?

Log in

No account? Create an account

tioed // random babblings - Lograh — LiveJournal

Sunday, 21.Mar.2004

22:25 - tioed // random babblings

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

Why am I even *UP* at this hour!? guh..

finishing the washing, hopefully it'll be dry soon so I can trundle it into my room and go to sleep. Importing more songs at the moment. I listened to der 'Pod for at least 5 hours today, damn thing's still at over 50% battery life -- rather impressive show. Speaking of which, how does Apple do it? By 'it' I mean the sleep/wake-up times for their stuff. The iBook, and iPod both have this amazing ability to go to 'sleep' in under a second, and 'wake up' just as fast. It's simply amazing, the responsiveness of the hardware/software. Guess that's what it's like when one company dictates everything from the UI to the circuitry.

Got much studying done today, caught up in Algebra, and am halfway to caught up in Analysis. Tomorrow night studying should finish that one off.

Had lunch with serenica69 today, during which she expressed some concerns about this relationship we have. This wouldn't normally be news, as she almost allways brings up the claim of "I have no idea why I'm with you", but today she seemed a little more put-off by my thoughts than usual. Eh, we'll see...
The lunch was nice, though.

Slept muchly last night. went to bed 'round 9, woke up 'round 9 this morning. Was still tired, but it was nice to have slept so much. Perhaps that's one reason I'm still awake, 'cause I've only been up 13.5 hours? nah, I could probably go to sleep rather easilly -- my eyelids are allready getting heavy. Just need to stay awake 10 more minutes and then the washing should be dry.

Lessee.. Saturday... what did I do Saturday? hrmmm.. Ah yes! I rode the bike trail with my dad and sister. They drove up in the morn' and we set about getting my bike ready and then hit the road 'round 11ish. Rode for 5 hours, as they were not up to going fast, and managed to make it up to Nimbus Dam and back. 'bout 29 miles round-trip. We were all suitably impressed they could make it. I managed to get a little sunburned from spending that much time in the sun, so now my arms have a nice pink tint to them. Which is a real shame, because pink simply isn't my colour -- it doesn't go with my hair at all. :)

In other news, I'm tioed. I guess I'll go check the dryer, see how much longer I've got. if it's not done by now I'll just go to sleep, as I'm tired and it's almost 11 at this point. I've got to get up at 5 tomorrow morn for work, so I'll just get my clothes out of it then if they aren't ready for me now. Hey, iTunes just finished importing another song.. nice.. 4514 in it's library now.. yippie... I'll let it update der 'Pod tomorrow morn.

G'night all.

Oh, one last thing, open question for all: Does it necessarilly follow that two people are married should live together? That is, does the concept of marriage have, as a required part of it, the concept of two people living with one another? Explain. Also, if it so happens that I misspelled "marriage", let's not get nitpicky over that. y'all know what I'm askin' fer here.

While it's clear that you need not be married to live together (thank goodness, 'cause my roomates simply aren't my types!), does the reverse hold?

I say the one is not required for the other. There is no part of my concept of "marriage" that includes the couple co-habitating. No matter if you look at it from the legal aspect, or from the emotional aspect, or from the religious aspect. When I think "marriage", the two people living under the same roof usually doesn't enter into the picture unless specifically prompted. And even then it's more of a "well, I guess they could" kind of thing. Now, mind you, I don't think that a married couple should *not* live together, I simply don't see anything in the concept of "marriage" that implies that they *should*.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:gravilim
Date:23:23 21.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
I don't think living together is *required* for marriage - I think there are just some people that need their own space and independence so much that they have almost entirely separate lives, to the point of continued living in other cities or even countries. That's cool, though I think I'd need a bit more contact than that. ;) But no, there's not really anything that says you have to live together...

Some friends of mine (a couple, not married but long-term) had bought a house together, and each had their own room - they were very happy together, and wanted to *be* together, but were incompatible when sleeping in the same bed. (I got the impression that while not-sleeping but in the same bed they were fine, so ;) They fought and fought after moving in together, broke up, but weren't able to move out right away, so took separate rooms - only to discover that they were fine once they had their own living spaces.

Idunno, lots of ways to change it around and make it work, depending on the couple and the individuals involved. :) What brings the topic up?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:7:11 22.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
it just came up in conversation earlier in the day. I'm not entirely certain exactly how the conversation turned to that topic, but it got there just the same.

Thanks for your thoughts. It's good to hear I'm not the only person who thinks this.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:serenica69
Date:23:27 21.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
Replying to the first paragraph: You are going to be one tired boy tomorrow.

