And this is why I love you. I would argue, that there would seem to be several meanings of dependance in play in this thread causing an impossibility of consensus of the thing we are discussing, let alone what we are trying to express about that thing. Can we please, as adults, recognize this fact? Please. For many, the word dependance carries a strong connotation of negative control. Think of the other terms we construct out of that word that make of it a euphemism for addiction: alcohol dependance, pain killer dependance, codependency, etc.
It is unfortunately how this particular situation unfolded. Normally I just turn the other cheek and walk away.
In relation to marriage, we are speaking about dependence, not dependance, which does carry an unhealthy connotation. I never once thought in a discussion about marriage, we would be talking about 'being abnormally tolerant to and dependent on something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming'. Rather, when we discuss marriage, we are talking about 'relying on someone', which is what two people should do when in a healthy marriage. We have all been taught today, in regards to marriage, 'love is all you need' and we often focus on maintaining this love. But we also must learn that we must feed, water and nurture our marriage by both people meeting the emotional needs of the union.
Tons of relationships and marriages are full of negative dependence. There are lots of people who cannot function without being emotionally coddled by their significant other. How could it not cross your mind, especially all the multiples of times that I've said that you can depend on someone without being dependent? Dependence: the state of relying on or being controlled by someone or something else. Dependance: Variant of dependence. The overall issue is NOT her usage of words. The issue is your response to it. How is it okay, at all, to imply that anyone on the forums (let alone a 13 year old) is a gold-digger and is looking for a sugar daddy? You seem to be ignoring that's whats upset most people here. You could have interpreted her words differently than everyone else, and still could have responded differently.
I implied no such thing. As per a moderator, I commented on her description and not her as a person, else I would have been infracted and my post edited. I don't believe anyone here to be a gold-digger, nor did I insinuate or state that. You have the right to be offended, but I stand by my comment regardless. 'Sugar-daddy' has various meanings and not all are sexual, and not all are unhealthy. In fact, as a relationship, having and finding a sugar daddy is becoming more and more popular among women in our society. The fact that you choose to interpret my comments as an insult, is your right, but it doesn't change anything on my end.
You said: So first you say that you don't see it be satisfying marriage (having a sugar daddy) and now you're saying that it can be healthy? Which is it? And a woman in a relationship, for a sugar daddy, is known as a gold digger. Definition: "a person who dates others purely to extract money from them, in particular a woman who strives to marry a wealthy man." And as thirdwind pointed out, the definition of a sugar daddy includes getting sexual favors in exchange for monetary items (jewels, cars, money, etc). Whether you meant it as an insult or not, it is insulting. It's a demeaning term, and you know enough about our society and our language to KNOW that. You are not ignorant of the connotations of this word. And if you ARE, then perhaps you should know the words you use before you use them... much like you've suggested elsewhere here.
I'll do a time jump and just skip the last few pages of the thread. I'm not entirely sure. One thing I am sure of, however, is that either you have to be completely independent, "your own person," as you put it, or you both have to be equally, maniacally devoted to one another. One being crazy devoted and the other not is when you'll get big problems quick. Of course, some might see intense devotion as co-dependence and co-dependence as a bad thing, but even that can work for some. Has worked for KaTrian and me for the past... well, almost 6 years and things are only getting better. I think more important than independence is equality, mutual respect and appreciation.
I said I don't see the marriage being satisfying. However, I also said not all of these relationships are unhealthy. These are not mutually exclusive statements. Does it matter though? Why would you let facts and common sense get in the way of your witch hunt? What you have is a bad case of confirmation bias. You favor any facts that support your belief, while ignoring any other factors, hence a witch hunt. See? Bias. Can it not also include friendship? Companionship? Does it not also include marriage, girlfriend, mistress? According to the dictionary, yes it can. I didn't clarify in my original statement. But again, the truth doesn't matter to you. This is nothing but your own personal opinion, and I respect that, but you are in no position of moral authority. I know enough about people to see when people allow their bias to trump reason and objectivity. Once again, I did not comment on her personally, only said her description 'sounded like' a sugar-daddy relationship. I have spoken to the mods and they agree that it was not a personal attack. It makes me feel good to know that there is objectivity still lingering around when it counts.
