What's In A Name? A Rose Is Still A Rose Etc.

[HarryHerb]

I'm wondering if it is compulsory in Thailand for a woman to adopt her husband's name when she marries. Would any of you married ladies know if this is the case?

If you are not legally obliged to change your name, how many of you did? Why? (just out of curiosity )

What problems (if any) did you encounter when changing your identity back home - bank accounts, passport, social security etc.? Or is it even necessary to do this? Can you lead an exciting double life as Mrs Suwattanasin in Thailand and still be plain old Miss Smith in the UK?

Practical information will be highy valued, although a theoretical discussion on "names, subjugation and identity" would also be entertaining

[Boo]

I don't know if it is law to change it but I changed my name in my passport a few days after getting married in LOS.

I flew to BKK, took the old passport to the Brit embassy & had it changed by presenting a copy of my marriage certificate & the translation. Easy peasy.

When we moved back to the UK, I contacted all the banks etc with a letter advising of my new name & status & they changed no problem, again using the wedding cert & translation.

I never bothered to actually register my marraige at the embassy as it isn't compusory & have never encountered anyone not happy to accept the thai wedding cert & translation. All in all very easy to do ( but I have kept my maiden name at work as I worked for the same company for many years part time whilst living in LOS, so had a history with my maiden name, also easier to pronounce than my husbands)

Why did I change it?? Dunno, I suppose I am a traditionalist about things like that, it's a sign of respect isn't it? If I love him enough to marry him then taking his name is a natural progression, besides I wouldn't want to have a different name to our kids. If I was famous or my name identified me as someone (writer, critic etc) then maybe I wouldn't but I like his name, it's not as bad as some thai surnames can be & apparently it's quite a good one (not that I would really care)

[gisele]

I take his name socially around here but not on any official documents.

I am from Quebec where birth names are the only legal names for official documents; socially, married women can adopt any name but they must sign their birth name.

This is what I am used to and I don't feel comfortable taking his name for legal documents. Nothing to do with love, I love my husband dearly , but keeping my name is part of my cultural experience.

[Totster]

My wife kept her surname, which was no problem for me, IMO it doesn't matter.

There is no law that says she has to change her name and on the wedding certificate our names are recorded with our different surnames.

The only difference to her now is the 'Mrs' ( นาง ) before her name in Tabien Baan the and on the ID card.

I would imagine that whichever route you take the name recorded on the Marriage Certificate, and therefore in the Tabien Baan, ID card and passport, will be the one she would use for social security, bank accounts etc.. be it in Thailand or the UK.

totster

[sbk]

The law used to be that the wife had to take the husbands name but that was changed quite a few years ago.

I took my husband's name (could have been still the law at the time but I can't remember) as it is not long nor complicated nor impossible to pronounce . I changed my passport, credit cards, drivers license and social security card as well.

Why? Well, same answer as Boo, I guess. I love my husband and don't see that there is anything more than a sign of respect and love in taking his name.

My surname, when pronounced by Thais, sounds like the word for a very nasty ghost, as well as being difficult to pronounce by Thais. However, if he had one of those polysyllabic impossibly long names I would have kept my nice short name, regardless of the difficult pronunciation and nasty connotations.

[HarryHerb]

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

So I guess it comes down to personal choice. It seems like more and more women (in the UK at least) are keeping their maiden names, perhaps because they are marrying later in life and already have an established identity at work or whatever. Or, actually worse (to me), many of my friends seem to be going down the unwieldy and rather ugly double-barrelled route - which would be a total disaster with most Thai-English combinations!

It's a tough one. Changing names does seem logically to follow marriage (after all if you're accepting one archaic institution, why not the other? )

On the other hand, as Totster says, these days perhaps it's not that important - marriage in my case will be for convenience, rather than any belief in a piece of paper (relationship is solid enough without it - and if I'm wrong a piece of paper won't help us either) - and surely you can love and respect your husband without taking his name? sbk and boo, even you admit that if your hubbies had had unpronouncable, super-long surnames you would have thought twice...

