Life is not like the 51st Dates movie where the guy makes the girl fall in love with him every day at breakfast.
I don't think this is practical. There might be multiple prompts of why you do love your partner along the way. Say a couple buy a house. A notable milestone of joint achievement. I could imagine that would engender renewed feelings of love in this achievement. Then later making renovations or having children. A string of joint goals in life refreshing & renewing love.
I think this is more how it used to work. At the beginning of every couple there was at least a tinge of sexual excitement. Everybody who has been in a relationship knows that fucking like mad slows down. A lot. Maybe once a week, once a fortnight, once a month. The initial sexual excitement does not renew.
What seems to be emerging is that women develop sexual aversion to their husband. It is not necessarily conscious but just manifests as "I don't want sex". In men there is a coolidge effect but it is not strongly observed in female mammals so presumably isn't huge in human females.
Whilst at least 60% of women are clearly striving for an upper 10%tile man they do in fact settle and choose a man who is a bit better than OK and gets them a little sexually excited. We know 80% of men are ugly to women. But OK++ fades; just attractive doesn't last. YT Happy Wife said she found herself calculating she could get away with not giving sex till such and such a date. Harsh reality check Guys, I know, that our wives were only just OK on us, then rapidly lost interest after the bonding was done. Our bonding with them that is.
I don't think there is any co-incidence the median length of marriage is eight years. A child has to be 5 before entering elementary school which gives builtin in child minding. It takes two years for two kiddies at least, perhaps three. The average divorcing woman has 1.8 children, so most women do have 2 kids when they divorce.
There's your 8 year marriage Guys.
@wolfcat87 Interesting. Mostly stats on marriagefter thats a are poor in the sense of not telling us what we want to know. The median length of marriage is 8 years fairly consistently. In my country it is 12 years but couples separate at 8 and it takes 4 year to finalize divorce. The effective length is 8 years.
Now it could be a lot of people have married for 8 year lengths say 5 times. But we do know there is an average (not median) of 1.8 children per divorce which means most of them have produced 2 children and a few only 1. It would be most unlikely that re-marrying multiple times would each produce 2 children. each time BUT if it didn't than the average children per divorce would fall because there would be a lot of zero children divorces.
Could you give me a reference for the 22 year length of first marriages? I am plainly sceptical but I like accurate data.
www.bgsu.edu/.../...ration-marriages-fp-20-16.html
I have seen data that shows that the average length of a marriage "that ends in divorce" as being 8 years. But, that period only covers marriages that end and not the ones that last.
Wouldn't that make it more likely that the people divorcing so really are skewing the median of those who last much longer? 🤔
"According to the census bureau, the average length of first marriages for divorcing couples is 8.2 years"
www.google.com/.../why-do-so-many-couples-divorce-after-8-years%3famp
@wolfcat87 Thanks very much for that ref. I'll read it closely but replying first.
It would be really good if divorcing people had to fill in detailed surveys to get the divorce. As it is there isn't much. Date of marriage, date of separation, # of kiddies. No more juicy stories of alleged infidelity.
Certainly divorces only covers the failures. There is another peak around 20 years presumably at the empty nest point. After 30 years folk are very unlikely to divorce - that currently seems to be about a third of marriages.
We have a 'till death' cohort and a 'till its not fun' cohort and a till 'the kids leave' cohort that we can pick out easily. Each of them is a distortion because there is a lot of couples in each of them.
The 'till death' mob certainly distort average marriage length - there are many 8 year marriages in theirs so they bat above their weight. They don't distort the median much, of the most common length of divorce terminated marriage. For a start they ain't divorcing, as you have pointed out, and are excluded from the divorce stats.
The 'till its not fun' mob are distorting and are equally distorted. As you point out (again) there could be 10 or 100 times as many couples not divorcing at 8 years as those divorcing at 8 years.
I think it is a reasonable inference that those empty nesters who divorce have probably done the marriage for the kids. And probably divorcing octennials have done the marriage to have the kids.
