Marriage?

[Robcore]

@oxyjen and @jigglypuff
If I'm seeming to pressure her, that's not my intention. I thought I mentioned that I have no stake in it. Sounds dysfunctional by her description, anyway.

The decision seems to be made already. I probe because the psyche is interesting, and I see psyche-probing as productive, even after the practical matter of making the decision is done with.

I personally don't have 'dealbreakers' which are independent from context. The check-box approach to relationships just seems really superficial, to me.

[Sistamatic]

@oxyjen and @jigglypuff
If I'm seeming to pressure her, that's not my intention. I thought I mentioned that I have no stake in it. Sounds dysfunctional by her description, anyway.

The decision seems to be made already. I probe because the psyche is interesting, and I see psyche-probing as productive, even after the practical matter of making the decision is done with.

I personally don't have 'dealbreakers' which are independent from context. The check-box approach to relationships just seems really superficial, to me.

So your wife is the person who happened to be there when you decided you wanted a relationship? It didn't matter what kind of person she was? You'd be just as happy with anyone? You'd be just as happy if she'd already had children and didn't want more? None of that would have factored into your decision to ask her to marry you? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. She checked boxes. There had to be some sort of criteria applied to your decision to marry her.

[starla]

Ideally, you find someone who checks all the important boxes and you also like them. Seems like her beau only fits the second half of the criteria. I think too many people ignore the first half and it becomes a huge issue later in the relationship, once the initial infatuation has worn off and reality sets in. I see no reason why Sinny should settle. I think it would be a disaster in the long run. I personally would not have gotten involved with a man with children to begin with at her age, but you live and learn, and now she knows what she can and cannot accept.

[Robcore]

So your wife is the person who happened to be there when you decided you wanted a relationship? It didn't matter what kind of person she was? You'd be just as happy with anyone? You'd be just as happy if she'd already had children and didn't want more? None of that would have factored into your decision to ask her to marry you? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. She checked boxes. There had to be some sort of criteria applied to your decision to marry her.

She was actually the person who was there after I'd decided I was content being an urban monk, of sorts. I wasn't looking for anyone to be with when I met her. I actually first met her during a mill shutdown, and I was frequently making trips to the stores warehouse(where she was working). The job lasted about 2 weeks, and afterwards I was just thankful to have crossed paths with such a person...never expected to see her again after that. Met her again a year later and became good friends. She was dating someone else at the time.
The progression to marriage was not about checking boxes, it was about growing together in intimacy and growing individually as people. It was a development, not an achievement. Context-based decision making, rather than threshold(check-box) based decision making.
I mean, if I had a checklist, it wouldn't have worked out...the starting point was light years from where we are now. The laundry list of dysfunctions was massive. I always maintained to her, that if we were going to get married, it would happen in the universe's timing. My inspiration to buy the ring was spontaneous...and it stayed on my key chain for months before the circumstances unfolded leading to the proposal.
I loved the part of her that growth happens to; the part of her that had her personality. I loved her whether I was going to be with her, or not.

She probably did check boxes...but I'm quite positive i didn't fill them all, and I'm quite positive today that she's happy I didn't.

All I knew about what a relationship that was going to be good for me was going to be like, is that it would transcend my understanding and expectation. If it did not, then it wouldn't really be a fruitful stage to grow upon. My wife is not the person I'd have designed for myself had I been able...and good thing, too.

[rokki balbotox]

Unwilling to marry because I want a quick out, and also due to my inability to habituate to annoyances and forgive minor infractions.

[jigglypuff]

I personally don't have 'dealbreakers' which are independent from context. The check-box approach to relationships just seems really superficial, to me.

having dealbreakers isn't about "checking boxes," it's being honest with yourself about your preferences. it's knowing what will make you more unhappy, and being aware of what you want out of a relationship. people who can't name their own dealbreakers tend to not know what the fuck they want and they tend to be young or relatively inexperienced.

if you want to have children, it would be quite reasonable to have "childfree preference" as a dealbreaker, and vice versa.

i wouldn't waste my time with somebody who's still figuring themselves out, or so passive in life that they'd go with anything that's convenient.

moreover, i really hate this emphasis on "compromise" and relationships taking so much "work" honestly, cuz that's the worst thing you could tell a young person still figuring out what will make them happy in terms of love. whatever happened to being independent-minded and having the courage to be alone? only being fearless will allow you to be free to enter and leave relationships, and make the healthiest and most knowledgeable choice for yourself in pursuing the life that you want.

and i need that fearlessness to be a shared tendency, or at least a value, with anybody i'm with long-term.

plus, considering that i'm pretty unconventional in a number of significant ways, i want to be with someone who knows they want me, not just someone who is "flexible" enough to learn to tolerate me. ffs...

[Robcore]

having dealbreakers isn't about "checking boxes," it's being honest with yourself about your preferences. it's knowing what will make you more unhappy, and being aware of what you want out of a relationship. people who can't name their own dealbreakers tend to not know what the fuck they want and they tend to be young or relatively inexperienced.

Well, happiness is important. I don't think people should enter relationships wanting those relationships to make them happy. Be a happy person, then enter a relationship, in that order. If you're happy with or without the relationship, then this 'dealbreaker' business isn't exactly the same.

if you want to have children, it would be quite reasonable to have "childfree preference" as a dealbreaker, and vice versa.

i wouldn't waste my time with somebody who's still figuring themselves out, or so passive in life that they'd go with anything that's convenient.