Did your husbands have any views on the matter? Changing names effectively marks you out as belonging to him - it's a public display of committment over and above the marriage certificate that, personally, I don't think is necessary.

[Patsycat]

I was married to a swiss guy and i still have his name plus my maiden name so i can use both and they are both legal.

[sbk]

Did your husbands have any views on the matter? Changing names effectively marks you out as belonging to him - it's a public display of committment over and above the marriage certificate that, personally, I don't think is necessary.

He said, no, it didn't matter to him one way or the other. I do have to add that the unpronounceability of my maiden name for Thai people did play a factor in my decision. But I also have to add that it wasn't a major decision for me, it seems a pointless thing to worry about when there are so many other things in marriage that need deeper consideration.

[Boo]

Same as SBK. Hubby said it was up to me but was chuffed when he saw the new passport with my new name on it He did suggest though, once we moved back to the UK, of changing both our names to my maiden name as people in the UK do have a problem with pronouncing his even though it is very short & quite simple (English mentalitiy I suppose, it isn't an English name so lets make it as complicated as possible to say, instead of reading the letters & forming the word!!!)

It is personal choice though & whatever suit is up to you IMO. As I said, I felt that it was right to take his name & it has made things like getting his visa easier & with less explaination needed (although that wasn't a factor it has helped)

[Jasmine]

(English mentalitiy I suppose, it isn't an English name so lets make it as complicated as possible to say, instead of reading the letters & forming the word!!!)

This is the problem I have with my husband's surname. It is short and pronounced exactly as it looks but everyone makes a meal out of it and people often ask if it's Eastern European???

I took his surname largely because I never liked my own! My husband wasn't bothered either way.

I do get bored of having to spell it out all the time. Also as it's unusual ie we're the only people in the UK with the surname I sometimes feel it makes you stand out.

I agree about the doubling-barreling. It used to be seen as quite "posh" but now everone's doing it

[Totster]

He did suggest though, once we moved back to the UK, of changing both our names to my maiden name

Boo, how does this work, can a thai citizen change their name by deed poll (or any other means) in UK ?

totster

[skylar]

He did suggest though, once we moved back to the UK, of changing both our names to my maiden name as people in the UK do have a problem with pronouncing his even though it is very short & quite simple (English mentalitiy I suppose, it isn't an English name so lets make it as complicated as possible to say, instead of reading the letters & forming the word!!!)

That is such a good idea. I don't think I could go back to England or to Vietnam with my Vietnamese partner's name once we get married. English people won't be able to pronounce it, and Vietnamese people would get the impression that I am overseas Vietnamese and Australians would think I'm Asian Australian. Food for thought.

[MishaMagic]

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

So I guess it comes down to personal choice. It seems like more and more women (in the UK at least) are keeping their maiden names, perhaps because they are marrying later in life and already have an established identity at work or whatever. Or, actually worse (to me), many of my friends seem to be going down the unwieldy and rather ugly double-barrelled route - which would be a total disaster with most Thai-English combinations!

It's a tough one. Changing names does seem logically to follow marriage (after all if you're accepting one archaic institution, why not the other? )

On the other hand, as Totster says, these days perhaps it's not that important - marriage in my case will be for convenience, rather than any belief in a piece of paper (relationship is solid enough without it - and if I'm wrong a piece of paper won't help us either) - and surely you can love and respect your husband without taking his name? sbk and boo, even you admit that if your hubbies had had unpronouncable, super-long surnames you would have thought twice...

Did your husbands have any views on the matter? Changing names effectively marks you out as belonging to him - it's a public display of committment over and above the marriage certificate that, personally, I don't think is necessary.

Hi ladies! Here's a single girls opinion, for what its worth.....

I'm not sure how taking your husband's name is a sign of "respect" for him.....what about "respect" for yourself and your own identity? Naming is a powerful thing,.....and yes under marriage it has been used for many years to convey the idea of 'ownership' of a wife, which I find very inappropriate in modern culture. I also view marriage as a powerful and sacred ritual, (rather than an archaeic institution) and while I am sure that I will marry when I find an appropriate partner, I will be marrying my husband, not becoming him. I changed my own name recently via legal proceedure (very easy to do in Australia) simply because I am no longer the child who my parents named, but rather my own self-made person complete with my own taste, personality and self-expression. I don't think that you have to be famous to care about your established identity. And to me, a public display of committment isn't about giving up your identity for someone, its about showing the world an equal, conscious and empowered relationship based on mutual respect and individuality working together to create a unified partnership. Maybe that's why I'm still single??????