We need better stats. I could go back and get total marriages each year and slam that together with divorces per year just to see. What we really want is on a per year married basis the accumulated divorces and surviving marriages but that is not going to happen.
Thanks for the second link too. Makes sense to some degree but I'd weight the child cycle more importantly. Would you divorce just before you child graduates or would you hold off till after so you don't spoil a major moment in their life?
The answer is No. Hence false.
Even if it is falling in love with the same person again and again then it also indicates the the person has to go through the phase of falling out of love and then reignite the spark to fall in love again. The cycle continues this way, in my view this is not very healthy.
I'd rather have a stable form of love where I can TRUST that the person won't leave me for someone else and will be committed to me through thick and thin. That's the kind of relationship my parents had when they started out, and are STILL having, 47 years later..
People these days, focus WAY too much on the initial lovey-dovey type of fix. It's the ero's type of love and it is passionate but does were off. That kind of stuff will eventually fade. Your partner isn't going to stay looking 25 or even 35 forever. They will get OLD, they will get SICK, things can happen to them (accident or disability, permanent or otherwise...). It's just life! To me, the best test of a successful relationship is committment.
Someone could be buying me flowers and candy but be yelling at me all the time behind closed doors.. very unstable type of person!
So I guess in the end, I do agree with you, so yes and no, but all I am just saying is that the stable kind of love is great too.
If my husband/partner/significant other wants to take me to Maui next month or for my birthday, then I know they are doing it because they love/care about me. It's not cheap to go to those kinds of things and if he'd rather do it with me and no one ele's then well awesome!
So yeah, I think I actually do agree with you lol.
Very true. The average person only stays in love 2-5 years before those initial hormones wear off. A very small minority of people stay in love forever. Once that wears off things either fall apart, people settle into commitment with less intense daily feelings feelings, or they may fall in love again at a later date.
I've been with my husband 17 years, and I've certainly fallen in and out of love many times. Staying in love constantly would be exhausting, it takes so much energy for the body to maintain. I think about him all the time, text him a bunch, make him sit on the phone or hang out with me, etc. When I'm not dealing with super lovey dovey feelings things get more practical. We knock out a ton of projects. Then, he'll do something super sexy, sweet, and/or impressive and I start falling for him all over again.
Same with my second husband of 10 years. Just when I start to get sick of him, he wins me over all over again.
I don't think a relationship where the in love feelings wear off and never return would be as much fun. It would be too easy to get into a rut and drift apart. People may stop feeling as alive and miss the passion. A lot of divorces/break ups likely happen due to that very reason. Cheating as well.
Opinion
15Opinion
I'd say that's true for long-term relationships. Like ones that happen closer to over the course of a lifetime.
Fosho
I get what your saying. But to keep falling in love, means you have to fall out of love.
I think it's finding new ways to stay in love
I think they meant something like that but could've worded it better lol
Yea basically lol
Yes and no. You can also fall more in love. For example you fall in love and then a few years later you look at them and realize just how happy they make you and fall deeper in love. And a few years later realize how much you appreciate everything they do for you and fall deeper in love. Repeat as needed.
I like this answer because this has been true of my relationship of 5 years. We’ve never fallen out of love, but we’ve made efforts to keep our love alive and well. And, I don’t really like the term “fall” in love, for existing relationships, because it sounds so accidental. I believe that NURTURE is a better word because one should nurture their relationship in such a way where their love grows stronger over time, rather than weaker, like planting and caring for a tree together.
@JacobJordan what your describing isn't falling in love because you're already in love. But falling more in love means you're alreqdy in love. To actually fall in love, you have to not be in love.
