I didn't mean to go and say "YOU! I DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE HIM OR ELSE I'LL KILL YOU!". I meant to go and say something along the lines of "I'd rather not have that you see him, because I feel <your feelings>" Keep it nice but state what you want or do not want or what you have problems with.
A relationship is about supporting and helping each other, not keeping shit to yourselves and become an emotional wreck.
What do you mean "let your woman sleep with other guys?" It's not like you own a woman. Or maybe you do, but where I live that's not legal. Though I do think it would be cool to have a human pet. Like, if you treat them humanely why does it matter if you own a person? So long as they are willing to be your pet/[sex] slave, though maybe it would be weird to have sex with your pet human. Also, I never knew independent meant polyamorous. That is kind of an odd outlook.
How do you know? What does it mean for a woman to value a relationship?
Why?
Generally you get your own way when you're not dependent on someone else to give you what you want.
They are? What is a natural sense?
Don't most people do what is best for themselves first? Some people may have other promises or commitments that they do not want to break, but ultimately they are doing so for themselves. Like giving to charity. Ultimately it is making the person donating the item/time/money feel better about themselves.
Then why don't you go rape an otter.
I think you do not understand what a fact is. There are many reasons why people make the choices they do. It can be environmental, genetic, or even chemical (like, obviously you make different choices if you are high on PCP for example).
How does one evaluate a girl? Do I have to evaluate a guy as well, or just girls?
Nope. In addition to just being wrong, you also don't seem to know what a fact is. (For the record, just because some girls do that, doesn't mean they all do, doesn't mean every independent girl will, and doesn't mean it is the norm.) I'm a nice guy, and I've never been drained of anything. Being nice doesn't mean being a doormat. It means not being a complete douche. I'm a nice guy, I always treat the girls I'm with with respect, but I will not take BS. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that; especially with your neanderthal views on... well... everything.
And, for the record, I've never dated a dependent woman, either. Every girl I've dated for any appreciable amount of time has been able to hold their own in life.
Independent doesn't mean she'll take everything you have. Independent means that she can functional without constant support. Why would I want a woman that I have to do everything for? I have my own life to tend to, thanks, I don't need to do it twice to make sure she doesn't forget to breathe. Also, I hate stupidity. It eats away at me like a virus. I will never, ever, date a stupid person. Ever. A girl who is dependent is most likely a stupid person as well. Smart is sexy.
Furthermore, someone who is wholely dependent on you would make one hell of a shite mother. Being a mother is completely the opposite of dependent. If she can't function without you, how in the hell is she going to care for a child?
Of course, again, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Someone who can't solve a very simple arithmetic equation probably had no business being in a relationship, anyways. Or procreating.
[EDIT] Oh yes, one more thing; your cautionary note about getting stuck with a woman and baby; THAT will not happen with an independent woman. That will only happen with a girl who needs to depend on someone else. So, yea... You're wrong again.
Telling her not to see someone is not being supportive or helpful. Sure, let her know your concerns if they really are that strong, but if you honestly think that she'd be unfaithful, what are you doing with her in the first place? If you think she'd leave you for someone else, then let it be. Obviously you're not the one she wants. Voice concerns, but never tell her what to do. All that will do is breed resentment.
There's a difference between keeping things to yourself and being controlling.
Well by definition when you marry someone, you own them and they own you.
Maggot you may think I have neanderthal views but I'm just a realist, anyone who fights human nature is arrogant and will lose. We do alot of things that we may THINK are from our own desires but really, especially when conducting a mating ritual such as a date we act the part of the 'male' and they act the part of the 'female' and it's all down to instinct and what humans have been doing since our inception.
I understand exactly where you are coming from Maggot but I believe this to be very overthought. Mind you, I think it's safe to assume you have more 'modern' (left field) views than I and people who think in a modern way, I just see them as the ones who say marriage is just a piece of paper it doesn't matter about it blah blah etc etc when in reality they just can't commit.