[sbk]

Mishamagic, relationships require compromise on the behalf of both partners. I think too many people enter into a relationship with the idea that by compromising they are somehow giving the other person control.

If one is unwilling to give up something of themselves, unwilling to compromise, meet halfway (and I mean both the man and the woman) then the relationship is doomed to failure. There are two people who are partners in a marriage, not two individuals each seeking their own ends. A partner in a serious relationship should complement oneself, fulfill some part of oneself that may be lacking, if a person is so independent that they can't rely on their partner then that person will find themselves alone.

[robitusson]

Thanks for all the interesting replies.

So I guess it comes down to personal choice. It seems like more and more women (in the UK at least) are keeping their maiden names, perhaps because they are marrying later in life and already have an established identity at work or whatever. Or, actually worse (to me), many of my friends seem to be going down the unwieldy and rather ugly double-barrelled route - which would be a total disaster with most Thai-English combinations!

It's a tough one. Changing names does seem logically to follow marriage (after all if you're accepting one archaic institution, why not the other? )

On the other hand, as Totster says, these days perhaps it's not that important - marriage in my case will be for convenience, rather than any belief in a piece of paper (relationship is solid enough without it - and if I'm wrong a piece of paper won't help us either) - and surely you can love and respect your husband without taking his name? sbk and boo, even you admit that if your hubbies had had unpronouncable, super-long surnames you would have thought twice...

Did your husbands have any views on the matter? Changing names effectively marks you out as belonging to him - it's a public display of committment over and above the marriage certificate that, personally, I don't think is necessary.

Hi ladies! Here's a single girls opinion, for what its worth.....

I'm not sure how taking your husband's name is a sign of "respect" for him.....what about "respect" for yourself and your own identity? Naming is a powerful thing,.....and yes under marriage it has been used for many years to convey the idea of 'ownership' of a wife, which I find very inappropriate in modern culture. I also view marriage as a powerful and sacred ritual, (rather than an archaeic institution) and while I am sure that I will marry when I find an appropriate partner, I will be marrying my husband, not becoming him. I changed my own name recently via legal proceedure (very easy to do in Australia) simply because I am no longer the child who my parents named, but rather my own self-made person complete with my own taste, personality and self-expression. I don't think that you have to be famous to care about your established identity. And to me, a public display of committment isn't about giving up your identity for someone, its about showing the world an equal, conscious and empowered relationship based on mutual respect and individuality working together to create a unified partnership. Maybe that's why I'm still single??????

It involves the children. When a man has children with a woman he wants to be sure the children are his and not some other chap's. When a woman changes her name to her husbands, she is acknowledging to him, herself and the rest of society, the children she is having are her husbands, the person whose name she now has. The children in turn will grow up having their father's name, knowing they share the same mother and father, as will the rest of society. If the children do not have their fathers name but instead have their mother's, then the fatherhood of the children is in question, in the eyes of society, rightly or wrongly.

[MishaMagic]

Mishamagic, relationships require compromise on the behalf of both partners. I think too many people enter into a relationship with the idea that by compromising they are somehow giving the other person control.

If one is unwilling to give up something of themselves, unwilling to compromise, meet halfway (and I mean both the man and the woman) then the relationship is doomed to failure. There are two people who are partners in a marriage, not two individuals each seeking their own ends. A partner in a serious relationship should complement oneself, fulfill some part of oneself that may be lacking, if a person is so independent that they can't rely on their partner then that person will find themselves alone.

Compromise?......huh?......gee I thought it was about enjoying each others company.........lacking in oneself?..........uh, I'll have to get back to you on that one

[sbk]

Mishamagic, relationships require compromise on the behalf of both partners. I think too many people enter into a relationship with the idea that by compromising they are somehow giving the other person control.

