Most Couples Today

[OldSoulBiz]

As an old fashioned guy (I’m not that old by age), I don’t understand why couples these days want their partners to be friends first. I.E. someone whom they enjoy being around with, or always want to hang out with, or to have fun with, etc. Basically they want their partners to be someone who keeps them entertained. But then things like being a responsible, stable, dependable person/parent etc. come second.

 

Now, I’m not saying that couples shouldn’t have some fun with their significant other, but to base the whole relationship on whether or not you’re having fun with your partner, does not make the relationship any stronger. You can look at the old times for proof.

In this very country (USA), not 100 years ago, people got married within months or even weeks of knowing each other. Today, people MIGHT get married years after knowing one another, and even then, divorce rates are at an all time high.

 

If finding a friend in your partner is a priority, then what are other friends for? If the partner being a friend is the most important thing, then why do a lot of longer term relationships crumble after all of a sudden there are responsibilities to be had when now they share more together because they either moved in together or are a family (i.e. marriage)?

 

Thanks.

[LookAtThisPOst]

As an old fashioned guy (I’m not that old by age), I don’t understand why couples these days want their partners to be friends first. I.E. someone whom they enjoy being around with, or always want to hang out with, or to have fun with, etc. Basically they want their partners to be someone who keeps them entertained. But then things like being a responsible, stable, dependable person/parent etc. come second.

 

I see your point. I attempted doing the "friends first" routine only to wind up being "friend zoned" one too many times. Now with any new interest I encounter, I'm going to make my intentions of dating interest known. Would save me (and other men) a whole lot of grief.

 

Back in the day, women were highly enthusiastic about meeting men be it at the USO or out on the town. Everyone dressed nice, too. When you asked a woman out, they didn't flake out on a date.

 

Now, people are scared to death to put labels on certain relationship situations.

[smackie9]

Divorces are at an all time high because finally women can make the decision to leave leave a s hitty marriage, when a little over a 100 years ago women were under educated, were not allowed to vote, were second class citizens, had no right to marital assets, were treated like chattel and were discouraged from getting an education or have a career.

 

Life to a women was to be married....that's it. or you were scorned as a spinster.

[smackie9]

I see your point. I attempted doing the "friends first" routine only to wind up being "friend zoned" one too many times. Now with any new interest I encounter, I'm going to make my intentions of dating interest known. Would save me (and other men) a whole lot of grief.

 

Back in the day, women were highly enthusiastic about meeting men be it at the USO or out on the town. Everyone dressed nice, too. When you asked a woman out, they didn't flake out on a date.

 

Now, people are scared to death to put labels on certain relationship situations.

have you ever lived during that time? no? Then you don't know anything. my parents did, and dating was just as challenging back then. yes the "friends zone" was around back then too....they just said "ah shucks, I got rejected."

[smackie9]

BTW women said yes to dates because it was war time, there was no TV, you had to ration everything....they used whomever that would them out. Women either didn't work or made very little money so a soldier coming to town with a pocket full of money was very inciting.

[Nilfiry]

The whole "lets be friends first" is indeed nonsense, especially if its intended goal is merely to have fun together. However, there is a difference between being friends first and dating your friends, so by extension, there may be some benefits to it.

 

Knowing someone as a friend first allows you to get to understand them better without the pressure and influence of romance. People act different when they know there is love involved, and it often creates illusions and false impressions. Being a friend first lets you know how people are when they let their guard down, so you can trust them easier and know where to set your expectations. It provides a solid foundation for people to take things further because they already informed and get along well.

 

Only, it tend to work less when being "friends" is just a pretense to date. It is laughable. I have to agree, but not always prone to fail.

 

You lover should also be your best friend, is what I always say because segregating between friends and significant other is the same as driving a wedge into your relationship. It will likely make your SO think that they are not dependable or that you are keeping things from them, that they are not your first priority for new ideas or problems, and that you do not trust them. Essentially, it would be business only.

 

Nevertheless, being friends and/or in love is no guarantee that a relationship would succeed regardless of how it started. What matters in making a relationship work is learning to yield a step and work together for the sake of the relationship, and as such, you can have a perfectly nice relationship even without love or friendship. Unfortunately, not all relationships work because people try too hard to be themselves and hang on too stubbornly to their selfishness.

[smackie9]

I agree about being friends first it's not my style, but there are a lot of women that choose to not commit to dating someone they don't know that well. It's just a choice.

 

IMO if they want to be friends first, they are not that attracted to you so why waste your time.

