06/26/13 08:39 - ID#57841

Getting Married - Double Happiness

My Chinese coworker gave me these hand made signs that you put on your windows when you are getting married. It looks really cute.

Permalink: Getting_Married_Double_Happiness.html
Words: 30
Last Modified: 06/26/13 08:45

Category: marriage

04/04/09 09:44 - ID#48286

1955 g. housekeeping guide 4 a good wife

I was searching for internet brides just to see what was out there when I found this guide to being a good wife on goodwife.com

While it sound like a dream for me, I can't believe there is any women who truly would follow this.

So far all I get is number three. The second and fifth last one's is outrageous.

From Housekeeping Monthly, 13 May, 1955.

Have dinner ready. Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal ready on time for his return. This is a way of letting him know that you have be thinking about him and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they get home and the prospect of a good meal is part of the warm welcome needed.

Prepare yourself. Take 15 minutes to rest so you'll be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your make-up, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh-looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people.

Be a little gay and a little more interesting for him. His boring day may need a lift and one of your duties is to provide it.

Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives. Run a dustcloth over the tables.

During the cooler months of the year you should prepare and light a fire for him to unwind by. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift too. After all, catering to his comfort will provide you with immense personal satisfaction.

Minimize all noise. At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of the washer, dryer or vacuum. Encourage the children to be quiet.

Be happy to see him.

Greet him with a warm smile and show sincerity in your desire to please him.

Listen to him. You may have a dozen important things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first - remember, his topics of conversation are more important than yours.

Don't greet him with complaints and problems.

Don't complain if he's late for dinner or even if he stays out all night. Count this as minor compared to what he might have gone through at work.

Make him comfortable. Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or lie him down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him.

Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soothing and pleasant voice.

Don't ask him questions about his actions or question his judgment or integrity. Remember, he is the master of the house and as such will always exercise his will with fairness and truthfulness. You have no right to question him.

A good wife always knows her place.

Permalink: 1955_g_housekeeping_guide_4_a_good_wife.html
Words: 485

Category: marriage

12/01/08 01:45 - ID#46906

Valuable Wedding Rings

For me personally, a $55 wedding ring

is too cheap. By me personally, I mean if I got one. I don't have one so I am not an expert. I am not trying to cheapen anyone's else's rings or anything but before everyone just decides that I am purley a materialist, I thought I should explain myself.

I feel like a wedding ring should carry more of a investment than say an mp3 player or cell phone because it shows that the person purchasing worked hard for it and frankly working hard for something equates caring to me.

I am not saying that someone who is poor should have to spend $5000 and go broke, that is ridiculous. And in reference to (e:thelli) I am definately not suggesting it need be diamonds. In fact I don't really like diamonds - I am an emerald guy, lol. But in my opinion it should be somewhat relative to your income and should involve a bit of saving up. Even someone at minimum wage could save $10 a week for one year and get me a $500 ring. Thats like barely a couple beers.

Plus, more valuable rings also appreciate in value over time so that they become things that you can put in your will and pass on to other people.

Now (e:matthew) says he wants this one

tinypliny writes at 09:22:33 12/04/08 - Comment #42941: Here are my demands. If you give me a ring, you sincere person, I want it made out of either:

a) Cheerios (yeah, its going to be tricky getting a one that fits that finger. Start sorting through boxes or bake one for me. hehehe)

OR

b) Sour jello-candy.

I won't accept any compromise deals. I want to eat the ring. Let's be completely clear on that! ;-)

ladycroft writes at 04:20:11 12/04/08 - Comment #42932: After reading all the comments, I think maybe it boils down to "do you and your significant other agree that saving up for a more costly ring equates the commitment/effort in your hearts". If it is important to both of you, then go for the big tag. But, as other have put, if the symbol of the ring itself is equates the commitment/effort in your hearts, then stick with the low budget. It doesn't mean people with big rings are all superficial.

When asked what I wanted, I requested small, sapphire, and inexpensive. Of course it is his prerogative regarding the engagement ring.

iriesara writes at 05:13:54 12/02/08 - Comment #42880: I've been thinking about this post for a couple of days. Jim and I are the in the process of becoming "betrothed", technically, that is. (he asked my father for his blessing in September when my folks came to visit). I want a ring because, although anyone who knows me would use the word materialistic LAST among adjectives to describe me, it just shows that the person has invested themselves in the question, in the proposal. Plus I never buy anything nice for myself, so if a man really loves me, he'll see that I deserve more than I would ever do for myself. My man is not rich, the two of us together struggle to make the old ends meet in the middle, and maybe have a few left over for a couple cocktails or tokes at the end of the month. I've been leaving him the jewelry ads which come in the mail since last valentines (I'd never really ever gotten actually "jewelry" before that, other than beaded hippie businesses). I circled a very modest yet cute ring, which was $150. I keep telling him, it's not the ring, it's the man, it's the relationship, but seriously I'm over 30 now, so let's go. I don't want to wait the 7 years for him to save up, ya know? He said, and I quote "Do you know how much that ring costs?!?! - $100!!!" and I said
"It's $150". to which was replied "Do you think I'm a fucking asshole? What kind of man would I be to buy the woman I want to marry a $150 ring?!?"

oh, the struggles we have.....wow, I sound very obnoxious...really I'm just blessed.