Women want a MAN, it's nature, to fight nature would be essentially to fight ones own existence. It's the reason we are all alive today, the man plays the role of the man, and the women plays the role of the woman, only some women take advantage of the 'nice guys' and treat them like shit.
And my objective here is to try my best not to see that happen to anyone.
Vows aren't legally binding. You make a commitment to each other, but you're not actually legally in ownership of each other. Your possessions may go into joint ownership, but not people.
It's actually a domestic conjugal partnership. Read through the standard vows and it's pretty explicitly stated. Anything saying that anyone owns anything is some kind of twisted view. And is probably in the bible, which we all know is BS anyways.
Gender roles have nothing to do with only wanting a dependent woman. You can be a 'male' and still treat someone with respect. You can be a 'female' and still be independent. It's not black and white, and it all still falls into gender roles if you want it to. Women aren't useless creatures only made to pop out babies and cook meals; they live and breathe, too, and have their own train of thought (though, admittedly, some are batshit crazy, but that's beside the point). They are just as capable as making it in life as men are. Believing they should be dependent is not gender-conforming, it's elitist.
I do consider myself to have quite 'modern' views (and in some cases, it's more that I just don't give a damn that truly having a modern view). Marriage, to a point, is just a piece of paper. It's easily destroyed, too, if both parties can be amicable. That has absolutely nothing with not being able to commit. I am fully willing to commit; what does a piece of paper have to do with anything? For the record, I'm not against marriage, but holding it up a divine pedestal is odd in my mind. What is the difference between being common law or married? A piece of paper (and maybe a couple different tax issues), but the two are fundamentally the exact same. Someone who says that people living common law can't commit had been deluded into thinking that marriage is the be-all and end-all. Marriage is as easily destroyed as a common-law partnership. It's just more expensive.
Yes, (most) women want a guy who is capable of extolling the virtues of masculinity. To a point. Most women don't want a massive pile of twitching muscles that can kill a lion by looking at it. They want a middle-ground. They want someone who's masculine but still accepts them as an equal.
Actually, adultery is not illegal (there is absolutely no law in a civilized country that says you can not cheat on your spouse. Some backwards (probably highly religious) countries may have this, but that's a different story all together). It is grounds for a divorce, but at that point, any couple can be divorced at any time for any reason so long as they both sign the paper.
Also, the vows themselves are not legally binding. The legal part is the marriage license that lists you and your spouse as being legally wed, and makes you eligible for tax incentives. The vows themselves are 100% moot, legally speaking. From a legal point of view, all you have to do to get married is show up at the legal building of choice (City hall, court house, wherever your town has these papers), show your ID and sign the license. That is it. Anything else that you know from a marriage ceremony is absolutely not legally binding and completely irrelevant in the eyes of the law. It is all based on tradition and the wishes of the parties involved. That's it.
In this country, marriage vows are most definitely legally binding as they are in the majority of the world.
You a sworn to devote your love to that person, and that one person only. You become theirs indefinitely and they become yours, because if your nobody else's then who's are you?
I don't know what you've heard or interpreted about marriage but it most definitely does suggest that you will bed no other or court no other person in the nature of the vows thus legally binding you to keep it in your pants...
You could ask my wife, she gets treated better than any other women on the planet, but she still gets treated as a women, not as an individual. Just like she treats me as a man because that's what I am.
If I wanted to treat a women like an individual and not like a women, then I'd be bisexual.
She wants to be treated like MY women, and I want to be treated like HER man. We both play roles in a relationship and we can't avoid it because it's our nature.
In relation to marriage it's a sacred bond. A promise to your loved one, in front of all the people you care about, your country and your god (if you believe that shit) that you will stay together forever and not leave them for the next piece of ass you see.
That's why it's a big deal..
You need a lawyer to file divorce and the vows are most definitely not moot.
It must be a lot different in Canada because I don't understand why you have this determined view on the falsity of marriage and it's tradition. In this country everything you say is a verbal contract that's witnessed by a decent amount of people and you must heed that you know of no lawful impediment to the marriage itself.