Whoa. I leave for less than a day, and this happens? To be fair I'd hate to be financially dependent either, I'm just saying it's more likely.
See? We need you to be here all the time. Duchess, I hope you saw that I meant no offense by my comment that apparently started a riot. *yikes* I'm glad you came back and clarified yourself, thank you.
You included the mods? For what? Never once have I said that you personally attacked her. I have said, and continue to say, that what you said was offensive. You have concluded that this is 'my right', but you have yet to even acknowledge the fact that this is an offensive term. It's not in any form a 'witch hunt', but the fact that you needed to label yourself a victim is ridiculous. There is no 'bias'. I have never denied that being a sugar daddy can include companionship, but my point has been (and always will be) that there is also a sexual stigma and expectation attached to it, and to suggest that someone is looking for that is offensive. To say otherwise is to deny the complete definition of a sugar daddy. Would you feel perfectly comfortable telling the pastor of a church that he was a sugar daddy? Anyways, I'm glad Duchess came back and your issue with her post is now settled. As far as our disagreement goes, I'm going to have to walk away from the topic at hand because I find your denial and victimization a bit too over the top to deal.
If he said what Duchess said, then yes, because that is the definition. If he was supporting a woman financially, with no emotional strings attached, then he is a sugar daddy whether it is spoken or not. That's a great idea.
I dunno, sometimes it's difficult for me to keep track of everyone's personalities. You are especially difficult because of your lack of an avatar and your username being just numbers.
@JJ_Maxx - I have to say, this is a very odd brand of Christianity you're touting. Anyone outside of the marital unit is "the enemy"? Having friends of the opposite sex is "a gamble"? Showing a little compassion and refraining from being judgmental of a thirteen-year-old is "coddling"? I think you need to take a deep breath, go back and re-read some of the New Testament and rethink where you are, fella. The Christ I believe in said (in no particular order), "the last shall be first and the first shall be last"; "for when you did this for the least of them, you did it for me"; "there are just two commandments: to love God...and to love your neighbor as yourself"; "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven". I could go on, but I think you get my drift. The last time I checked, the central message of Christianity was not "every man for himself" and it was not "make one wrong move and your ****ed". If your outlook is so negative, I feel sorry for you. But please stop trying to pass it off as Christianity. The New Testament was not written by Ayn Rand.
Okay, here we go. I'll take 'Misquotes and Mischaracterizations' for $800, Alex. Let's do this. The 'enemy' I mentioned is referring to Satan, not individuals outside the marriage. "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. - 1 Peter 5:7-9 One down! Is it not a higher probability that infidelity will occur if you emotionally cling to a member of the opposite sex? The Lord's Prayer says, lead us not into temptation, does it not? If you lie naked next to a naked woman that is not your wife, is that not a gamble? (Yes, it is an extreme example, but proves my point.) Either way, I don't see how being overly-cautious is an 'odd brand' of Christianity. You mean I'm being too cautious with my marriage and that is somehow non-Christian? Mark 9:43 says, 'If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.' Sounds to me like the Bible teaches us it's better to be safe than sorry. Okay, next! Judgemntal? I didn't judge anyone. I gave my opinion but never told her what to do. That is her right and I've said that multiple times. I have addressed this too many times to go over it, but you are incorrect in your assumption that I was judgmental or lacking compassion. First of all, I'm not a 'fella', so I would appreciate you not call me one, secondly, just because you follow an ultra-liberal version of Christianity, doesn't give you the right to judge me. Whew, got through them all. Good thing I brought my boots.
@JJ_Maxx - if you genuinely see "Satan" in every person outside the marital unit, that is truly sad. But, you clearly do. Pity. Who says that a friendship has to result in "emotional clinging"? I see this as more a matter of your personal emotional immaturity than anything else. Your quote from Mark was a general warning to avoid temptation, and that's fine. You then distort that with your assumption that this MUST mean locking out friendships with ALL members of the opposite sex as a prerequisite for a Christian marriage. I find nothing else in doctrine to support that particular conclusion. A mature person should know that there is a line one does not and cannot cross if one is to remain true to one's spouse. As I said earlier, each couple determines these things for themselves. But to claim it is a general rule among Christian marriages? Sorry, that just ain't so. Well, if accusing someone of "wanting a sugar daddy" isn't being judgmental, then it's a very good imitation. I've read your responses. I'm not convinced. I don't think anyone else is, either. The bottom line is that you treated a 13-year-old kid like someone you might argue with in a bar. And that's disgraceful. And finally, quoting Our Saviour is ultra-liberal? Now, that's funny. But, you know, maybe the One who threw the money-changers out of the temple and told an angry mob, "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" really was a "liberal". Gee, I never thought of it that way before.