The whole price thing is just retarded. Woman with huge real rings and huge fake boobs and big successful fake husbands have only one real thing, and that diamond won't keep her warm at night.

I don't care what anyone thinks when they look at my small get-the-magnifying-glass-out-ring that I'll eventually get, I'll know it's mine because I'm loved. That's all that matters.

paul writes at 09:51:19 12/01/08 - Comment #42835: Oops I copied the wrong link :::link::: from the chat. Both were in there. The self-insemination site is insane because its about trying to predetermine the gender of your baby with all these tricks.

I am fixing it.

theecarey writes at 09:39:50 12/01/08 - Comment #42833: So I click the link to the $55 ring, and I'm brought to a forum about "at-home self-insemination". LOL

gardenmama writes at 08:49:40 12/01/08 - Comment #42831: I get the sense that you feel the ring should be more of a reflection of someoneâ€™s commitment rather than simply a symbol of their commitment - I believe many other people feel that way too. However, I sometimes think people who have already been married a while (or who are divorced) often have a different take on the ring thing. As for engagement rings, many women stop even wearing an engagement ring some years into their marriage - here I think a bigger ring just says someone has more money (or less sense), not that theyâ€™re more committed.

My husband and I had very simple, unadorned 14K gold wedding bands. They were quite inexpensive (not $55 but close enough) and I did not want an engagement ring - it felt unnecessary to me (of course we were only engaged for a month before we got married). It was his commitment to me that I most valued not the symbol. I donâ€™t think I could have ever found a ring that would have been a true reflection; everything â€" no matter the cost â€" would have seemed cheap in comparison.

One nice thing about the inexpensive rings - when my husband died, I buried his wedding ring with his ashes - and I can pretty much be sure no one would dig him up for it, nor did I feel any compulsion not to do it based on its (monetary) value.

metalpeter writes at 06:56:11 12/01/08 - Comment #42824: To expand on (e:James)'s Idea (assuming traditional weeding) The grooms men and bridesmades who are set up could just get naked together and have a blast of a time I would love to see the look 0n the camera crews faces.

Back to the point on rings. I do like rings but never really wear them and I have seen some cool looking rings for men not sure what rings for men look like but if they made them look like college rings or rings you get for winning some championship that would be pretty cool. But see with women the traditional rings look all the same mostly. Yes there are different sizes of diamonds. But unless you are up close you can't tell the difference. Not to mention if it is 14k or 24k gold it will look the same, if the diamond is worth 100 or 5000 bucks to the naked eye they look the same. What I think is more important is what the ring means. If two people met at The Lord of the Rings Then those rings with elfish writings on them is what you should get. To many people think that how much the ring costs is what makes it good or not, and that isn't true. Well unless of course that is what the relationship is built on, and a lot of them are so.... it makes sense that how much you spend equals how much you love to those people.

drew writes at 04:37:39 12/01/08 - Comment #42817: (e:james), I cannot wait until you get married. $1,000 does buy a lot of pizza and beer.

james writes at 04:26:21 12/01/08 - Comment #42814: There are demons at lose in our society and they work for the wedding industry. Apparently, you now need an engagement ring, a wedding ring, and another ring when you renew your vows every ten years. Then there is an engagement party, the wedding, the honeymoon... you could buy a house for what some middle class people spend on, what is essential, a large party.

A wedding could be just as memorable and fun with kegs of beer, gallons of whiskey, and pizza. Save the small well drink, the dry chicken marsala, and the crushing debt. Seriously, how much alcohol and pizza could you get for $1,000? For the money people spend on tuxedos and dresses you could have a whole drunken orgy of a wedding.

janelle writes at 03:56:59 12/01/08 - Comment #42813: Ugh, I am biting my tongue and trying not to rant about women who demand expensive engagement rings.

Not to mention the whole evils of the diamond industry that the ridiculous demand for expensive engagement rings supports.

My husband paid very little for my engagement ring and I still thought it was too much. Lol.

joshua writes at 03:22:41 12/01/08 - Comment #42812: I've had friends that got engaged to girls with ridiculous ring demands... like, for example, a $10,000 ring on a salary of $65k or $70k. If I ever have a future fiancee that pulls that on me, I'd have to reevaluate if I ever actually knew her.

