jurisdiction, a marriage certificate conveys many important rights. Just read any article about the progress in the gay marriage movement and the opposition to it. People who are not married do not automatically inherit each other's estate if they die without a will. People who are not married do not have clear custody rights to the children when the partnership ends. From my perspective where end-of-life issues are looming larger with every passing birthday, people who are not married have no right to make medical decisions for each other. In many cases they're not even allowed into the hospital room of a seriously ill partner. Some relative who's been out of the picture for so long that you've never even met them may be the one who can claim all of those rights.

And speaking of medical issues, they can't put each other on their group insurance policies. Yes some of these things are changing as the government is forced to acknowledge the increasing number of opposite-sex domestic partnerships and they can't figure out a way to exclude gays from the benefits of the new policies. But considering how long we've been trying to unravel the social implications of slavery and how much longer we still have to go, the best hope for gay people is to have their marriages legally sanctioned, as they already are in Toronto, Washington and Mexico City: the capitals of all three North American nations.

One of my friends lived with a man for 25 years, and unbeknownst to us they were never married. He was an idiot with money, and she did not want to be responsible for his debts. Ironically, although she was 20 years older, he died first. (Weighing 600lb/275kg may have had something to do with that.) She was so grateful that she didn't have to pay off his outrageous, overdue bills! However, she had no voice in the funeral arrangements and his ashes (which occupy two urns) are in his sister's house.

Marriage may not even be about the piece of paper. The vows themselves are powerful. My best friend talked me into making a mutual vow of friendship and we are both very content now. Opposite-sex friendships are prone to many difficulties. We put them all on the table, went through the embarrassing discussion, and discovered that we completely agreed on how to handle them, including what to do if one of us has a weak moment and breaks the vow. As my favorite advice columnist put it, "Opposite-sex friendships are worth their weight in tears."
Or one cleans some things better than the other. Like I do good cleaning bathrooms even though I don't wanna do it, but I'm good at it. So my wife likes how I do it so I do it for her.
I'm an expert with laundry and I find it sort of entertaining--sorting, stacking, measuring, choosing the right time and temperature: a math major's dream. I even know how to iron a silk blouse, and with my long arms I can fold a fitted sheet better than anybody!
 
Last edited:
Simple, it costs money when we have more important priorities. Question for YOU, why does our being married or not matter more to YOU than it does to my partner?

It doesn't matter to me. I just can't keep up with your reasons for not being married. I thought you had because it was important to her. Then you couldn't afford it. Now its 'just a piece of paper'. I never understand the 'just a piece of paper' excuse. If it doesn't matter (especially after this long), why not do it. :shrug:

I swear, you have more rules in your life than I do in mine. (kinda like the making a baby rule you gave your partner)
 
Or one cleans some things better than the other. Like I do good cleaning bathrooms even though I don't wanna do it, but I'm good at it. So my wife likes how I do it so I do it for her. I don't do it for incentives. Or special favors.

Neither does he. He mopped the floor because he knew I was having a rough week. He got laid because he made my rough week at work better. Granted, he may mop the floor later thinking he'd get laid, and ya know what, he'd probably be right. :D
 
FR I can't comment on US marriage law (For one it's so convoluted and depends where you are etc) however here marriage is firstly a federal act and secondly a let of legislation was put in place by the federal goverment and reciprocated by the states which gave defacto relationships the same legal rights and obligations that weddings do, also the legislation force private companies to treat married and defact couples the same. This was all in a bid to stall the gay marriage push (which it didnt because that's about equality, nothing more) but it benefited ALL defactos. Therefore it became just a piece of paper and a very expensive way to change your name

Orleander sorry I didn't know I had to keep you informed about our love life, let's see PB got made redundant because her company decided to send all the work to Melbourne so we didn't have as much money and then she got pregnant but lost the baby so things change.
 
...Orleander sorry I didn't know I had to keep you informed about our love life, let's see PB got made redundant because her company decided to send all the work to Melbourne so we didn't have as much money ....

so you didn't get married because of money? How much does it cost to get married in Australia? My first husband and I got married for $60 (in 1990)
 
Thats nice, the estimate we came up with was around 14,000 and then the hoonymoon on top of that. As i said something that might be nice to do in the future but not a priority right now
 
OH, you want a big wedding and honeymoon. We just got married without the extras. The extras weren't important to us. WE spent the money on furniture instead
 
Once again a weding is ALL extras, it's compleatly unnesssary for the basics. So Sure I could go to "hatches, matches and dispatches" and full out paperwork and it would do what exactly? Legally we would be no different than we are right now so what would be the point? If its just symbolic (which it IS in Australia) then whats the point of losing the symbols?
 