[basil67]

As an old fashioned guy (I’m not that old by age), I don’t understand why couples these days want their partners to be friends first. I.E. someone whom they enjoy being around with, or always want to hang out with, or to have fun with, etc. Basically they want their partners to be someone who keeps them entertained. But then things like being a responsible, stable, dependable person/parent etc. come second.

 

I don't want my partner to be 'friends first'. But his friendship is definately of equal importance to things such as responsible, stable etc. And what's this bit about keeping a partner entertained? Our partners are not performing monkeys! A friendship within marriage is like any other friendship - we simply enjoy each other's company.

 

If I didn't enjoy his company and have fun with him, then it would be just as much a dealbreaker as lack of respect.

 

Now, I’m not saying that couples shouldn’t have some fun with their significant other, but to base the whole relationship on whether or not you’re having fun with your partner, does not make the relationship any stronger. You can look at the old times for proof.

In this very country (USA), not 100 years ago, people got married within months or even weeks of knowing each other. Today, people MIGHT get married years after knowing one another, and even then, divorce rates are at an all time high.

 

The fact that divorce rates are higher now is not because of friendship. It's because of lack of stigma to divorce. It's because of 'no fault divorce'. It's because women can now support themselves. It's because of government support to single parents. Back on those 'good old days', there were many unhappy marriages where couples were stuck together because divorce wasn't the done thing.

 

If finding a friend in your partner is a priority, then what are other friends for? If the partner being a friend is the most important thing, then why do a lot of longer term relationships crumble after all of a sudden there are responsibilities to be had when now they share more together because they either moved in together or are a family (i.e. marriage)?

 

Thanks.

 

Why do you need other friends? Hehe I've been trying to teach this to my autistic son recently!! It's normal for people to have more than one friend. Most people do have more than one dear friend.

 

My inner circle consists of my husband and two girlfriends. They are not remotely similar in any way, shape or form and so each friendship is very different and each precious in it's own way.

 

As for your last question about marriages failing - I can only reiterate that for most, friendship is not the most important thing - but of equal priority with other aspects of the relationship

[MightyQuinn]

AYou can look at the old times for proof.

In this very country (USA), not 100 years ago, people got married within months or even weeks of knowing each other. Today, people MIGHT get married years after knowing one another, and even then, divorce rates are at an all time high.

 

Thanks.

 

As smackie9 said, there are historical reasons for quick marriages and few (if any) divorces 100 years ago. Women had very few rights, the only reason why it became acceptable for women to even work was because of WWII, and they were merely tolerated in the workplace once the war ended. Even then, women were expected to stop working and start childbearing as soon as they got married. If a couple were divorced, 90% of the time children were awarded to the father because women were barely able (allowed) to take care of themselves financially, let alone support a child. Unmarried couples cohabitating was borderline illegal, and even if it was legal, most landlords wouldn't allow it.

 

Now a lot has changed, and more younger people don't even see the value of marriage, because we can basically have all the benefits of a couple, without having to be married. Add on top of that the tax penalty for marriage, the fact that cohabitation is socially acceptable, more people are forgoing kids alltogether, and marriage starts seeming outdated.

 

I think people want to be friends first because many are children of divorce and don't want to make the same mistakes their parents did. I can't speak to the idea that people don't want responsibility in a partner, because after my experience with my ex, that's actually extremely high on my priorities list.

[Robratory]

What do you mean by "friends first?" If you mean it in the context of real-life relationships, it just refers to a relationship of equals. Until fairly recently, human coupling involved rigid roles that tended to favor male supremacy.

 

You still see this, especially in immigrant families from non-Anglo, non-European cultures. I happened to notice an obviously Latin American family cross the street the other day. The man strode a good eight or ten feet ahead while the woman lagged behind, herding two little kids. The man and the woman were in a relationship but were clearly not friends but more like master and servant, or captain and corporal. In a "friends first" relationship, the man and the woman would have each carried a child and walked together.

 

But if you mean it in the context of online dating, "friends first" indeed is a ridiculous thing that people put in their ads. It's ridiculous because the prime directive of online dating should be "meet first." Until you meet someone, no amount of "getting to know each other" is going to make up for a lack of chemistry. Worse, the emotional investment in getting to know people adds to the disappointment when it's clear the investment was futile.

[GunslingerRoland]

Divorce rates are not at an all time high. They have been falling for decades. Many years ago couples married fast, they had a bunch of babies and they generally didn't like each other that much. Abuse was the norm and couples didn't really need to act as partners in life as the men worked and the women did everything else.

 

 

People stayed together because divorce wasn't an option. Then suddenly it was and everyone got divorced because marriages sucked. People had to adjust, and people started putting more thought into marriage and divorce rates have dropped significantly since. A lot of people get divorced, but it's not nearly as common as it was 30 years ago.

