P.S. Just for fun, may I note that one SURE way to get to know a woman is to take her camping. I mean, in a tent, camping.

If she screams at every bug, must have a blow-dryer, goes "ewwwwwwwww" to dirt under her fingernails, and can't put up a tent--you have learned a bit about about her, huh? She might be "high maintenance" or might be demanding or might be really a "city girl" only. And if she puts up her tent but it's lop-sided and she laughs at herself, wears jeans and her hair down and admires the beauty of the forest, and is able to kill her own spiders....what can I say? She's a keeper!! (heehee) Nonetheless, you've learned that she can be flexible, she can tolerate a little dirt, she can work a little for herself, she has a sense of humor about her own mistakes.

Yep--you can learn a LOT about a person by taking them camping. NOTE TO SELF, guys!

(((CJ))) I think of you often. Glad you are ok. More glad you are happy.

Tent camping, huh....I have never gone tent camping. I have slept in a tent once. I can kill my own bugs. I can't cook on a campfire but I would try.

Guess what the good news is, my son is an ITP...the kid's test doesn't do the 4th letter. That is wonderful. I have been so afraid he would be an ISTJ like his dad. I think I can live with a P child. Pretty sure my d is an ENFP.

Anyway, I have a co-worker with lymphoma. I am training to walk a half marathon in his honor - raising funds for Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. EVERYONE may click on the Team In Training link in my signature, then click on 'Find A Participant', then enter my name and it will take you to the page where you can sponsor me. You can make your donation online. How cool is that?

CJ! {{{CJ!}}} How wonderful to have you "jump in" as you say! And since you know me so well, your wisdom is particularly appreciated!

It's an interesting timeline you cite, as yes, it took about two months for me to be clear that my "Cookie" as you call her was the "type" of person I want as a partner. From there though, the problem I have is trying to understand why, once issues of goals and values and lifestyle and personalities have been addressed in principle, that isn't enough.

One of the key elements seems to be the question of how closely our perceptions of each other match reality. Distortion can result from infatuation, from wishful thinking, from ignorance of what to look for, from willful deception, and no doubt from many other sources. I do not believe that I have ever permitted myself to be deceived by infatuation or wishful thinking (although I'll admit to being tripped up by my ignorance). This does not mean that I have been unaffected by these factors, but rather that I have withheld judgment until I was satisfied that I was able to make objective evaluations. I do not see why I should now be more susceptible than previously to self-deceit. (Or alternatively, if I have been deceiving myself all along and merely building false confidence, then I do not see why I should now hope to be less susceptible than previously, and expect time itself to reveal anything to me.)

I know that I have done everything in my power not to misrepresent myself, and it very much appears to me that my "Cookie" has been doing the same. It has been "Radical Honesty" all the way - or so it has seemed - with full disclosure of every reason we can think of that could be a dealbreaker, in an almost desperate attempt to forestall the plunge into an inappropriate relationship. If my judgment is in error here - if there are secrets she is deliberately hiding - I don't really expect that another year or two is going to uncover it. It is her character which I have been observing, and if she has misled me there, then she is a masterful actress indeed.

The more realistic risk, it seems to me, is that we could be making assumptions which we are simply not aware of - not bothering to reveal things which it would not occur to us to think of as a problem, for instance. Or despite our best efforts, we could be misinterpreting what we are hearing from and observing in each other or in ourselves. Obviously, the more interaction we have under the greater variety of circumstances, the more opportunities there should be for discovering such issues. And I have no doubt that such discoveries will indeed occur. But my question is, how likely is it that these unpredictable discoveries will involve anything of such gravity that it would jeopardize a committed relationship?

Timetables are arbitrary. I'm not saying they're not prudent, but it seems to me that they are derived from a rough statistical model which recognizes that for some significant majority of people, it is "probable" that the conditions for making a wise choice have been achieved within that timeframe. I am more interested in what those conditions themselves are.

As for the added adjustments required of a second marriage which would justify even more caution than normal...I am fortunate that there are no children involved, there are no ex-spouses in the picture, and there is no longer any spousal support or court battles. The baggage here is entirely of the emotional variety, and it contains within it a number of useful tools.

{{GDP}} GDP's stiff little hug

My old friend, since it is Valentines' Day and my dear husband is going OUT OF HIS WAY to make it a wonderful day, I just wanted you to know that I saw your post and will respond tomorrow. However, in theory I agree with you that you being who you are and knowing what you know about yourself that a timeline is arbitrary; yet it's the CONCEPT that is necessary, not the actual amount of time on the timeline.