@dynamicyandere that's great☺️ and love that thought process
Thanks! 🙂
Not necessarily. Falling in love doesn't have an end point. The same way the big bang could in theory be a serious of ever expanding universal points. Each one ending and starting with a big bang. The universe would in theory never end but would keep successively exploding farther and farther outwards each explosion listed as a big bang. If you fall half way down a cliff and catch yourself momentarily you haven't stopped falling you are in a state of flux or change if you lose that grip you are falling again. That doesn't necessarily mean you stopped or the initial fall went away. Same concept you can fall in love and you still love your partner similar to forward trajectory them you can fall more in life. The process doesn't have to stop. Consider a series of hills. Each downslope followed by a flat plateau and then a downslope. If you roll a ball down the hill is is essentially falling. Once it reaches the plateau does it stop? Does it revert and go uphill? It is a small distinction but an important one. One does not always have to fall out of love to fall in love again
GAG chose an awesome stock image of a couple, that woman, wow, what hips. Anyways back to your question, I'd say so because I would want the honeymoon or the lovey Dovey early stages to last a long time if not the whole time. when a relationship gets stale, that's so stale 👋. You know? I feel bad for those who eventually get tired or lose interest or cheat rather than divorce/split lol 😂
Maybe that's where the outfits and bedroom spice ups and date ideas come from lol to keep it fresh 😜
That is just a small piece of the pie. Love is important, but it is far from the only thing that counts in a relationship.
Well for sure, cause relationships also take equal effort to keep up, that's where it seems to get tricky for many people.
Indeed so
For me it's more like being glad I found him. I feel so at ease around him. I can be myself, we understand each other so well. It's constantly a reminder of how lucky I am.
That's good, I'm glad Ms FS, congrats 🤣🎉
Incorrect. Falling in love is like falling off a 10 story building. The end result is a lot of pain or death. No true love is like a seed, it must be planted , nutured, and taken care of and then maybe just maybe it will bloom into something beautiful.
I fell in love with her twice, but in the end the long distance failed so I don't know if you can call it successful or not. Going to put a spin on it though, a succesful relationship is so strong that even if you had to rebuild your feelings from scratch it would still work out.
How do you fall in love multiple times with the same person
It just happens I guess
It's not falling out of love, I think it means the love keeps getting better cause you love them stronger, some sappy shit like that
“You shouldn't fall out of love in the first place” Exactly.
I also feel iffy about the term “fall” in this context, since that sounds so accidental.
If you have a bonfire that you’re building (a relationship where the love is alive and well), shouldn’t the bonfire be intentionally built to get bigger rather than accidentally made bigger?
“Falling” sounds so out of one’s control.
But, there are plenty of things that a couple can do to keep their love going strong or help cultivate a stronger bond — like plenty of ways that a couple can build their bonfire to make it burn even brighter.
They just need to both be intentional about that and make building a stronger bonfire (and protecting it) a priority and focus for them both to share.
In my opinion, the quote OP shared was poetic in the way it SOUNDS, but when the actual words are assessed, the technical implications of the word choice make things clunky and require a paragraph or two of explaining to make it make sense, haha.
In some sense it's true but falling out of love creates disaster for a relationship since anything could happen during that time for who knows how long. The idea is to continually be interacting in a way like your always dating to create those moments that grow emotional bonding.
I think that's true in a way -- as we get to know someone more deeply, we discover new reasons to like them.
False. One is enough :D
The important thing is to keep this feeling alive and thriving. And it's actually hard work
I think that's what it means about falling in love multiple time, but to be fair I don't know
Also true, from a different perspective. You have to put in the effort to stay in the zone.
@ChicoFromThe305
I see the problem with the approach. You don't have to put an effort into falling in love...
I guess, I don't know, I just found this but almost forgot I saved it lol
Yes, but the love will be different every time the longer you live with them.
Hmmm is part of a successful relationship but not the most important thing. Love alone is not enough to keep a relationship.
When hungry stomach+ empty pocket knock the door that time love fly away from windows.
True in my opinion
Sounds somewhat unstable. I think a commitment is more secure, but I suck at romances so maybe don't listen to me. lol
To fall in love again would suggest a falling out of love also took place. Strengthening the same love would be more accurate.
True. A long game is just that.
Interesting 🤔
Opinions aren't true or false. Facts and fallacies are.
im single as fuuuuuck
Why is that sniffles?
cause i say no to everyone 💀
Then the results are normal 😂
with love and trust together... overcome every situation...
Interesting. I guess that makes sense.
There's probably some truth to that.
False...
Nope not at all
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