 

 

Also I'm not sure of your presumption that people tend to be friends first. While I know a few couples that were friends before dating, it's about as rare as it's always been.

 

 

Do some people focus too much on fun rather than practical decisions... sure, we are all often drawn by our pleasure centers which focus on fun activities. But that is why so many relationships only last a couple of months, when people start to focus in on more important things.

 

 

It's all a matter of perspective from what we see every day. But when I was a kid, every one of my friends parents were divorced (or never married at all). It was rare the few people I knew who actually lived in a so called nuclear family. But now as someone in my late 30's most of my friends are in couples, married mostly with kids. Most have been married over 10 years, and I hardly know any of my peers who have divorced.

[HereNorThere]

I will have to respectfully disagree. I think in today's world we aren't friends enough before we start dating and end up marrying someone based on a checklist instead of real personality traits that we can stand to be around for the long-term.

 

Throughout modern history we have never had this many choices. With world wide instant communication and jet travel our dating pool went from hundreds to millions or even billions. Study and after study shows that when humans are presented with limitless options, we tend not to pick anything at all or end up very uncertain and confused. We get super selective and instead of choosing someone we get along with, we start making laundry lists of prerequisites and lose sight of the bigger picture as it pertains to long-term compatibility. Scientists call this phenomenon "the paradox of choice."

 

With one in five divorces sighting Facebook, it's hard to think our almost limitless options doesn't somehow effect our judgement. Why worry about the long-term when you can just log in and one of your "friends" will date you?

 

Facebook blamed for 1 in 5 divorces in the US | ZDNet

 

Dating and the challenge of too many choices ? The Chart - CNN.com Blogs

[MissBee]

Being friends isn't incompatible with also expecting other things out of a relationship. Marriages crumble because of all sorts of things and trust me, I think being friends is least of these. Couples who are actually friends probably have stronger relationships.

 

Being friends isn't just about "fun and entertainment." I don't know about you but a friend is someone I can be myself with, someone I can talk to, someone who provides support, advice, a shoulder to lean on, yes they also can be someone I laugh, chat, shoot the breeze with and have fun with, but those other things are deeper qualities that are important in true friends. I can't see how on earth one would have a good romantic relationship without those other friendship qualities I mentioned like being comfortable with the person, being able to talk to them about anything, someone who supports you and someone who you genuinely like as a person. I think that's what people mean by friends. Not simply someone to play games with.

 

I can't be with a man who isn't also my friend. When I'm married, my husband should be one of my closest friends and confidantes, how else can a partnership work? My other friends may serve other functions but at the end of the day, if I am laying my head beside you at night and combining DNA, we sure as hell need to also be partners and friends.

[Redhead14]

As an old fashioned guy (I’m not that old by age), I don’t understand why couples these days want their partners to be friends first. I.E. someone whom they enjoy being around with, or always want to hang out with, or to have fun with, etc. Basically they want their partners to be someone who keeps them entertained. But then things like being a responsible, stable, dependable person/parent etc. come second.

 

Now, I’m not saying that couples shouldn’t have some fun with their significant other, but to base the whole relationship on whether or not you’re having fun with your partner, does not make the relationship any stronger. You can look at the old times for proof.

In this very country (USA), not 100 years ago, people got married within months or even weeks of knowing each other. Today, people MIGHT get married years after knowing one another, and even then, divorce rates are at an all time high.

 

If finding a friend in your partner is a priority, then what are other friends for? If the partner being a friend is the most important thing, then why do a lot of longer term relationships crumble after all of a sudden there are responsibilities to be had when now they share more together because they either moved in together or are a family (i.e. marriage)?

 

Thanks.

 

No matter what it's called, the period of getting to know each other, is the period of getting to know each other -- call it friendship, call it dating. And, in the beginning, it should be fun and light for a while. You want to establish a good rapport and evaluate compatibility in terms of lifestyle, goals, etc. before you start co-mingling and dealing with bigger issues. If the early relationship is bogged down by issues and drama of "everyday" living, it can't get legs, the couple can't focus on the person. If they are able to do that, they will have a better idea of how their lives would mesh. You want to be able to have good, clear, open, easy communication in the beginning which allows the parties to evaluate potential.

 

That being said, yeah, 100 years ago and before and after couples got/get married within weeks/a couple of months of knowing each other. But there are no accurate statistics regarding how happy those people were in those marriages over time, what went on behind the scenes. Just because they stuck it out and never divorced, doesn't mean they were happy or that they should have stayed together. The pressure on women, specifically, to stay with men who abused them or were poor providers, etc. was pretty intense.