If one is unwilling to give up something of themselves, unwilling to compromise, meet halfway (and I mean both the man and the woman) then the relationship is doomed to failure. There are two people who are partners in a marriage, not two individuals each seeking their own ends. A partner in a serious relationship should complement oneself, fulfill some part of oneself that may be lacking, if a person is so independent that they can't rely on their partner then that person will find themselves alone.

Compromise?......huh?......gee I thought it was about enjoying each others company.........lacking in oneself?..........uh, I'll have to get back to you on that one

And what do you do during difficult times when you don't particularly "enjoy each others company"? Get a divorce, chuck it all in and say "well, this isn't fun anymore, why bother?" ??

BTW, I have been happily married for over 16 years so I might have a pretty decent persective on what makes a relationship work. Esp a cross cultural one.

[MishaMagic]

Mishamagic, relationships require compromise on the behalf of both partners. I think too many people enter into a relationship with the idea that by compromising they are somehow giving the other person control.

If one is unwilling to give up something of themselves, unwilling to compromise, meet halfway (and I mean both the man and the woman) then the relationship is doomed to failure. There are two people who are partners in a marriage, not two individuals each seeking their own ends. A partner in a serious relationship should complement oneself, fulfill some part of oneself that may be lacking, if a person is so independent that they can't rely on their partner then that person will find themselves alone.

Compromise?......huh?......gee I thought it was about enjoying each others company.........lacking in oneself?..........uh, I'll have to get back to you on that one

And what do you do during difficult times when you don't particularly "enjoy each others company"? Get a divorce, chuck it all in and say "well, this isn't fun anymore, why bother?" ??

BTW, I have been happily married for over 16 years so I might have a pretty decent persective on what makes a relationship work. Esp a cross cultural one.

What do you do with a long-term friend when you don't hit it off so well, and don't "enjoy each others company"? You take some space, give it room to breathe, let the dust settle, and come back together later when the feelings have cleared, and also, if necessary, discuss your feelings in a mature and respectful way, listen to each other, agree to disagree, and then laugh about it afterwards over a beer.

I'm really sure that after 16 years in a relationship you have a very good idea about what it takes to make your relationship work, and I completely respect that, but that doesn't mean that your way is the only way, or the "right" way.

What I strongly react to is broad statements like "relationships require compromise on the behalf of both partners" Really? Are you sure? What if there was another way? Do you compromise in all your relationships, friendships, family etc, or only with your spouse?

And in particular ideas like "fulfill some part of oneself that may be lacking" is something I find really dangerous and the basis of all co-dependence (considered very unhealthy even by the medical profession)

Buddhism, Taoism, and most eastern as well as new age streams of thinking clearly explain that no one and nothing that is outside of you can ever fulfill any part of you which may be lacking, that those answers are only found within.

The main psychosis of the western world is expecting external things like your job, your money and your partner to make you happy/complete yourself/fulfill your needs.

"Independent" Yes, definately. We are only dependent on others while we are still children.

[Boo]

People compromise in ALL their relationships all the time, most of the time your not even conscious of doing it & to say that you don't means you are either blinkered or 100% selfish! Also to be truely independant means that you hunt & kill your own food, produce your own dwelling & power/heat source, divine for your own water, walk everywhere or make your own original transport. Make you own opinions & never change them even in the face of proof or logic. Are you saying that no one does anything for you or you don't need anyone to help you with anything? Can you fix electric, install a kitchen, fix your car, cook a roast? WOW, you must be superwomen!

[donna]

its JUST a name after all. its not your whole being!

wow.

if i were married, i would love to take on my husbands name (providing it wasnt something like kebab, which would sound pretty silly really). i see it as a very special gift for your husband.

having said that, i have a cousin called Laurie Nutt. He married a girl called Hazel and guess what? she DID change her name! i think i would have left that one well alone.......