Replying to the fourth paragraph: *Note to self: stop talking to Chris about your relationship. I think he makes you more paranoid than normal. I have noticed my worrying tends to increase for about a week after having a conversation with him. Ex's are ex's for a reason. Disclaimer: No offense to Chris meant.* I don't know why I'm worrying about the long-term of our relationship anyway. As I said earlier, if I get my Master's degree, I'm not even eligible for something such as marriage for 7 more years anyway. Plenty of time to trade you in for a better model in the meantime.

Replying to paragraph 6: No, you don't look good pink. But I'll still kiss you and laugh at your peeling skin. I should have given you a hard rub today just to make you hurt.

Replying to the last 3 paragraphs: you give me a headache.

Sleep well, doll.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:7:14 22.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
yeah, I'm tired allright. it kinda sucks..

I'm not too certain my skin is going to peel. The red is almost all gone and it doesn't hurt anymore, and there's no sign of any peeling in the near future.

Sorry to hear I gave you a headache -- and right before bed, to boot! I hope you managed to sleep it off well enough. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mamarhi
Date:0:21 22.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
In a few months my husband will not be living with me for a while out of necessity. And then, I'm considering moving closer to where he'll be instead of exactly where he is because I don't feel I want to live where he feels he needs to be for a while. Maybe I'll go there anyways, but the fact that I'm considering this shows that two people married to each other don't necessarily need to be living together.

How's that for an answer?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:7:21 22.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
So, does this mean that your concept of marriage allows for temporary periods of seperate living spaces, but not permanent seperations?

In your case, you two have lived together, and plan to be living together in the future as well. It's just for a little while (in the grand scheme of things) that you'll be living apart, right?

What about two people getting married and never living together at all? They didn't live together before they were married, they didn't move in together after they were married, they have no intention of ever living together. Would that be a perfectly reasonable concept of marriage for you or would you consider that to be too much to be considered still married?

Note: I don't think there is such a thing as a wrong answer to this. If your answer as stated is all you wish to say, then that's fine and I thank you for it. I'm just curious for a little more explaination to make sure I understand where you're comming from.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mamarhi
Date:8:03 22.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not sure that I could manage being married to someone without the living together entirely. You see, this whole marriage thing was a hard one for me to get to in the first place. What a huge step, all this commitment. Isn't that why people get married? (the desire for commitment with someone one loves) So if you can manage all that commitment, then what is wrong with living together, even if it means having your own space within the home (an idea I think has a lot of validity and importance, btw). All too often marriages leave people sacrificing huge portions of themselves for the sake of the marriage ideal, only killing the relationship underneath. In my marriage, and in many successful marriages I have witnessed, the involved partners have allowed for their own space and selves within the context of commitment and marriage and cohabitation. So if they can't commit to making workable living arrangements together, then why would they commit themselves to the marriage at all??

But that's just my opinion, not my prescription for the rest of the world.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:8:17 22.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
okay, I think I see what you're saying here. And I think you raise a very good question, "if they can't commit to making workable living arrangements together, then why would they commit themselves to marriage at all?"

That's something I'll have to think on, but here's my initial responce to it: There are many reasons two people would choose to get married. Perhaps there is some legal reason why they would do so, and that's the only thing they want out of it? In that case, I don't see it as being unreasonable if they never live together, since they are only married for the purpose of gaining some legal benefit (presumably that doesn't require them living together). Now, if this example can serve to show that in one specific case marriage does not imply living together, then is it not conceiveable that there might be other instances?

Now, I'm not saying *I* will refuse to live with my spouse should I happen to get married. Nor am I saying I think you're wrong and should change your mind. You've got a valid opinion and raise good points, I'm just discussing the idea, that's all. I just think that, as general concepts, the status of two people being married need not imply that those same two people are actualy living with one another.

As you say, that's just my opinion, not my prescription for the rest of the world. I welcome other viewpoints and am open to possibly changing my opinion should I be shown a good reason to do so.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:witchphaedra
Date:11:18 22.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
My husband works with a woman who lives out here in Sac, and her husband lives in San Fransisco. It's been that way for their entire marriage...something like 20 years....
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:9:23 23.Mar.2004 (UTC)
(Link)
No matter if you look at it from the legal aspect, or from the emotional aspect, or from the religious aspect.

What about the societal aspect? There is an implication of living together, especially when marriage is seen as the foundation of a family with children, rather than just the two cohabitators.

Granted, I'm not entrenched in all those mainstream societal trappings, but I do see them. And while I don't think it's a scandal or issue if a married couple lives separately, if someone says they are married and don't otherwise qualify it with a statement like "but we live separately", I would assume that they live together.
(Reply) (Thread)