Well he's still young, but better (for him) to tell him directly than let him learn the hard way. Very mature of you.
What I don't like about the Dugger-style courtship is that it places such an emphasis on marriage. It's beyond just not having sex. It's that you can't pursue any type of relationship with a member of the opposite sex at all unless you expect it to end in marriage. I just think that's all wrong. I think marriage should be a point where you've known the person for a very long time and decide you simply don't want to be without him/her. With many of these courtships, the people basically meet, on the basis of that meeting, decide whether to "court," and then on that basis, after what to me often seems like a limited number of dates and interactions, decide to then become engaged. BOOM! before you know it, you're married and expected to produce a baby soon thereafter. I don't think marriage itself should be the goal. The real goal should be the relationship. You could easily enough agree to forego sex until marriage -- whatever. You want to do that, more power to you. But in many of these courtships, the couple can't ever, ever be alone with each other until after they're married. I just don't see how you really get to know someone. I spent a tremendous amount of time alone with my husband before we were married where we weren't having sex. The obsession these fundamentalists have with sex creates a lot of problems, IMHO.
Actually, as a little child I had next to no social skills. So you're right, I did not compromise on much at all. And I was a complete loner all the way till roughly the age of 16. Sure I had one or two friends throughout my life, but no I don't think even those friends could live with me! Anyway, comparing friends with a partner isn't the best comparison - you don't live with your friends. And actually, the moment you start - eg. at uni when you start having housemates, it is very common for people to fall out and quickly cease living together, sometimes they salvage the friendship and sometimes they don't. In any case, believe what you like. But like I said, my own parents are still happily married after 30+ years and my mum said the magic ingredient was compromise, so I'm gonna take her word on this I think
The issue with motorcycles isn't that of time or attention, it's that of safety. She was worried about him going off on his bike, having an accident and being seriously injured or killed. It's not something you can really compromise on, either motorcycles are allowed or they're not, there's no real middle ground. I have another colleague who would dearly love to have a bike but his wife flatly refuses to allow it. I'm not entirely convinced that 'compromise' is the best word, as it does imply a half way solution. I see it more as 'give and take'. Also, learning to appreciate and enjoy each other's interests is good. If your marriage works well all the time, you are lucky. Sometimes there are difficult periods in a marriage where you just don't get along with your partner. There could be excessive stress (for whatever reason), physical or mental illness, or disagreement over an issue you both think is important. At these times it hurts. What I meant by 'not minding that it hurts' is that at these times, you carry on regardless, do the things you need to do, support your partner as best you can and not walk out on them when they need you most.
Well, if it were something that he thought was likely to end her life early, I could see him deciding that it was a deal breaker and walking away from the relationship before it got deeper. For example, I wouldn't start a serious romantic relationship with someone who smoked.
Nor would I, but it would be mostly about the 'ick' factor and the fact that anyone who smokes is probably not smart enough for me, rather than about her expected life span. Walking away is one thing, and I agree. The idea I find disturbing is that anyone would permit another to control his/her life to that degree. I'm all for compromise and sharing, but the fact that motorcyclists are more likely to be killed than non-riders shouldn't enter in to it. Load up on the life insurance and let the guy enjoy himself.
Marriage is simply a legal formality. You either love someone and want to spend your life with them, or you don't. The marriage part just an addition to an already established bond. So if you don't want to get married, does that also mean you don't want a strong bond, or does it mean that you do but don't care for the legal declaration? For me the marriage is irrelevant. All I care for is love.
I think the fault of marriage lies more with society's obsession with it being the One True Relationship Status that everything else pales in comparison to rather than individual marriages. I mean, the reaction to Brad and Angelina's wedding said it all - people were exclaiming "FINALLY!" as if their relationship of, what, 10 years to that point hadn't been 'real' until that ceremony? As one of my friends said, "Great. Congratulations. They were already married anyway." Marriage doesn't make a relationship more "legitimate," it's just a formality. Some people ascribe greater importance to it than others. That doesn't make it unimportant or overly important, it's a matter of circumstance.
Regarding the OP's post, I think people tell you "don't get married" because marriage takes a lot of work and they're complaining. I'm sure most of the people giving you this advice are still married. And if they're from divorcees, well marriage didn't work for them, so they might be projecting. As for marriage being a bad idea for everybody -- I can't agree with that. If it was, no one would be getting married or more importantly, staying married.