If you're swingers playing the slots in the Bunny Ranch maybe... You should come to Carson, it's full of gambling cat-houses, and they're very couple-friendly! (not that I have personal experience of course)
Aww, shucks... Anyway, from the Cambridge Dictionary: a dependant: someone who depends on you for financial support, such as a child or family member who does not work: ”My pension will provide for my dependants.” dependent needing the support of something or someone in order to continue existing or operating: “He has three dependent children.” “It's very easy to become dependent on sleeping pills.” Just so everybody knows what I mean by the terms I use. I agree about the connotation of negative control. Dependency is like info-dumps, you just can’t have the good kind. That said, I think it was @ChickenFreak who mentioned earlier that couples can be financially dependent on each other in a way that they can only maintain their lifestyle with both of their incomes, and that’s pretty common. To pretend there’s full independence and zero dependency in marriage sounds deluded to me (and I’m not pointing fingers here, just sayin’!). Sometimes it’s financial, sometimes emotional, but especially with the latter, it’s the kind of drug that works for me. Not a recreational drug either, more like something that keeps me alive. The person who wrote the article mentioned in the OP reminds me of another article that was published in the latest issue of our University magazine, titled “Pairless” (direct translation). It was written by a 27yo single woman who claimed she is just not the type to ever have long-term relationships and she’s never had one, and if she was ever to enter one, she’d want to have full independence. If those are her terms, she’ll probably be a single for the rest of her life – or has to learn to compromise. Furthermore, she said she’s happy she’s single because in a relationship, she could never experience all kinds of weird stuff and gain funny experiences. She also seemed to be of the opinion people in relationships can’t make their own decisions or survive daily life if they were suddenly deprived of the company of their partner, say, due to long distances. The existence of articles and lists like the one Duchess linked reflects a degree of fear of losing freedom (to me anyway), as if by losing it or some of it, there’s nothing one can gain in return. For some reason, the image of marriage or a long-term relationship being some kind of a cage of unhappiness and oppression still persists, and the only way it could be acceptable to be in one is to be able to have your own way in every turn. Two things come to mind when looking at attitudes like this: 1) the Me-me-me generation 2) loss of communality. It’s almost like the modern man/woman has in the end no one else to rely on except his/herself, as if we were supposed to be lone wolves now, only connected by shallow networks while huge chunks of us remain guarded, that belong to no one else but us, for sharing them means… what? Makes one look weak and despicable to others? Exposes one to bumps and bruises? Makes one vulnerable to web-dwelling list-writers? And no, I’m not implying the key to true happiness is romantic companionship.
It doesn't. I have a huge amount of friends on my FB who're Christians, considering I grew up in church and now still attend church, so plenty of good friends in churches. Nobody I know has a joint FB account. Funnily enough, neither I nor any of my friends do any of the things listed in the article... and I have quite a few married friends (I'm married too). I do have one engaged friend who likes to post stuff like "Isn't he gorgeous?" but it's not the only thing she posts, so it's cool, it's kinda cute. The one that annoys me isn't even romance related - it's my other friend who loves to post stuff on "very sensitive people" and tell mini stories about how a stranger called her beautiful and breath-taking and checked her out. She's a sweet girl who is indeed very beautiful, but seriously, does EVERY status she ever posts have to be about how much she loves herself? Or stupid blunders like spilling coffee followed with "hahaha"... ugh. If there was one romance-related update that can get tedious, it's baby pictures. Of course I'm a bit of a sucker for cute babies, so I often check them out and find them quite interesting. But sometimes I am surprised at the sheer number of them! It seems every mother does it though - every single new parent on my FB has committed this crime, my sister included (though I loved my nephew's pics and wished for more, cus he's my nephew lol). I am certain I will do exactly the same thing when I have a kid But back to the list... seriously now, I really do have a lot of married friends. Nobody I know does ANY of that!?
