I was balling my eyes out because at that point because of the situation. I felt somewhat that the situation could pull us apart and that I was really sorry to put her through that. I wanted to walk away from it all and she persuaded me not to.
At that point I think she finally accepted that I feel I havent the option of getting married (I live by principle because it works for me), rather than not wanting it by being a tight arse. And not having that option made me feel bad.
"If you don't want to be married, but just want to project the image of being married, then why not just pretend to be married?"
2 reasons -
1) it doesn't help her work in Europe and thus help us live together, not a matter just of money but feeling fulfilled
2) it doesn't carry weight with her (it should). We already project this image to some degree. However, I take it onboard. We could project it more somehow. Thats a nice idea, Ill mention it.
We share where we live, various bills, computers, phones, everything a couple does. We act married, yes. But to share legal identity, no thanks. That sounds like something built on the soul partner myth. I think the only reason why its a problem for me is the view I view things. I look at nuts and bolts psychology and contracts whereas the average Joe has no clue. Now I know this I cant put that back in the box.
I mention a company because I wondered if that can be used for asset protection. That is, perhaps we can accept sharing everything for everything, but then have some things excluded by ownership by a separate company. The thing is, I don't think that would address the feeling of permanence.
I'm not ready for marriage, why would I ever be? Its just a bad deal when exposed for what it is. Compare it with alternatives such as marriage in sharia law and dowries. I just want us to be together more with less hassle. The key thing for me is that money is being introduced into a relationship and that for me spells disaster.
Could it be that because it spells disaster that perhaps this relationship isn't as right as it feels?
At that point I think she finally accepted that I feel I havent the option of getting married (I live by principle because it works for me), rather than not wanting it by being a tight arse. And not having that option made me feel bad.
"If you don't want to be married, but just want to project the image of being married, then why not just pretend to be married?"
2 reasons -
1) it doesn't help her work in Europe and thus help us live together, not a matter just of money but feeling fulfilled
2) it doesn't carry weight with her (it should). We already project this image to some degree. However, I take it onboard. We could project it more somehow. Thats a nice idea, Ill mention it.
We share where we live, various bills, computers, phones, everything a couple does. We act married, yes. But to share legal identity, no thanks. That sounds like something built on the soul partner myth. I think the only reason why its a problem for me is the view I view things. I look at nuts and bolts psychology and contracts whereas the average Joe has no clue. Now I know this I cant put that back in the box.
I mention a company because I wondered if that can be used for asset protection. That is, perhaps we can accept sharing everything for everything, but then have some things excluded by ownership by a separate company. The thing is, I don't think that would address the feeling of permanence.
I'm not ready for marriage, why would I ever be? Its just a bad deal when exposed for what it is. Compare it with alternatives such as marriage in sharia law and dowries. I just want us to be together more with less hassle. The key thing for me is that money is being introduced into a relationship and that for me spells disaster.
Could it be that because it spells disaster that perhaps this relationship isn't as right as it feels?