I will give you a concrete example. I was divorced 2 years+ when I met David...he was divorced less than a year but separated longer. Thus, relatively quickly I could tell that our personalities were compatible (INFP and INTP) and our values and life goals were compatible. I could also tell relatively quickly that he was the kind of man whom I would consider as a mate. We both had all of our children, and we both basically had walk-away exes. My evaluation was that when a difficulty arose we could probably work it out together. BUT, rather than jump into a lifetime commitment and THEN find out that we couldn't, I chose to weather a difficulty or two first and confirm what I suspected.

Concrete example: we took a trip to the coast and reserved KOA cabins (girls cabin/boys cabin). We brought my dog on the trip. When we got to KOA, they told us they that if we had a dog, they could not give us the cabins. We had already put down a deposit.

Now, we had already genuinely talked about how we handle stress, disappointment, changes in plans, etc. but I got to see FIRST HAND that he tends to panic at first, then calm himself and think of options, and then go with the flow. He did not ask for the deposit back, so I saw for myself that he tends to be meek when it comes to standing up for himself...but for others he doesn't even hesitate. I got to see first hand that he did not blame me or my dog...did not rant and rave...did not completely freak out...was able to go with a Plan B and be flexible and still enjoy the trip.

See how valuable that was? For me, it was confirmation that a lifetime commitment to HIM was right.

I'll try to write more tomorrow, but I think in general that's what I'm suggesting. This is not a matter of whether or not you or Cookie was open or honest--but rather, to see if her view of herself matches how she really acts, and likewise to give her the opportunity to see that same consistency in you.

Happy Valentines' Day, my friend!!

Your true and faithful friend,



CJ

Ah, well, you would be a rich man if you could patent a way to find out everything you need to about a person in two short months, thus circumventing the process of discovery over time <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

The answer to your question is that no one knows how likely it is that you will discover a dealbreaker. The point of dating is to increase the probability that such discoveries will not occur in the future - the less time you date, the more faith you have to have in your "assumption" capability. Pretty high stakes there, IMO.

Remind me again why the hurry?

AGG

AGG, there is no reason to hurry. It's just that I also see no reason to stall - to wait just for the sake of waiting. We're not talking about running to the courthouse next week. We're just trying to figure out what makes sense for us.

By the way, one of the things I have proposed is premarital counseling - earlier rather than later. It has always seemed strange to me that this is generally sought after one has made the decision to marry, instead of when one is weighing the decision in the first place.

It's through actions that we truly get to know someone. You may have covered the bases & in theory & understand each other perfectly.

An example might be this: Two parents discuss their views on disciplining children, you both agree, no hitting & no humiliation. That leaves a whole lot of gray area uncovered that just can't be covered in an "in theory" discussion.

One person may be much calmer when those little annoying situations come up with kids, like a child not getting their things together quickly enough in the morning so that many mornings there is a mad rush to get out the door on time. While you may not hit or humiliate one may be impatient & prod while the other waits for the child to get ready in their own time.

One may say they like to have all the dishes done at night before they go to bed & the other agrees. But one MUST have the dishes done while the other only PREFERS to have them done, whether it happens or not is another story.

All the little stuff only time together can tell you.

CJ, thanks for taking time out of your Valentine's Day to respond (and thus far my Valentine's Day has been quite fine too!). And your point is very well taken.

For reality-testing learning experiences, I reckon that meeting her family is going to have a lot of potential for revealing all sorts of things about each other. I'm looking forward to it!

I've got to run, but I just wanted to add that your tent camping idea...well, it sounds like a lot of fun, but it is more likely to show up concerns she should have about me than the other way around, since she is an outdoorsy sort of girl. All the same, I think it's a great idea!

Well...GDP...even if she takes you out roughing it and you are inexperienced, but you handle it with grace and some humor, then she would see the kind of person you are (more of a cityfied artsy fella--not a buckaroo or cowpoke). But the point of the adventure is not "how well does this person camp" but rather, can they deal with some dirt...can they laugh at themselves when they make a mistake...can they handle the frustration of having NO CLUE what they're doing but give it a try...can they fail without blaming...can they let their partner fail without ranting and raving...

Can they figure out how to light a fire in the rain????