 

then why do a lot of longer term relationships crumble after all of a sudden there are responsibilities to be had -- that's hard to answer also. Because, sometimes one or both parties are asleep at the wheel, not looking at the big picture, blinded by hormones/endorphins, are emotionally/intellectually immature, or just plain never spent time getting to really know the person they were with and making good decisions about who would make a good partner for them.

[OldSoulBiz]

I tried editing my initial post, but apparently you can't. So here's my elaboration on the matter:

 

What I meant by "friends first," is that couples seem to want their partners to have "friend traits" rather than other, more important traits. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

 

I mean, it feels to me that people get into a relationship just for the sake of being in one. As in: "Hey, this guy/girl is nice, funny, and fun to be around with. I wanna be in a relationship with them!" Shouldn't people assess others on things beyond that?

[OldSoulBiz]

No matter what it's called, the period of getting to know each other, is the period of getting to know each other -- call it friendship, call it dating. And, in the beginning, it should be fun and light for a while. You want to establish a good rapport and evaluate compatibility in terms of lifestyle, goals, etc. before you start co-mingling and dealing with bigger issues.

 

This person gets it. My issue is with people who go into a relationship with someone and say they are "together" before dealing with the bigger issues.

Edited January 14, 2016 by OldSoulBiz

[xxoo]

 

I mean, it feels to me that people get into a relationship just for the sake of being in one. As in: "Hey, this guy/girl is nice, funny, and fun to be around with. I wanna be in a relationship with them!" Shouldn't people assess others on things beyond that?

 

That doesn't reflect what I see among women. Typically, women want to be in a relationship with the man who she has strong romantic feelings toward, not a friendly feeling.

 

One could argue that a strong romantic feelings/attraction don't predict successful relationships, and one could be right. But I don't think relationships fail due to choosing a true friend.

 

Regardless, as Gunslinger said above, divorce rates have been falling for decades. So whatever modern couples are doing, it's an improvement.

[GunslingerRoland]

I mean, it feels to me that people get into a relationship just for the sake of being in one. As in: "Hey, this guy/girl is nice, funny, and fun to be around with. I wanna be in a relationship with them!" Shouldn't people assess others on things beyond that?

 

 

 

I can meet a girl and tell if I enjoy being with her and find her entertaining in at most a date or two.

 

 

How long does it take to figure out if that girl is going to be a good mother to my children? Months? Years? Somewhere in that range.

 

 

That is why we mostly start with the first part and then move to the second part.

[HereNorThere]

There is some validity to that fact divorces are rising because women are in the workforce now and graduating from college at substantially higher rates than men, but that same fact is also keeping men from filing for divorce now, so I'm not sure if it evens out, but it is something to consider.

 

Here in the U.S. 80 percent of divorces are filed by women. Since the divorce laws were not changed after women entered the work force in such higher numbers, most men are scared to death of filing. As a male, you will most likely lose nearly everything you have in a divorce. Even in a non-alimony state with 50/50 custody of the children, the woman, even if she makes more than the man, will still receive a large portion of his salary as well as any shared assets like a home. This is done by assigning the woman as the "custodial parent" even though they are co-parenting the same amount of time. I have a friend now who has an ex-wife that remarried and brings in nearly 3x the amount he does. He still has to pay her 1200 dollars each month for the children, but they spend just as much time with him as they do her. As he told me, "Yes, I have to give her that money and it's supposed to go my children's expenses, but when the child is at your house and they tell you they need a new pair of shoes, you go buy them the shoes. You can't say tell them that you already gave their mother money to buy them."

 

Meanwhile her and her new husband (who also happens to be the guy she had an affair that caused their divorce) takes a vacation every month and lives very, very lavishly.

 

Food for thought.

Edited January 14, 2016 by HereNorThere

[carhill]

NVSS - National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends

 

From 2000 to 2014, it appears the marriage/divorce rate per 1000 fell from ~49% divorce rate in 2000 to ~46% in 2014. However, I did note a substantial decrease in the divorce rate between 2008 and 2009 which is when the financial crisis hit, which makes sense, and it's begun to creep up again, though still lower than in 2000.

 

Being a contrarian, I divorced during the financial crisis.