Guys are easy though... our bands are modest and don't have to be super expensive. I can see what you mean though (e:paul) - I don't think you are hung up on the price of the item, but the value in terms of what it took to give it to you. I think there is room for compromise. Like you say, the ring doesn't have to be absurdly expensive. Especially for guys, since it isn't too hard to make a guy's wedding ring look cheaper the more you spend on it.

drew writes at 03:05:01 12/01/08 - Comment #42810: (e:janelle) and I have modest rings--not $55, but definitely not even one month's salary--likely not a paycheck.

We demonstrate our commitment in other ways.

theli writes at 02:27:01 12/01/08 - Comment #42809: The diamond comment was really just an aside. Diamonds just rub me the wrong way. I definitely agree that other gemstones tend to look better. And would definitely go for something like that if I ever felt the need to purchase a ring that was more than just a band. (Although for a symbol, I'd actually find a clean and simple band to be preferable.) And, as opposed to diamonds, you are less likely to have a forced monopoly driving up prices despite the actual lack of real rarity. (At least the kind of rarity that would warrant those prices. Cripes.)

jason writes at 01:58:17 12/01/08 - Comment #42806: I like the ring Matt picked out. Having excess bling is way too guido, way too chav, no diamonds for me.

Permalink: Valuable_Wedding_Rings.html
Words: 243

Category: marriage

11/09/08 10:47 - ID#46613

Call for an end to state based marriage

(e:james) said in the comments on his journal

The great irony of this is that gay people are saying to the social conservatives "Hey, we want to be like you. We want to take part of the great civilizing force, marriage." It is the most conservative thing the GLBT community has ever done. (e:james,46594)

That got me thinking about my true feelings on the issue of gay marriage. At first I was just mad at the Christian conservatives over prop8, then I thought just maybe they are saving homosexuality from becomming the new heterosexuality.

Taking out the B and T
First of all I don't think the B part of GLBT is saying much about this. It doesn't make sense unless they are living in denial or in some closet of their sexuality. How can you be bisexual and commit to just one person. If you really want that you can already have it, marry the opposite sex, have sex with same sex on the side. Why not, just not marry at all? I think we should probably leave them out. Even T isn't really that concerned if you think about it, because they can make the switch and actually get married.

So basically, it is just a GL issue and even in that group, in is a sub-group of those in conservative gay relationships like (e:jim) and (e:james), (e:lauren) and (e:fellyconnelly), or (e:mike) and (e:libertad).

Down with State Marriage
Seeing as I have no benefit to gain from gay marriage due to my non-traditional family unit - I am moving my suppport for promoting gay marriage to the abolition of state marriage movement altogether. I think there are probably more straight guys that would join me on this one, than on allowing gay marriage, lol.

I say let there only be state civil based unions. People appoint whoever they want as health proxy /visitation rights, inheritor, health insurance partner, tax incentives etc and get rid of the marriage part. We just need strreamline that process of appointing someone.

If two traditionalist heteros or hetero styled, gay conservatives still want to be married they can. I am not saying make marriage illegal. It would just have to be a religious marriage or a private commitment ceremony for the non-believers. Why involve the state?

That way there needs to be no voting about the term marriage ever again and traditionalists can still protect their faith based marriages. I bet by changing the words on it, conservative would have less problem with equal rights. I mean imagine the "protect hetero-only partner, health care visits" posters - they just wouldn't carry the same weight.

In the end
I guess in the end I am more for an even playing field than for marriage.

tinypliny writes at 06:50:48 11/10/08 - Comment #41930: Humans - as a species, are NOT monogamous. However, a good chunk of us are hypocritical, narrow-minded and judging.

metalpeter writes at 06:30:14 11/10/08 - Comment #41917: I don't like the term civil unions but I do think that there should be a way for people to pick who ever they want as their health care proxy and there should be away that people can get all the same legal rights that come with Marriage. There is one problem I sort of have with civil unions. How does one break them, what is the legally equal to say a divorce? I think this idea is a good idea that you have (e:Paul) . I think that it would also be a good idea for people who aren't gay. There are some people who never get married but live like they are. I think one problem with this idea is the same problem that faces gay Marriage or same sex marriage in that it is a state issue. With marriage it is illegal to be married to two people. If I mary someone in New York than every other state honors it so if I move there isn't a problem. But with this system that might not happen. If someone has to move out of state for a job the legal rights you have in North Carolina could be differnt then is South Carolina or they might not count it as valid.

heidi writes at 10:26:50 11/09/08 - Comment #41881

giggle* thanks for the clarifications, Paul. I agree about eliminating a state concept of marriage. Let religious folks have it.

(and I'm not the most monogamous, either! ;-)

paul writes at 09:54:53 11/09/08 - Comment #41877: That should read, "that leads me to believe that, in general, G and Ls have more interest in traditional marriage. "

I got a little crazy with the cut and paste.

paul writes at 09:52:28 11/09/08 - Comment #41876: I'm bi and I have done the monogamy thing too. I just meant to say that Gays and Lesbians have zero chance to marry someone they are sexually attracted and fit better into the traditional marriage construct. That leads me to believe they have, in general, G and Ls have more interest in traditional marriage for gays.

