Eternal Sunshine Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Just curious about the definition. Over 6 months? Over a year, 2?
Star Gazer Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Over a year, closer to a 18+ months, in my opinion. I hope you're not using his relationship to prove something to yourself, like a check mark on a list.
HeavenOrHell Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I'd say 2+ years. Just curious about the definition. Over 6 months? Over a year, 2?
anne1707 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I agree with Star. This just sounds to me as if you want to prove you can have a LTR.
catchthedrift Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Could be less than that. I was with my ex for a total of 16 months and we moved in together after we dated for 3 months. I think after about half a year I considered us long-term. Once you are so committed you start to make life plans together, I really think you can consider it long-term. But everyone has a different perception of that, I believe.
Author Eternal Sunshine Posted July 19, 2011 Author Posted July 19, 2011 Not related to me - I was just wondering in general. This girl that works with me has been in a relationship with a guy for a year. They only see each other once a week and exchange few texts every 2nd day or so. And then there are people that move in after 3 months. I basically think that it should be the actual amount of time a couple spends interacting with each other, rather than the amount of time they are dating...
catchthedrift Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Not related to me - I was just wondering in general. This girl that works with me has been in a relationship with a guy for a year. They only see each other once a week and exchange few texts every 2nd day or so. And then there are people that move in after 3 months. I basically think that it should be the actual amount of time a couple spends interacting with each other, rather than the amount of time they are dating... I think that makes sense. And on top of that the will to invest into something that can have a future.
oaks Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Just curious about the definition. Over 6 months? Over a year, 2? Maybe a year? Or, when someone says to both of you "you look like a lovely couple, how long have you been together", if you start the answer with "only ..." then it's not an LTR yet. I think there are a few other things that make it an LTR, such as a level of integration into each other's lives and a level of future planning.
EasyHeart Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I don't think there's a set time period, but if forced to pick a number I would say two years of continuous, exclusive dating. That's for grownups. If you're still in school, I'd count anything that lasts a whole school year as a LTR.
zengirl Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I say 6 months. But it depends on the type of relationship. If it's the type where you're partners, you have keys to each others houses, you say ILY, you hang out all the time. . . yeah, about 6 months or more. There's really nothing that I've found significantly deeper in my relationships that were over a year than my relationships that were a bit under one. When you're younger, 6 months is nothing though, so it partially depends on age. At this point, I wouldn't stay in a relationship for more than a year with a man unless I planned to marry him and thought he felt the same (not saying we'd have to be engaged, but we'd have to have talked about it) but that's because I know who I am and what I want now. It makes the LTRs cycle a bit faster, IMO. My longest relationships were when I was younger and they were nowhere near as deep or LTRish as my recent relationships, most of which were a little under a year.
Janesays Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I would not "date" someone longer than a year. My thoughts are that is plenty of time to determine whether or not you want to progress further. After a year, a man either loves me or he doesn't. He can live without me or he can't. A decision needs to be made one way or another because life is too short to waste time on someone who plans to sit on the fence for 6 years+. So, a year.
oldguy Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 (edited) That would depend on how old one is I would think. Around 20 yo I would think a year sounds like an awfully long time. however at 40 yo anything less than 10 years isn't so long at all. And then I guess it would depend on who your with and how well or how poorly it was going. The last year or so of my more than 20 year failed marriage seemed like the bulk of those years Edited July 19, 2011 by oldguy
Janesays Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 That would depend on how old one is I would think. Around 20 yo I would think a year sounds like an awfully long time. however at 40 yo anything less than 10 years isn't so long at all. Maybe you're right. I'm 32 years old with no children, so a year sounds like an eternity to me. :cool:
oldguy Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Maybe you're right. I'm 32 years old with no children, so a year sounds like an eternity to me. :cool: Do you want children then?
carhill Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Since my focus prior was getting married and that was no secret, six months was LTR zone for myself. My exW and I were engaged after eleven months. My intimacy style gets a lot under the bridge by six months. I'm definitely not a casual dater.
tigressA Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 My current R is barely 6 months. I consider it long-term. I moved in with him after 2 months, we spend the bulk of our time together, and we both very much intend to be together 'til death, whether we get married or not.
oldguy Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 The good news is; most men tend to mature exponentially in their 30's It's that whole; sewing wild oats thing
Art_Critic Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 For some people it is 48 hrs and others it is 10 years. Everybody has their own definition.. Mine is 2 years...
Jessica45 Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I think intent has more to do with it than actual time. If you both are committed and gut sure of each other, then it's a long term relationship - regardless of the amount of time spent. But I think 6 months indicates a LTR in most cases.
cerridwen Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Once a relationship has passed the 2 year mark, I consider it a LTR.
Star Gazer Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 My current R is barely 6 months. I consider it long-term. I moved in with him after 2 months, we spend the bulk of our time together, and we both very much intend to be together 'til death, whether we get married or not. You consider it long term NOW, because you're in it. If it were to end tomorrow, a year or two or five from now you wouldn't say it was a LTR.
Star Gazer Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 Not related to me - I was just wondering in general. This girl that works with me has been in a relationship with a guy for a year. They only see each other once a week and exchange few texts every 2nd day or so. And then there are people that move in after 3 months. I basically think that it should be the actual amount of time a couple spends interacting with each other, rather than the amount of time they are dating... That doesn't make sense to me at all. A couple who sees each other 3 times a week on average for a year, and experiences all the ups and downs of that year, if different than a couple who see each other every single day for 5 months, without any breathing room and without having experienced all the seasons and evolution and growth a couple makes over a longer period of time. The latter was like my relationship with Skiman, and while our relationship was definitely "serious" at 5 months, if it had ended at that point, it would not have been considered long-term. 5 months is a drop in the bucket.
Mme. Chaucer Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 More independent types of people are able to have "LTR's" without extreme constant contact. For example, I don't consider the frequency of texting or phone calls to be a factor. Personally, when I am having my "alone time," of which I need a LOT, I do not want to be texted or called much at all. It depends upon personal style and preference. My relationship was "long term" pretty much after a month, and before that I was certain it would be. We're into our 3rd year and I expect to be together for the duration, but one cannot really know. We are not married.
Confusedalways Posted July 19, 2011 Posted July 19, 2011 I would agree with the previous poster if you preface with "only," it definitely isn't. Objectively speaking at 23, I see anything over about a year and a half a LTR. However, in my current relationship which is still under a year, I consider that a LTR anyway
Recommended Posts