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

I guess I would still vote for "Hey, Cookie, so far so good. I think you're the kind of woman I could marry. Let's be exclusive." In the old days we used to call this "going steady" because it's not just dating, nor it is that one where you date only that person...it's more than that and yet not QUITE engaged.

I assume "Cookie" is in her 30's or 40's, right? Why not ask her if she'd like to go steady and choose a "going steady" ring? If she's our age, she'll get the context, and she'll get that it means a step TOWARD deeper and deeper commitment...plus it's old-fashioned and kinda sweet.

Hmmm, I think that it's incorrect to label the process of getting to know someone as "stalling", or "waiting for the sake of waiting". It is neither waiting nor stalling, it is spending time with a person under a variety of situations to see what they are like, and to see if their actions match their words and your expectations.

You may genuinely believe that you have talked it all through and that you can circumvent the benefits of time together; I am skeptical that this is possible.

You may get very lucky, but you are taking a huge risk. And I still do not see the reason to try to circumvent the benefit (and joy) of getting to know a person slowly over time.

Frankly, I am a little puzzled why she is in such a hurry too, when just recently she seemed apparently unsure about her level of interest in you. You must be quite the talker, or kisser, or <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />.

AGG

agg, i think it just might be the "or" ;-)

haha

mlhb

Gnome:

I would be more concerned because from what you have written before, I sensed you hold to firm Christian beliefs and this woman is not a believer in Christ. That, to me, is a significant difference in the way one views life and how one lives.

If you were a person that said, "Yah, I believe in God" but your belief had little or no impact on how you live, that would be one thing, but I understood that you are more dedicated than that.

(Everyone else: Please no religion- or God-bashing. Leave that for the other thread... thanks.)

Em

I have to admit, when I saw EyeSeeEm's post, I was stunned and thought that surely there was some mistake. Having known you as long as I have, I truly did not think it was even conceivable that you would consider dating a woman who is not a believer. So I took the time to research and sure enough on 1/8/07 you wrote that she is not a believer.

WOW! I am stunned!!

I think rather than say things that you would probably interpret as negative, I'll just say that this is EXACTLY why everyone is encouraging you to slow down and take the time to observe and think. I'm sure I could add more in a private email, but GDP, this is SO NOT YOU. I would have bet my life that you understood the necessity of being equally-yoked and why that is such a requirement that God commands us! I know for a fact that you know that when we obey God, He blesses us...and when we think we know better than Him and do it our own way, usually He can not bless it because it is disobeying Him.

In light of this new, pertinent information, I am strongly, STRONGLY, STRONGLY urging you to stop and think about what you know marriage is supposed to be.

Wow--I'm in shock.

Your true and faithful friend,



CJ

Em and CJ, I appreciate your expressions of concern, and the "faith factor" was indeed an area of significant concern to me as well. You are right, my faith is integral to who I am and how I see the world and how I live my life. My beliefs, however, are neither entirely static nor entirely conventional. At the risk of sounding like I am deluding myself, I can only say (without detailing a spiritual journey which began long before I met this woman) that this issue has been addressed to my satisfaction.

There are a number of things I could add, but as CJ implies, this forum is probably not the best place for a spiritual or religious discussion of this nature.

Michelle, there is precious little "ore" for a gold-digger to find in this Gnome's depleted bank account, so I suppose her growing interest must be due to my silver tongue. Surely it should be obvious after all my time here that I am "quite the talker," yes?

AGG, again, I don't see either of us as being in a "hurry." It's more an attitude of, if we're going to do something, then let's go ahead and do it. And let's be clear, this woman has demonstrated rather more prudence than I have, because she has shown no inclination to rush to her own conclusion on the matter. She is considering the question from a number of very sensible angles, and she is actively trying to work out boundaries which will allow her (and us) to arrive at a decision in as balanced a manner as possible.

When she told her mother that she thinks she's going to marry me, she was merely expressing how it appears to her from where we stand right now. The destination for which we seem to be headed is by no means a foregone conclusion. She has some legitimate concerns. However, these concerns are of the sort which seem possible to work out. So from where we stand at the moment, there is no clear and present danger of derailment.

While I recognize that you have changed your vote, CJ, I am going to respond to this anyway...

I have never understood the point of the "going steady" concept, especially as it was practiced in high school. (Do they still do that?) And, CJ, I'm not sure what you mean by "going steady" being more than just dating one person - unless you just mean that it is an explicit agreement as contrasted with being a mere product of social inertia.