Eh...if I married someone, and especially if I wanted kids, I'd want that someone to be around for a while. Insurance just means you can support the kids, it doesn't replace the missing parent. Now, I'm not saying that riding a motorcycle is unacceptably dangerous to me, but there could be a level of danger that I'd call a dealbreaker.
As I always say, I want my husband, not money. Between a better paid job where I'd get luxury cars and round-the-world holidays but he'd have to be gone 6 days of the week and probably work overtime on the 7th too, and a decent job where we're eating well with a few occasional luxuries but he'd get to come home at 5-6pm and get his weekends off without worry, I'd go for the latter. I married the man, not his cash. That's exactly the same principle re the life insurance. Did you marry the spouse for the spouse or for his life insurance? You care for the safety of that person, you care that he lives, and you care that he stays with you and is around for you and your children. It's not a matter of having life insurance. I find that comment about life insurance a little... lacking in insight of how relationships work. And if you do ever find a partner who doesn't care for your personal safety as long as she gets cash out of it if you die, well, erm... run? lol. That's not someone you want to be with. However I think the problem is more the fact that the two partners asribed different levels of danger to an activity. One doesn't believe an activity is as dangerous or at least believe that the enjoyment of it outweighs the risks. The other doesn't believe this. Now whether you give this up for the sake of the partner who regards it as "too dangerous" would depend on just how much you loved that particular thing. For myself, I couldn't marry a policeman or a soldier. Especially not a soldier. War ethics aside (and I do believe there are occasions, if only rarely, where war is called for. I'm not a total pacifist), I just wouldn't be able to stand the distance, the fact that my husband would have to up and go and possibly die and I'd never see him again at a moment's notice, the fact that he'd be away half of the year or for most of it, leaving me to live like a single parent and without a partner 80% of the time. Fact that I'd have to watch my own kids struggle with missing their dad and I'd miss him just as much - Nope. Couldn't do it.
So what if your husband buys a bike and then dies? If you really love him, you'll love him even after he's gone, and you'll always remember the times you spent together. The important part is letting your man be free and experience life in his own way. That's love.
Can't say I agree completely. What if your partner wishes to do drugs? What if your partner's idea of a good time is to stuff himself on cheeseburgers every single day and clog up his arteries and is on the verge of getting heart disease thanks to it? While I don't agree that anyone has the right to stop him from doing this, per se, it would be my duty as a partner and my love for him that would lead me to telling him to stop. Pleasure isn't everything, and just because someone enjoys it doesn't mean it's a good idea. So what if your husband buys a bike and then dies? So what? I can't help but think you don't currently have a serious partner. Think about someone you love deeply - all right, I can believe you might live by what you say and go with the principle of "let them", but if that person dies, are you really honestly going to say, "Say what? They had a good time!" Death and so what really don't belong in the same sentence.
If my husband wanted a bike, he could have his bike -- no question about that! As the matter of fact... If he bought a bike, I'd want one too! I mean, he could die just from driving the car, or someone could go psycho bonkers in one of those shooting competitions he participates and kill him, or a drunk could drive over him when my hubs is crossing the street, or he might get knocked out in a boxing match and never wake up. And I could fall off a horse and snap my neck. Can't count the times how close to my face a skittish horse has swung its hoof. If I get kicked in the head, I could die. If T said I couldn't go to the stables anymore, I'd be pretty upset. I'd respect his wish, I suppose, but I wouldn't get his rationale. We have both given up some things for each other, of course, like I stopped acting in a theater because even play-kissing some other guy doesn't sit well with me if I'm in a serious relationship, nor with T (or, more like, he'd then "get" to do that too... but we aren't that kind of people), so I'm happy to do something else. But that doesn't have anything to do with limiting something like motorcycling for fear of the loved one dying. So I wouldn't "take" a hobby away from him just because I want to keep him safe. Doing drugs or eating so much you become super obese is completely different to me. If one chooses to equate those, fine, none of my beeswax how other people conduct themselves or what rules they have in their marriage or what's a dealbreaker, I just know how I feel, and what I've already done, and there is no doubt about the level of commitment in our marriage, so it's not like I didn't care. Maybe I care too much, I don't know. But really, it all depends on what your values are, I suppose.