Anyways, I am not saying to take the right to marry away from bisexuals in the first place, lol. I am saying take it away from everyone. I am just saying that in the current system bisexuals already have an option to marry someone they are sexually attracted to, possibly meaning that lots of them are already married. Also, in my experience, myself included - bisexuals are not the most monogamous people.

heidi writes at 08:39:08 11/09/08 - Comment #41869: Hey! I'm bi and I've done the monogamy thing. I'll just ditto Lauren's comment.

mrmike writes at 12:51:27 11/09/08 - Comment #41838: Despite the field's lack of interest, this enlightened hetero agrees with you

tinypliny writes at 12:43:46 11/09/08 - Comment #41837: Yep. Thanks for making this post. The narrow definition of marriage is stifling for a ton of straight people. I shudder thinking about it. It represents an archaic inflexible un-evolved and unscientific system to me. It's not about rights even, I would go a step further and say that its about CHOICE to do whatever the hell you want in your life (if its not harming anyone and benefiting your psychosocial well-being) and be granted legal and societal benefits, given you made that choice.

Choice could have a number of faces. Not just marrying, partnerships and delegations. Choice includes control of your relationship/social environment, your choice of a community, your reproductive/adoptive choices, your medical/end-of-life choices.

The idea is to get rid of state interference in non-criminal self-global-health promoting personal choices. A person cannot be globally healthy if others decide their fates, goals and choices. We may be a social species but we have a unique genetic identity and choices are our way of estabishing personalized social choices, given our evolutionary identities.

paul writes at 12:26:48 11/09/08 - Comment #41836: Like I said, I want all of those rights for anyone, that anyone wants to appoint to those positions in their life and I don't see why marriage has anything to do with it. My thing about bisexuals (myself included) was that they at least have some opportunity for marriage.

I just want equal opportunity for everyone and to move all the deifnition of the important roles in your life to state based forms instead of one role marriage being assigend to one person and then they get everything.

Say you were married but having a relationship with your secretary and you trusted her more than your wife in terms of health care decisions. I don't see why you can't just define her as your health care proxy and leave it at that.

Same wih a single person who just has a non-sexual, same or opposite sex, best friend they trust most. Why not indentify them as you health care proxy, etc.

As for Jim - sorry if I misinterpreted your relationship as traditional/status quo. Part of the reason was your rings. Viewing them from the outside, your commitment rings kind of represented a traditional "claim of symmetry with the status quo" and traditional marriage. Not to say that I wouldn't wear a ring if M and T wanted to get them. You know how much I love jewlery.

james writes at 11:56:15 11/09/08 - Comment #41835: Gay marriage, I always felt, would be a step in the right direction: liberalizing the home. (e:PMT) certainly are not accommodated by gay marriage, and there are hundreds of other non-traditional couples in this state who wouldn't get the benefits they deserve. Moving towards a non-sexualized, legal apparatus where benefits can be conferred on willing groups is what we need and the very end of traditional marriage.

There is a great paradox that the GLBT community, doing the most conservative thing in our history, will be doing its part in ending marriage.

jim writes at 11:26:40 11/09/08 - Comment #41834: Personally, I don't want to get married to be more traditional or to claim symmetry with the status quo, except to the extent that I want to get the rights involved. Access to shared health care, recognition standardized across the country, inheritance laws, all that.

lauren writes at 11:16:49 11/09/08 - Comment #41833: In a lot of ways Paul, I am totally with you. I do think that gay marriage and those who are for it are trying to say "we are like you" when, often, we are not. I could get in to a whole nother conversation around that, but my real concern about your post is the taking out of the "B" and "T".

First, in terms of bisexuality...you said, "how can you be bisexual and commit to just one person". My question is, how can you be straight and commit to just one person, or gay for that matter? I happen to consider myself pansexual (which is also a whole other conversation) but just because I am in a relationship does mean that all of a sudden I have no sexuality outside of that relationship, even if i am committed.

In terms of T...not all people who transition do so into a "hetero" relationship. There are trans women, for example, who still love and want to be in relationships with other women. Also, there are trans people who do not go through with full surgical procedures and therefore do not officially become the opposite gender according to state records. There are also queer people who do not identify with any gender.

For me, the battle of marriage equality is not necessarily for marriage only, although some look at it as such. I think that it is more about looking at "equality" and how it is compromised through various loopholes. There are also many other loopholes for many other communities that are also worth fighting for. Ultimately, the question should not be about whether or not you think marriage is something desirable, but if you can recognize that some do and if they want it, there should be nothing standing in their way.