[MishaMagic]

People compromise in ALL their relationships all the time, most of the time your not even conscious of doing it & to say that you don't means you are either blinkered or 100% selfish! Also to be truely independant means that you hunt & kill your own food, produce your own dwelling & power/heat source, divine for your own water, walk everywhere or make your own original transport. Make you own opinions & never change them even in the face of proof or logic. Are you saying that no one does anything for you or you don't need anyone to help you with anything? Can you fix electric, install a kitchen, fix your car, cook a roast? WOW, you must be superwomen!

No, you're talking about autonomous, or a self-sufficient lifestyle.

in·de·pen·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd-pndnt)

adj.

Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.

Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.

Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.

[MishaMagic]

its JUST a name after all. its not your whole being!

wow.

if i were married, i would love to take on my husbands name (providing it wasnt something like kebab, which would sound pretty silly really). i see it as a very special gift for your husband.

having said that, i have a cousin called Laurie Nutt. He married a girl called Hazel and guess what? she DID change her name! i think i would have left that one well alone.......

In that situation, even I would have been tempted!!!

[sbk]

Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.

So, you are saying you are completely uninfluenced by your partner or your parent or your sibling? Really?

And in particular ideas like "fulfill some part of oneself that may be lacking" is something I find really dangerous and the basis of all co-dependence (considered very unhealthy even by the medical profession)

Did I imply being co-dependant? Somehow you choose to twist my words around to fit your own preconceived notions. My parents have been married for over 35 years and both of them find something in the other --Dad relies on Mom to keep him grounded, from getting too easily depressed. Mom relies on Dad to keep her from focusing on the little details. Somehow, that doesn't sound like co-dependance to me but rather helping. Since you have already posted in previous threads about relationship issues (ie ex boyfriend, previous girlfriend, what are you? male or female or just bi?) then you are probably not one to be lecturing others on how to live their lives or their relationships.

What I strongly react to is broad statements like "relationships require compromise on the behalf of both partners" Really? Are you sure? What if there was another way? Do you compromise in all your relationships, friendships, family etc, or only with your spouse?

Compromise, as boo has pointed out, is involved in every relationship a person has, whether their lover, their parent or the mechanic. If a person can't figure that out then they must be either very young or very self-centered.

Let me also point out that I am talking about a cross-cultural relationship. Which, in my many years of observations, fail when either one of both people involved are too selfish to meet halfway. There is always give and take in a relationship.

[MishaMagic]

Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.

So, you are saying you are completely uninfluenced by your partner or your parent or your sibling? Really?

And in particular ideas like "fulfill some part of oneself that may be lacking" is something I find really dangerous and the basis of all co-dependence (considered very unhealthy even by the medical profession)

Did I imply being co-dependant? Somehow you choose to twist my words around to fit your own preconceived notions. My parents have been married for over 35 years and both of them find something in the other --Dad relies on Mom to keep him grounded, from getting too easily depressed. Mom relies on Dad to keep her from focusing on the little details. Somehow, that doesn't sound like co-dependance to me but rather helping. Since you have already posted in previous threads about relationship issues (ie ex boyfriend, previous girlfriend, what are you? male or female or just bi?) then you are probably not one to be lecturing others on how to live their lives or their relationships.

What I strongly react to is broad statements like "relationships require compromise on the behalf of both partners" Really? Are you sure? What if there was another way? Do you compromise in all your relationships, friendships, family etc, or only with your spouse?

Compromise, as boo has pointed out, is involved in every relationship a person has, whether their lover, their parent or the mechanic. If a person can't figure that out then they must be either very young or very self-centered.

Let me also point out that I am talking about a cross-cultural relationship. Which, in my many years of observations, fail when either one of both people involved are too selfish to meet halfway. There is always give and take in a relationship.

Since you asked so politely, I am 36, female and heterosexual, but if I was bi does that mean that I have no right to speak? Are you really that bigotted?

My whinge about my last boyfried was not about this issue at all, it was about honesty of expression.

I am not lecturing anyone on how to live their lives or relationships, I am simply suggesting that there are other ways to do it, and I find it interesting that you are so defensive about your way.

Do you think that succeeding in maintaining one relationship over a long time means that you know more about it than someone who has had many different styles and types of relationships? I do not consider a longer relationship to be more "successful" than a shorter one. I am interested in quality, not quantity.

