Only cowards and fools would conflate wickedness for niavity. Time, trial, and challenge will reveal which the video author can be considered soon enough.
There's this LARP that's been really popular amongst my generation (early millennials), where you pretend you're in 1930's Germany, and you're stopping Hitler before he came to power.
I think it's a combination of 1) growing up with too much un-nuanced WWII propaganda, and 2) not having a clear and obvious cause to protest (like the Vietnam war, or the civil rights movement). "Rebel without a cause" sort of thing.
Thus, we got this LARP where everyone who doesn't agree with you is a nazi, and any thought leader on the other side is "literally Hitler", people singing chants from the 30's and shit ("anti fascista" etc.).
Although my generation probably mostly knew in the back of their minds it was just a LARP, now their kids are becoming adults, having been fed the same LARP from a young, impressionable age.
Mind you, I'm not saying there haven't been (and still are) worthy causes to fight for for my generation as well. But the lines between right and wrong always seem clearer in retrospect. So for the feeble mind, it's just easier to pretend you're in 1930's Germany - rather than navigating the nuances of here and now.
Read More@adam-l I'd say that goes for adults as well. Almost all news coverage is spun one way or another. It's hardly ever just reporting the facts. Lots of emotionally charged language, and subtle insinuations meant to make you riled up - partly to support certain political narratives, and partly to consume more news.
The news media seldom speaks to your intellect, but rather to your endocrine system. If you want to learn something, read a book by someone obsessed by a particular subject. Journalist are not particularly informed, nor particularly intelligent or curious.
Also, "most people are still pretty normal" doesn't make for a good news story. Nothing positive does (which, btw, the world is full of). That part isn't on journalists though, that part is on us.
I don't want a girl nagging me about what colors or decorations we're going to put in MY house. Not OURS.. MINE (mine until she divorce rapes me)
Any sort of wedding-nagging is a giant red flag. If you're going to marry at all, then marry she who's just happy to be with you - she who would stick around whether you marry her or not, and regardless of how you marry her if you do.
Some women will want the wedding, any to be married, more than they want you. Anything that indicates that to be the case is a big, fat no.
It's not a honeymoon phase though...... there are a lot of public announcements (her family, your family, your friends, her friends). There is a lot of wedding booking and planning.
We ended up eloping because the logistics for both families was too much, and I had an upcoming deployment to Iraq. My mom still gives me grief for eloping, and her sister to her, but everyone else understood.
It eliminated a lot of the problems you mentioned.
And we fucked like rabbits the entire time.
I keep seeing others in this thread saying things about the honeymoon phase, and engagement and cohabiting both being new honeymoon phases, but that was not my experience.
Our honeymoon phase lasted from our first date all the way until about 9 or 10 years of marriage.
However, I had 3 tours of Iraq and lots of training missions and schools that would separate us here and there, so it's not like we were physically together the entire time. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" combined with the corollary "how can I miss you if you don't go away?".
CC: @Vermillion-Rx, @Durek_The_Bald (I forgot who else I saw talking about "honeymoon phase")
Read MoreI never thought about it until @Durek_The_Bald said the engagement is another honey moon phase
What I said was, the first 6 months of living together (engaged or not) is like another (or an extended) honeymoon phase. It's new, and fresh, and everyone's on their best behaviour. Not enough time for bad habits to really start getting annoying. Not enough time to really know how you both deal with conflicts of interests etc.
Forget engagement. Engagement is a silly thing - just a reason to have more attention and another ring.
My point is, if you're the kind of guy who's open to marriage, then living together for an extended period of time (18-24 months) is part of the vetting process (of both her and yourself).
If you follow Rollo's advice on this, then you're (1) already "planning to marry" or "getting engaged to" to someone you haven't really vetted properly, and (2) once you do live together, it won't be for long enough. Also, (3), it sort of builds up marriage to be some sort of end goal for the dude, rather than taking a chill pill, and see where things go over a long time.
Read MoreI never thought about it until @Durek_The_Bald said the engagement is another honey moon phase
What I said was, the first 6 months of living together (engaged or not) is like another (or an extended) honeymoon phase. It's new, and fresh, and everyone's on their best behaviour. Not enough time for bad habits to really start getting annoying. Not enough time to really know how you both deal with conflicts of interests etc.
Forget engagement. Engagement is a silly thing - just a reason to have more attention and another ring.
My point is, if you're the kind of guy who's open to marriage, then living together for an extended period of time (18-24 months) is part of the vetting process (of both her and yourself).
If you follow Rollo's advice on this, then you're (1) already "planning to marry" or "getting engaged to" to someone you haven't really vetted properly, and (2) once you do live together, it won't be for long enough. Also, (3), it sort of builds up marriage to be some sort of end goal for the dude, rather than taking a chill pill, and see where things go over a long time.
Read More@Durek_The_Bald there really isn't a prefect arbitrary amount of time at which you completely eliminate the gamble such a commitment is.
Fuck, we'd already been married 10 years before my wife suddenly changed (hormone issues).
@Typo-MAGAshiv Lmao. Some solid advice in that thread!
I mean, he says within the rule and its blog post that you only move in together if you're planning to marry her soon (6 months). So there goes that objection.
If you haven't lived with her for at least 18-24 months, you don't know enough about her (or your own live-together-dynamics with her) to be "planning to marry her". Also, 6 months from planning that to actually going through with it isn't enough time to vet the situation properly. Those 6 months are like another honeymoon phase, and not something to base a huge decision on.
Really, my only objection to it is that getting married without our nations doing a serious overhaul of the laws governing marriage is a terrible idea, and marriage/LTR shouldn't be a man's goal anyway (religious needs aside for now).
Not disagreeing with you on that one.
True, but that's like saying "this fatal disease that causes a lot of pain really isn't that bad compared to this other fatal disease that's a lot worse".
If we're going to do analogies, then breaking up with a live-in girlfriend is more like stubbing one's toe. I've been through it a few times. Sucks there and then, but hardly a major life event in retrospect.
Oh, is that all? It's a good thing anyone can afford that quite easily and it won't cause any complications in trying to find a new place to live or anything!
A guy who doesn't have a war chest large enough to pay for a couple of months' rent is doing something wrong with his life beyond just women.
Read More