Distance in dating

[wutangnomo]

If you feel you need to be around them as often as possible to monitor their actions and such, then you shouldn't be dating.

One of them most famous Generals in the Marine Corps, Chesty Puller, very rarely saw his future wife. And during many campaigns including WWII, he courted her by mail. Eventually the two of them married and it lasted. There was no email, no cell phone, etc. Just plain old fashioned trust and loyalty. They chose to make it work and it did.

So, distance is not a factor in the respect of disloyalty, etc. if that is happening it would happen if they lived in the same house. And to be around someone to monitor their moods/actions etc, is in essence an attempt to control them, which is a no go.

My friend that was then, this is now. The biggest difference between now and then is that nowadays it is MUCH easier for people to cheat. That is a fact. Cheating nowadays is much more rampant then in the days of the past because of one reason.... the means with which people can MEET and interact with others is a whole lot easier. To put it simply, people have way more opportunity now as opposed to in the days of Chesty Puller. You have bars, clubs, all sorts of social meeting places and people live closer to one another. The huge one is the internet, which now allows people to meet others they would have NEVER met. In the days of WWII NONE of this existed as people lived more spread apart, social gathering places did not exist to such a degree as they do today, and there was no internet, etc. You are delusional if you think things still work as they did during Puller's days.

In a conventional relationship the chances of a partner being unfaithful is fairly high. In a long-distance relationship the chances are even higher. Being around someone has nothing to do with controlling him/her. I believe that humans are not monogamous by nature; however, we do possess the ability of will-power. You, me, and everyone else WILL cheat IF the right conditions are met, though everyone has different limits. The point is distance is a very important condition that does not help a relationship whatsoever.

 

[chesty]

I really believe it is not do to the ease with which one can meet someone else as it really is all about the morals of the person that you choose to involve yourself with. If trust is not foremost then all else fails. I know this because it can happen and did right in front of me in my own home. There was no trust, no faitfulness, etc. In the end, whether it is 1 mile or 1000 miles, no trust, no morals, no faith, it will not work.

Now, I am not saying that distance does not present its own set of difficulties, it really comes down to the level of commitment one is willing to make when the time comes. If you can't make that commitment, then again, 1 mile or a 1000 it will not survive.

But, I can understand your point.

 

[jerseyart]

Chesty and wutangnomo. Your both right to large degrees in what you posted.

But Chesty, listen to wutangnomo. The bor is spot on in the practical consequences.

 

[chesty]

I am a pragmatic leaning towards optimist. I used to be total pessimist, but that never got anyone any where.

I believe all points are valid. It worked for me and lasted 17 years, which is much better than most. It really comes down to the parties involved. Two to dance, etc. if one is willing that most likely won't be enough. That is where being a pragmatist comes in.