As I see it, there is no real point to exclusivity unless you are actively considering marriage. (This is somewhat akin to the "courtship" paradigm popular in some Christian circles.) If that's what "going steady" connotes, then fine, that is effectively where we currently stand.

My idea of the sensible stages in the route to marriage would be:

1) Getting to know one another. The appropriate intimacy level here is equivalent to friendship, with the only difference being an openness to the potential of it growing into something more. Once you have identified one another as being the type of partner you would want, as far as can be determined at this intimacy level, you progress to...

2) Actively considering marriage. The appropriate intimacy level here is deeper than friendship, which is why exclusivity makes sense. In order to determine the suitability of a partnership you must share at a level which demands trust (which should already have been earned by the time you reach this point), and since emotional entanglement tends to result from this intimate level of processing, it is best to identify "dealbreakers" as early as possible. Once you are satisfied that marriage is what you want, and that there is sufficient compatibility on a host of axes (including maturity, values, goals, lifestyle, personality, etc., etc.), you progress to...

3) Actively planning marriage. Once you've decided to get married, attention should shift to the logistics of integrating your lives (although note that many of the "how" issues should already have been addressed in principle during the previous stage). In general, I don't think long engagements are a good idea.

4) Marriage.

It seems to me that there is a tension in stage two, where on the one hand it is a good idea to get your cards on the table quickly, before emotional entanglement becomes too intense, and on the other hand it is important to develop a reasonable level of confidence that the cards are real. What I'm struggling with is the criteria necessary to establish this "reasonable level of confidence."

Ok, as far as you're concerned: Stage 1, check. 2 months and you are ready to move onto Stage 2. You won't be in Stage 3 long, you said it yourself, so I guess you have this Stage to get it right.

From what I've read thus far, GDP, you're a pretty smart fella. So, take my questions as what they are, from a guy with not a lot of brains in his own quagmire. Maybe you'll find them silly, maybe you won't...

Maybe I'm just interested for myself if anyone else has any input...

Let's say you had a 30 y.o. daughter (or son) who has been thru what you have and she finds herself in a similar sitch. What would you advise him/her?

Now, unless your values object to pre-marital sex, what exactly is gained by getting married at this stage? Is it like "Check! Done with that. Let's move on to picking out drapes." Logically, I hear ya. Emotionally? Spiritually? Those don't exactly happen very fast for intellectual people (or dumba$$'s like me either).

Don't you get what you're looking for without getting hitched? The R, the togetherness, the courtship. Like my IC told me, "You only get one shot at the courtship. It's a dance that you will cherish forever and be the cornerstone to the rest of your R. Make it last...make it magical."

Blah, blah, I know. Wouldn't it be nice. (yes...)

Now, you just said you don't like long engagements, so my guess is you folks are going to get hitched within 6 months. Ok - that's fine. I know people who didn't take that long and they're doing fine. Heck, my X and I waited 3 months and we made it 17 years. We'd still be going if (:: whatever). So, it's not like you can't do it if you are both sensible people (my X and I were not - prolly still aren't).

So, question is, what's your timeline look like?

And, religiosly speaking (just out of curiosity), what DOES she believe in?

Again, you can all ignore my questions. I certainly don't "rank" in these circles. But, I was a bit surprised at this turn of events. I'll shut up now and go back to being linear.

blue

I somehow understood all what you mean, GDP... I could even agree with your "theory", it is not 'immature' approach as it seems on the surface... but only if... I wonder, would it be the same hurry (OK, "hurry") if your belief were "sex before marriage is OK"... ?
(I can bet that you'll say that no-sex-before-marriage has nothing to do with 'your case', yet... I wonder...)

I don't think you ought to make that bet, B2M. I would be deceiving myself if I tried to pretend that my position on premarital sex had nothing to do with my viewpoint. It's not a simple matter, though.

Looking at marriage as a license to remove frustrating boundaries misses the significance of the boundaries in the first place. A premature sexual focus is a powerful distraction from the processing needed to determine the full-spectrum appropriateness of the relationship. When you know that there are boundaries you will not permit yourself to cross, the frustration itself highlights the value of backing away from those boundaries and focusing on other aspects of the relationship instead.

The frustration aspect, however, is a principal reason for my not liking the idea of long engagements.