Having all the amenities is kinda gaudy. It is similar to a house with to much "stuff". Streamline is the way to go.
But that's my opinion. An most people don't care about that to much.
 
Once again a wedding is ALL extras, it's completely unnecessary for the basics. So Sure I could go to "hatches, matches and dispatches" and full out paperwork and it would do what exactly? Legally we would be no different than we are right now so what would be the point? If its just symbolic (which it IS in Australia) then whats the point of losing the symbols?

I pretty much have to agree with you. I think the U.S. should pass a federal law that covers all levels of intimate relationships and any children that result because of those relationships. Then the term marriage could be left as a religious formality for those that wish to follow their teachings.
 
OH, you want a big wedding and honeymoon. We just got married without the extras. The extras weren't important to us. WE spent the money on furniture instead
I had spent two months riding a motorcycle across Europe, and she had spent a whole year on a hippie-walkabout, learning to ski in the Alps, working on a kibbutz in Israel, seeing all the museums, etc. Morevoer, we had spent two weeks in Hawaii the previous year, which was more-or-less the "ceremony" that marked the transition of our year-long friendship into a romance. It wouldn't have been easy to come up with a honeymoon to top any of that, so we went on a two-week camping trip.
I pretty much have to agree with you. I think the U.S. should pass a federal law that covers all levels of intimate relationships and any children that result because of those relationships. Then the term marriage could be left as a religious formality for those that wish to follow their teachings.
There was an op-ed in the Post a few months ago, by a Unitarian minister who said exactly the same thing. His church had been blessing gay marriages for years even though they had no legal standing.

As I noted in an earlier post, marriage was not a Christian religious rite until 900 years ago. So they don't exactly own the patent on it.
 
I pretty much have to agree with you. I think the U.S. should pass a federal law that covers all levels of intimate relationships and any children that result because of those relationships. Then the term marriage could be left as a religious formality for those that wish to follow their teachings.

what?! :eek:
 

Damn! I thought I was quite clear? People in long term relationships in the U.S. get screwed all the time, because laws very from one state to the next. For instance Arizona has no common law marriages and a non-working partner could be left with just the clothes they have.
 
For example: A heterosexual couple in Salt Lake City want to pledge their love to each other in a ceremony which they can be certain is not available to homosexual couples, thus identifying themselves proudly as bigots. So they have a Mormon wedding, knowing that this is not available to homosexuals. Their friends and family are pleased.

Meanwhile, a homosexual couple in Los Angeles go to a Unitarian church and pledge their love, surrounded by people who have surmounted their Stone Age instincts.

However, both couples go to the nearest courthouse to register their civil relationship. They have exactly the same legal rights regarding community property, custody of children, coverage on group insurance plans, visitation in hospitals and prisons, medical decisions, inheritance, etc.

The social realm is held distinct from the legal realm.
 
I'm unsure why people are still debating this. All marriage was irrevocably destroyed when the first legal same-sex marriage licenses were issued in San Francisco like 8 years ago, wasn't it? Hopefully one day we will ban this perversity, and then set about re-marrying all of the couples whose marriages were destroyed by the evil homos who rejected God's commands and got married.
 
I'm unsure why people are still debating this. All marriage was irrevocably destroyed when the first legal same-sex marriage licenses were issued in San Francisco like 8 years ago, wasn't it? Hopefully one day we will ban this perversity, and then set about re-marrying all of the couples whose marriages were destroyed by the evil homos who rejected God's commands and got married.
* * * * NOTE FROM ANOTHER MODERATOR * * * *

I'm not the moderator of this subforum, but Tiassa has been notified.

On behalf of the staff of SciForums, I apologize to everyone for this member's use of hate speech. It is a violation of the rules and he will be disciplined appropriately.
 
Umm isn't he just parodying what the religious nutjobs belive? I don't think his post was offensive, it might be uncomfortable for the anti marriage equality nuts but who cares about them?
 
Back
Top