Actually, you two remind me of Susan and Spenser in the Robert B. Parker novels -- neither married nor living together, but perfectly content. Although I've been married for years, I find that very charming. I wonder if some of the rules or assumptions that govern your relationship with your beau could be adapted by young married couples. I'm probably presuming too much, but I get the feeling that you deeply respect each other's privacy, and that neither of you insist on being together if one or the other doesn't feel much like it. Does that make any sense?

Why does this concern ole' SpideyMBA so much? Is his "real man" references a subtle way of proposing to Amy?

It's sad when someone attaches non-existent attributes to marriage to make it feel justified, and feel smugly superior to those who aren't.

Shouldn't it matter more that people find a way to be content and happy in a way that truly does so, rather than doing what everyone else tells them they're SUPPOSED to do?

Two of my best friends have been together for about seven years. She was widowed nine years ago and his wife left him ten years ago. They are one of the happiest couples I know. They take many vacations together. (They average about five cruises a year). They don't see each other every single night. They both have a large four bedroom house and they live about three blocks apart and all their kids are gone. Even so, they still have a hard time with the idea of moving in together. I think I understand this. Being almost 50 myself, I think you start to get independant to a point where you have a hard time with people coming into your life and making any changes at all. You are much more open to this in your twenties. I know many many married couples who have no where near as much of a close and happy relationship than Tom and Pennie. If it's working, why mess with it?

In short, we have such a great time together. When people talk about "working on their relationship," it's just foreign to me. We're just nice to each other. We never act like we forgot that we love each other.

We went to a screening the other night -- something Gregg had to do -- and a Hollywood guy, a guy he introduced me to who didn't exactly impress me with his good manners, called him afterward and asked what "his wife or girlfriend" thought of the movie.

Gregg, telling me about this, joked that I'm "the best 'wife or girlfriend' he's ever had." And that's how I feel, too. Always a lot of laughs. And he's always got my back, and vice versa (although he likes to put that that he's "always got (my) butt.")

And because we're apart, we value the time we have together more, don't get sick of each other, and it's easy never to snap at each other.

Also, I don't nag him. This is not an effective tactic with men, and I know what's important, and I'm able to just accept some things...the minor things that people ruin relationships over (the person doesn't do this or that). Oh, and PS I'm annoying (ADHD, forgetful, etc.) and he's very good natured about my foibles, and tries to help me wherever he can.

And I've never said a mean word to him. He doesn't deserve it, number one, and you get the relationship you create. How hard is that to figure out? Each nastiness you toss at a person takes a little chip out of them and out of the relationship.

So...in our relationship...with all the bad not part of the equation, we just have a great time together. That's pretty much it.

...you get the relationship you create.

Exactly! Apparently, it's hard for a lot of people to figure that out. Personally, I think it's because too many people are looking for someone else to "make it all better" for them. These people don't realize that if you're not happy with yourself, there's NO ONE out there who's going to "make" you happy. Only you can do that. And badgering someone about "making" you happy is only going to make things worse for your "relationship."

Jamie says, "Why does this concern ole' SpideyMBA so much? . . . .

"It's sad when someone attaches non-existent attributes to marriage to make it feel justified, and feel smugly superior to those who aren't."

I've wondered about this kind of question a lot, starting with the puzzle of why we exert pressure toward language conformity. Why do people care whether you say "who" or "whom" in a particular phrase, for example? Why do they feel so smug about knowing the difference? Then I saw that as simply one manifestation of pressure toward conformity in all kinds of behavior.

From an evolutionary perspective, this pattern is pretty much guaranteed in social species: everybody has to play by the same rules for the group to function. Vervet monkeys have different warning calls for hawks and snakes. If one sees a hawk and hollers "Snake!" the others will take the wrong evasive action. Human beings depend more heavily on cultural practices for out survival than other species, so we have developed much more elaborate sets of rules. Some of them regulate actual morals, such as restrictions against theft and assault, and others are purely symbolic, such as table manners and standard grammar.