I prefer to live life according to this taoist parable: http://www.taoism.net/chuang/butcher.htm
It isn't passive, nor is it grinding against the grain of life trying to make things happen. It's eloquent. It is conscious, and aware. It is relatively simple.
If you don't want to have kids and the other person does, there's no need for a 'dealbreaker', because there's no deal to break...you just go the path you go. There's no straw to break the camel's back, because nothing is kept under such tension. You can even consider how having kids might be possible and even fulfilling in spite of not being attracted to the idea in the least. You aren't a ship at the mercy of the sea...you're calm waters. You don't want kids, but having kids isn't going to devastate your life. And because of that, you can just walk your path...no need to spit in the face of the other path you well could have taken.

moreover, i really hate this emphasis on "compromise" and relationships taking so much "work" honestly, cuz that's the worst thing you could tell a young person still figuring out what will make them happy in terms of love. whatever happened to being independent-minded and having the courage to be alone? only being fearless will allow you to be free to enter and leave relationships, and make the healthiest and most knowledgeable choice for yourself in pursuing the life that you want.

As I mentioned earlier, I was quite content to be alone forever, until I ended up in a relationship. If you're happy with or without the relationship, then the relationship isn't really about work...it's just about growth...so you 'work' if you need to do so to grow, and you compromise if you need to do so to grow.

and i need that fearlessness to be a shared tendency, or at least a value, with anybody i'm with long-term.

plus, considering that i'm pretty unconventional in a number of significant ways, i want to be with someone who knows they want me, not just someone who is "flexible" enough to learn to tolerate me. ffs...

eh, I intend to change a lot...and while it's good to want to be with one another, there are levels of wanting. There's room in the psyche to be enraged by someone and to still love them. Since growth/personal development/enlightenment is my main objective in life, I expect for things to come up over the course of that development which may put me in a phase of not being particularly palatable to others. I expect the same of pretty much everyone else, too...but in marriage, my commitment is to supporting my partner in her journey to enlightenment, so I intend to be 'flexible', and understanding, and compromising, and enduring, and patient, and supportive...and I intend to be totally understanding if she leaves me, lol (Best when both parties maintain this posture toward one another, so that each is free to leave, but loved so that it is worth staying).

[jigglypuff]

If you don't want to have kids and the other person does, there's no need for a 'dealbreaker', because there's no deal to break...you just go the path you go. There's no straw to break the camel's back, because nothing is kept under such tension. You can even consider how having kids might be possible and even fulfilling in spite of not being attracted to the idea in the least. You aren't a ship at the mercy of the sea...you're calm waters. You don't want kids, but having kids isn't going to devastate your life. And because of that, you can just walk your path...no need to spit in the face of the other path you well could have taken.

the bolded part is what i was saying... there's "no deal to break" when you have a dealbreaker. that's the entire point of knowing what they are. you simply don't get serious with things that are going to lead you off your chosen path. this isn't about "spitting in the face" of other people's life choices or an inability to adapt if shit were to hit the fan. it's about being deliberate about your own choices, having a vision for where your life will go and making that happen. when you have a vision for your life, some things won't be compatible with that vision. and i'm saying that it is good to have a vision. the true "dealbreakers" come from self-knowledge.

there's just... nothing wrong with knowing there are some things you don't wanna mess with.

there's nothing wrong with knowing what you want. there's nothing wrong with naming your "red flags."

i'm trying to say that in a way you'll understand and hopefully i made that simple enough.

[Robcore]

fair enough.
My reference to that Taoist parable is that you don't really need the vision in advance of the move. Presence > Planning, imo...but I get what you're saying.

[Sinny]

Well thank you all for that illuminating discussion.

Ultimately, this relationship is dying through miscommunication.. which I'm more than happy to blame on him.

He constantly misunderstands, misrepresents and miscommunicates conversations that we have had and conversations that he has completely fabricated.

He contacted me to say that "I had left him no choice, I had given him an ultimatum, he was never to see his kids again - he hasn't been stringing me along".

I'm like wtf. I have never given him any such ultimatum, or ever told him the he could not see his kids or play a part in their lives... I asked him why he's lying.

He said he's not lying. He said he's come up with various solutions all of which I turned down, from me living with them in Wales to them having split custody.

I said I had not shot all of these solutions down, we haven't even discussed them in depth.

He said we did discuss them and decided against all of them and we agreed to see each other casually.

I'm like wtf. I was not present for these conversations and we certainly didn't come to this agreement.

I ask how have I laid down any ultimatums? He was the one who suggested the kids could live with mom, and that we move in together in Birmingham, he also suggested he'd like his son to come with him. The was the last serious option that was laid on the table, and one which hadn't been shot down.

But the other day I question him about that and if he's spoken to his family, the kids or the ex about it and his response was "No, of course not, I haven't discussed this with anybody".

Which made me question his seriousness about it, which brings me to where we are now.. in a situation where he thinks I agreed to give up and have a casual relationship,. although how he come to that conclusion I've no idea.

He also said that he'd be the only person making sacrifices, and that I refused to marry him & have any future kids with him.

In actuality, this narrative of his is getting increasingly further from the truth.

The whole thing is so complicated because one of us has to relocate and I might want a kid or two future - which makes his package deal so much harder to practically accomodate.

But either way, he draws these conclusions without ever have consulted me or ever having shared his thought processes. It's not the first time he's reached pretty erroneous conclusions through refusing communicate.

If there's one thing I'd find more challenging than kids - it's a person who won't communicate, keeps secrets and acts subversively.

I can't be with somebody who isn't real with me...and this one's not even real with himself.