 

As far as partners went, in my demographic seeking to get to know women and 'court' them, at least in my generation, failed miserably. Dating success only was achieved by substantive romantic and sexual forwardness, where becoming 'friends' resulted way down the road. So, in my decidedly small world, though one I've lived in for over five decades, I never saw, with anyone I knew personally, the 'friend's first' path result in anything substantive. People met, pressed flesh, mostly made it to being married without a shotgun and life went on. The divorce stats are probably higher than the norm. I used to have two couples who had never been divorced but one did divorce right before the woman died. Everyone else had been married and divorced at least once, some twice. My exW was twice, thrice with me. Me once.

 

Heck, speaking of the good old days when women were property, my reason for existence was a woman leaving her husband during the war and divorcing him while he was boots on ground in Italy. He came home to no family and a child support payment for 2 daughters. That was, whoa, 71 years ago this year. Back then, courting and friend's first was more common but it appeared to be mostly gone by the time I came of age in the early 70's. Casual sex and transitory relationships became more common, along with 'my parts like your parts let's rub them together right now'. It was just normal stuff, but without the old dance of romance. Those who didn't get with the program sat out the dance. Not rocket science.

 

I guess things go in cycles. What's old is new again. Hopefully the positive inroads for women will remain and men can regain a modicum of respect for being men. Someday.

[Nilfiry]

I tried editing my initial post, but apparently you can't. So here's my elaboration on the matter:

 

What I meant by "friends first," is that couples seem to want their partners to have "friend traits" rather than other, more important traits. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

 

I mean, it feels to me that people get into a relationship just for the sake of being in one. As in: "Hey, this guy/girl is nice, funny, and fun to be around with. I wanna be in a relationship with them!" Shouldn't people assess others on things beyond that?

 

You are right, but that has more to do with cultural changes affecting the newer generation. You kind of have to accept that that is just the way things work now. Try reasoning with someone who does that. You will not get anywhere.

[almond]

My boyfriend and I were close friends for around two years before we got together.

 

 

I wouldn't change it for the world.

[67Chevelle]

I think it may be a "getting their toes wet" type of process now that they have more freedom than ever before when it comes to picking a partner. In my experience, most women like to put a "label" on everything, and identify what the situation is between themselves and guy A B and C. Years ago it was mostly just dating and if they didnt like the guy they no longer dated him. Nowadays women like to feel a guy out so they had to come up with a label for the process that made it clear to the man that there is no attachment between them.

 

I like it and dislke it. It allows too many wishy-washy women to keep me in a gray area, without me really knowing how long I'm going to be there till she makes up her mind. And with all the social media and dating sites, many women are giving the "friends first" process a bad name because they are using that label as a way to keep guys on the back-burner and taking advantage of the whole ordeal. But I do like strong women that dont rely or wait on a man.

 

I think there will be many revisions over time with how women confront their role of freedom to pick and choose in the dating world. Its just going to be a little rough at first until the process smooths over.

Edited January 15, 2016 by 67Chevelle

[Wewon]

As an old fashioned guy (I’m not that old by age), I don’t understand why couples these days want their partners to be friends first. I.E. someone whom they enjoy being around with, or always want to hang out with, or to have fun with, etc. Basically they want their partners to be someone who keeps them entertained. But then things like being a responsible, stable, dependable person/parent etc. come second.

 

I think that it speaks to a level of maturity.

 

The whole idea that a relationship of substance (friendship or romantic) can be based simply out of "fun" is short-sighted. That's how you decide to keep around when you're 6 or 7, but somehow we outgrow that and realize that someone can be extremely fun and entertaining and still be the most unreliable and unloyal person that you have ever met.

 

This is why you see people have such dramatically different approaches to those key relationships as they get older and have more at stake such as children, careers etc.

[Quiet Storm]

My husband and I weren't friends first. A strong physical connection is what attracted us to each other. He made it known that he wanted to be with me from day one, so I never viewed him as just a friend.

 

We actually don't have that much in common. We are from different kinds of families, had different upbringings, we are different races, we have different interests. I love the beach, he doesn't. We like different types of movies, different TV shows, etc.

 

The strong attraction is what brought us together, not friendship. With teenage hormones raging, we wanted each other, plain and simple. But during that crazy passionate time of lust and limerance, we got to know each other. I saw he was a good person and knew he would be a good husband and father. I fell in love with him. I felt safe with him. I could be myself, flaws and all, and he loved me anyway.

 

Now, 25 years and 3 kids later, we compromise so that we both get to do the things we like. He goes to the beach with me. I go to WWE matches with him. We both love football, so that's one thing we love doing together- going to football games.

 

Friendship isn't what brought us together, but I don't think that means a successful couple can't be friends first. Every couple has a story. Whether it started with friendship or passion, if both people are committed to being together, and there is mutual respect and acceptance, then I think there is a good chance for success.