I wish you the best of luck, but I don't really see a satisfying marriage that looks like this. This sounds like you want a sugar-daddy.
I think it's great that you want to be your own person. That is something that I would think any adult would want to be, whether they are married or not. I happen to think that the first requirement of a mature relationship is that both people be mature, independent adults with a sense of purpose. I also think you might be reading a different meaning into "dependent" in this case than was intended by either @JJ_Maxx or me. I don't believe he would think of dependence in this case as a negative, and I know I don't. A good friend of mine once said, "As soon as you say 'we', you sacrifice a little of 'I'. That's true, which is why being your own person is so important in a marriage. But it's not a negative. There are any number of shocks and surprises that come our way over the course of a lifetime - illnesses, injuries, economic losses, missed opportunities, setbacks. Being mutually supportive is how we get through all of that. In my case, it was having two disabled children and then dealing with aging parents, with a career crisis (mine) and a major career change (hers) sandwiched in between. Those crises made us stronger. They made our relationship stronger. Were there stress points? Oh, yeah. There were even a couple of really dark days when I wasn't quite sure we were going to make it, which is when my own personal little miracle occurred, cementing my own faith, permanently. But that's a story for another day. I still remember something that was said when my wife and I attended pre-Cana before we were married: the notion that marriage is a 50-50 proposition is incorrect. It has to be a 100% commitment to the other person on each person's part. When I was in a terrible work situation, my wife was adamant that I not only get out as soon as possible, but also that in so doing, I downshift to a less stressful job. When the chance came to take a government job that would be extremely interesting, with far less hours and a chance to work much of my time from home, she campaigned for me to take it even though it meant a 60% cut in my income. And when her job as a special ed teacher became increasingly stressful, I made sure I used all of that extra time I had to take care of everything at home so she could work stress-free.
Personally, I don't get that at all from @Duchess-Yukine-Suoh's post, certainly not from the above quote, abridged or otherwise.
How else would you define a relationship with financial support without emotional dependency? Unless I'm misunderstanding what she is trying to say.
I would like to suggest that we be a little less judgmental on the Duchess. For one thing, she is thirteen, and while she is mature beyond her years, it is quite likely that, when it comes to permanent relationships, even she may not fully understand what she is trying to say (I sure as hell had no clue about such things when I was 13). For another, we don't know if there is something she's reacting to in her own life for which the term "dependency" may be an immediate red flag.
Emotional dependency? The thought makes me cringe. They say love is a drug. (Drugs are bad, m'kay?) It's perfectly possible to love someone, without being emotionally dependent on them. Throwing in lots together just makes fiscal sense. I'll be honest J.J. I find what you've said to be harsh and somewhat judgemental.
And more power to you, Duchess. And you're right. A lot of marriages fail because they aren't firm within themselves, and then when they become that couple, they aren't willing to let a part of themselves go. There's a lot of compromise in a relationship, and it should be coming from both sides. You shouldn't be dependent on your spouse for your emotional needs. You should want your spouse to help with your emotional needs, but overall, you should not be dependent on them to solve your problems or flip your lid if they're out for a night with the boys instead of being with you. You can love without dependency, and you can depend on someone without being dependent on someone.
Be that as it may, in a marriage both people have emotional needs that must be met. If you desire to look elsewhere for someone to meet your emotional needs, then you have a roommate with financial benefits, not a marriage in my opinion.
Please find me any marriage counselor that would suggest otherwise. Remember, Duchess said no dependence at all. Zero. Zilch. Nothing. I agree that her youth is probably the reason for her errant thoughts on marriage and I am sure her position will evolve.
I know you didn't say this to me, but that is just plain crass and rude. Sugar-daddy, according my dictionary means "a rich older man who lavishes gifts on a young woman in return for her company or sexual favors."
Yes... so she did. But I think, and @Duchess-Yukine-Suoh can correct me if I'm wrong, that she meant unhealthy dependence. What you seem to be suggesting, is that it's only appropriate when emotional support comes from our partners, and as such your position seems to be the polar opposite of hers. Personally, I believe that it is selfish to burden a partner with my own emotional dead weight, irregardless of whether they wish to have that burden placed on them or not.
All JJ meant was that in today's day and age it's wrong for a woman to want financial dependence on a man
Yes... I understand that that. But I believe he knows her personality, as portrayed in these threads, well enough to realise that the 'sugar daddy' comment was completely uncalled for.
Oh yeah, don't worry about that. He doesn't know how to deal with 13 year olds. He's already chastised her at least once in another thread
I disagree with this though. If it's agreed upon and it's a part of their relationship, then I see nothing wrong with a woman wanting financial dependence on a man. A lot of stay at home mom's do, and housewives. I think it's different if that's ALL you're looking for out of the relationship, but if its simply a part of your relationship, then what's the issue?
Exactly, it is a mutual decision, and not one that should be equated to the woman glomming off the man for financial gain. Hmmm.... on that can we agree to disagree? I would like to believe that the feminist movement has room for women who willingly choose to stay at home and be with their children. Some women are career orientated, some are home makers. One stance should be no less valid than the other. We women come with as many differing attitudes as shapes and sizes. Chained to the kitchen sink is another matter entirely.
Think what you wish, the fact still stands that the relationship she described was, 'financial support without any emotional dependence'. It has nothing to do with you ad hominem attack on me or my religion. She said it, not me. Again, if she meant something different, allow her to clarify. I can't read minds and have to respond to what is said, not was intended. No, what I meant was that the relationship she described is what is called a sugar-daddy. Yes, I do know her personality and she doesn't want to be coddled by the lot of you like she some fragile wilting flower. I don't treat @mammamaia any different because of her age and I dont treat Duchess any different and she knows that I will call her out on the statements she makes. If she misspoke, then she will clarify without having all of you falling over yourselves to come to her rescue. She's a big girl and doesn't need any of you fighting her battles for her.
Let me put it this way. A homemaker should be no more or less chained to the sink than his or her spouse is to the office. Isn't that fair?
I don't think that its something she needs to clarify, nor are we fighting her battles for her (well, at least I know I'm not). I think you misunderstood what she wrote, and then was awfully rude in your reply. I took offense to what you said. Implying that someone is or wants to be a gold-digger is rude, straight and simple. Once again, you can depend on someone without being dependent on them.
