Sowing your wild oats.

[Mojotronica]

It's an old cliché, but these days it seems to be the norm to hook up with a few people prior to finding someone you settle-down with. Is that the way it should be? For you?

If you had your choice about it, how would your path to relationship bliss look?

Conservative: Date platonically until meeting the one and marry that person. 100% monogamous.

Earnest: Everyone you date is a potential life partner. Your relationships are always very intense, but you may have more than one before finding the right person and settling down.

Circumstantial: You date some people for fun, and some people you date are relationship material. You will settle down with the right one, when you find them. But until then you'll pass the time with the wrong ones.

Cavalier: You will sow your oats until you are satisfied -- maybe around age thirty. Your relationships may be quite physical, but you are careful not to get emotionally attached until you are satisfied you have it out of your system. Then you will settle down with someone for the rest of your life.

Polygamous: You will never settle down with anyone, preferring to sow your oats until the you suffer a massive heart attack from over-exertion in your nineties...

 

[CurtSibling]

Gad!

You know who to ask the important questions, Mojotronica.

I prefer to not be labelled.
I will never be married, thus (respectfully) rejecting, christian ideals for life.

I will prance with maidens, be foolish, have fun and do what the bladdy hell I like!

 

[philippe]

i dont give a ****.
MY way is MY WAY!
Not labelling.

 

[Mojotronica]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Gad!

You know who to ask the important questions, Mojotronica.

Curt --

I don't know if you are being ironic -- I'll assume you are...

In my defense this question is very important to everyone, on a deeply personal level. Much more so than most of the political questions posted on Off-Topic. My hope is that by getting people to think about how they approach relationships they will figure out the path that is right for them.

I find it helpful to categorize ideas and ideals to better understand them, and for use as an intellectual model to study, dissect and analyze.

Even if the categories are incomplete (and I personally believe that all attempts at categorization will fall short) the process of defining and reviewing them helps me to recognize the exceptions even though I know I am generalizing.

It works for me, and I hope that others find it helpful too -- and I hope that we all realize that generalizations are never conclusive. Only indicative.

 

[allan2]

Circumstantial, is how it's played out for me (I am in my mid-30s, and unmarried). I've had flings, one-night stands, a few casual relationships, three serious ones (including an engagement), and my marriage partner is STILL out of sight.

I used to be earnest (hence my early-twenties engagement), but got a bit more cynical, I guess.

As for advice to give my future son or daughter, I'd say only, "DON'T jump into marriage until you are sure." However they play out their time in finding the right one--well, when they're adults is one thing, under my roof I'll probably be strict, as they'll expect of me as a parent, yet I'm sure they'll get away with stuff now and then if they're smart....

 

[CurtSibling]

Oops, typo!
I actually meant:
"You know HOW to ask the important questions, Mojotronica."

But no, by all means, ask away!
It is good to get to know the thoughts of your fellow posters.

And I am one for asking questions too, so forgive me if I offended you!

 

[Mojotronica]

I was Earnest in my teens, then went Cavalier around age twenty, then settled on Circumstantial in my late 20s'. I chose Circumstantial, but Cavalier is probably closer to the truth...

 

[Richard III]

I vote "practical romantic;" meaning dating several women knowing that they weren't the one but trying to make it work anyway, all the while knowing who "the one" is, knowing she was desirous but having to live with the fact that she was trapped and unavailable.

Supposedly, that's changed, however. But it's complicated.

 

[Remorseless]

Circumstantial until I met the right one (at age 24.5 years), been with her ever since. I always thought it was unfair to treat women as mere slabs of attractive meat (well, unless it was requested) and equally unfair to have the earnest approach (c'mon lighten up). Too much of a chicken to be cavalier.

 

[Greadius]

Earnest bordering on conservative.

I have mild oats.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I was cavalier, enjoying a fine variety of women in relationships of varying length between thee ages of 17 and 25 before finding the right person and getting married. I know my path wasn't for everyone, but I do recommend it for most young men; if you don't have a variety of experiences then you don't learn the fundamental differences between women, you don't gain skill, and you may have trouble staying monogamous later on/wonder what you missed.

 

[Pillager]

Conservative.

 

[Padma]

In my case, conservative.

But I found my wife at a relatively young age (18). So "Earnest" (serial monogamy) would probably have fit, otherwise.

 

[Kafka2]

Balls. My oats were harvested years ago.

 

[Immortal]

I bounce back and forth between cavalier and circumstantial.

 

[Ohwell]

I think this is the only time I will label myself conservative.

 

[Toasty]

Circumstantial.

I'll take what bites.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Cavalier, with polygamous tendencies. There's just too much beauty in the world...

 

[Plexus]

I plan on being conservative.

 

[Pongui]

Oh dear. I was Cavalier at age 13. By 18 I was sick (not literally, by some miracle) and tired and thoroughly anti-Earnest. 10 years of friendly Circumstances followed that. Now I'm Earnestly married, and know for certain what I want and that I have her.

I'm opposed to relationships as heavy things.