Trouble is, we have inherited impulse to enforce them all with the same zeal. We seem to lack an inborn discriminator between what really matters (behaviors that affect others) and what doesn't (behaviors that affect only the behavers).

I think spidermba is jelous of greg, hence the hostility towards him.

I disagree with the not living together for purely practical reasons. One being that which you point out about soup and being sick. Also if your both working (this is a MUST for me) you can swing better housing, and a maid which eliminates many of the marital fights. The reverse is always you can get sick of each other which is much less likely to happen if you live apart.

Vlad, my boyfriend has been here almost every night for the past two weeks, helping me deal with some bad back problems I've been having. At one point last week, he had to help me in and out of bed, and he was the one who took (practically carried) me to the clinic for x-rays and drugs.

He has a house of his own to take care of and had to let it slide during the time he was helping me. So yeah, I guess things would be easier with just one house to maintain, in those rare instances where one of us is disabled for some reason.

Neither of us wants that, though. He likes his house, I like mine, and neither house really has the closet space for two people, one dog, five bicycles, and storage space. Plus, we each enjoy having those evenings to ourselves where we can do our own "nesting." Seeing each other is a special treat, not something we have to endure even when we don't feel like it. Boobs like this SpiderMBA would probably look down on it, but who cares what some dimwit on the Internet thinks?

Jamie says: "Why does this concern ole' SpideyMBA so much? . . . .

"It's sad when someone attaches non-existent attributes to marriage to make it feel justified, and feel smugly superior to those who aren't."

This sounds like something for evolutionary psychologists to study. Since people in all cultures try to enforce conformity (though the rules people are supposed to conform to differ widely), we must have inherited the tendency in our genes. It makes sense that a social species would do this--smooths our interactions if everybody plays by the same rules. Trouble is, human beings seem not to be genetically endowed with a discriminator to remind us of the difference between moral rules (don't steal; don't assault,) and rules of decorum (don't say "whom" where the rules demand "who"; don't copulate without submitting to the marriage ritual). As a result, members of the tribe may register the same degree of disapproval--and sometimes even exact the same kinds of penalties--for both kinds of transgressions. We can't rationally see the difference, because emotionally they feel equivalent.

Exactly, Pirate Jo.

And Axman, it makes people nervous when others don't behave as most in the group do, because it calls into question what's understood as "correct" behavior.

Oops, my bad. Sorry for a second post of the same idea.

My browser froze up on me, and I had to force quit. I didn't think the post had gone through, so after lunch I rebooted and wrote a second version, without checking to see whether the first was in place or not.

(Scuffs ground with toe, hangs head in shame.)

(Scuffs ground with toe, hangs head in shame.)

Silly Axman, did you see how many posts Bikerken and I have on a couple of other threads? It's not you, so not to worry! o_O

While I appreciate the idea of having your own space, we found that living on opposite ends of the city and family commitments (my kid, his bull mastiff) meant military style logistical planning to get together.

We agreed to compromise by finding a totally new place of similar value that we both liked and moved in together.

I guess intellectually I understand the reasoning (that I've read here before) that some people might be tempted to stick in a bad relationship because of not wanting to give up good housing, but I don't see that as a risk for the "regulars" here. Wanting your own space is one thing...suggesting you'd be too weak willed to leave just because of a cushy house doesn't fly.

Thanks for pointing that out Flynne, Love ya babe!

I guess I'm not much of a man either. I've got quite a ways to go first with a five month old at home, but I am soo looking forward to my cabin in the mountains for me to be most of the time and a house in town momma to be most of the time.

And we're not getting fucking married, though a civil union is likely.

There is something special about living alone that keeps you sane. See Miss Smilla's Feeling For Snow by Peter Hoeg for more.

thanks for the link Amy, that spidey is one amusing and busy clown. Amazing that he is so accomplished with the amount of blogging, commenting, judging, & butting into other people's choices he engages in.