I have enjoyed many different types of relationships over the last 20 years in several different countries (and cultures), and each one has taught me many new things and contributed to my growth as a person.

However, I would never pressure someone I love, (or even someone I don't) to compromise their own wishes for the sake of mine. Therefore I don't accept it in return.

In this life we are given free will, and this is our birthright. To consider someone giving that up for you as a sign of love is something I find very, very common and very sick.

Love is unconditional.

[HarryHerb]

Mishamagic, I see where you are coming from, but why do you believe independence and compromise to be mutually exclusive?

To me, this just makes no sense.

What do you define as 'compromise'? What is a deal breaker for you?

These are dull platitudes, but I'll repeat them anyway: 'life is full of compromises' and 'no man is an island'. But this does not preclude there being plenty of independent souls on the planet, who have a free mind and spirit, who have principles, are 'true to themselves' and, yes, have happy relationships with their friends, parents and partners that involve some compromise.

Indeed, a sure sign of a free mind and spirit is itself the ability to compromise. If you don't have this, then your independence means jacksh-t. It's easy to say no to everything, to walk away when you don't get your own way, to live in a bubble. True independence is hard won.

In the context of a relationship, how can you 'independently' love someone? Love means admitting a certain type of dependence on another person. But this in itself can be 'empowering' (to use a psychobabble phrase) and it certainly doesn't mean sacrificing your free will.

Even in the ideal relationship you posit earlier there is some element of sharing, working together towards a common goal etc. Indeed, compromise must necessarily be the basis of any monogamous relationship, as you are forsaking at least sexual freedom for your partner. Making sacrifices to be with someone does not entail losing your independence or free will - unless of course those sacrifices have been enforced on you against your will.

I agree that people - not just in the west - are overly reliant on material props for a (usually imaginary) fulfilled existence, but to say that finding fulfillment through relations of dependency on and with other people, exchange of ideas, love etc. is wrong is, frankly, a sure way to die lonely.

[MishaMagic]

Mishamagic, I see where you are coming from, but why do you believe independence and compromise to be mutually exclusive?

To me, this just makes no sense.

What do you define as 'compromise'? What is a deal breaker for you?

These are dull platitudes, but I'll repeat them anyway: 'life is full of compromises' and 'no man is an island'. But this does not preclude there being plenty of independent souls on the planet, who have a free mind and spirit, who have principles, are 'true to themselves' and, yes, have happy relationships with their friends, parents and partners that involve some compromise.

Indeed, a sure sign of a free mind and spirit is itself the ability to compromise. If you don't have this, then your independence means jacksh-t. It's easy to say no to everything, to walk away when you don't get your own way, to live in a bubble. True independence is hard won.

In the context of a relationship, how can you 'independently' love someone? Love means admitting a certain type of dependence on another person. But this in itself can be 'empowering' (to use a psychobabble phrase) and it certainly doesn't mean sacrificing your free will.

Even in the ideal relationship you posit earlier there is some element of sharing, working together towards a common goal etc. Indeed, compromise must necessarily be the basis of any monogamous relationship, as you are forsaking at least sexual freedom for your partner. Making sacrifices to be with someone does not entail losing your independence or free will - unless of course those sacrifices have been enforced on you against your will.

I agree that people - not just in the west - are overly reliant on material props for a (usually imaginary) fulfilled existence, but to say that finding fulfillment through relations of dependency on and with other people, exchange of ideas, love etc. is wrong is, frankly, a sure way to die lonely.

Thanks HarryHerb, I think I need to untangle this compromise word......

If I want to see one movie, and my partner another one, we can choose to see different movies (something most couples hardly even consider, but it makes for great conversation over coffee after the movie) or one of us can "compromise".

If I'm not really attached to any movie, probably I'll just as likely go with what he wants, but if I really want to see a certain movie, and can't practically see it another time, I'll probably stick to that one, whether he comes along or not.

Enter stage left, my partner, best friend, sister, neighbour whining "nooooo, but come and see this one!!!!!!! even though you don't want to......do what we want you to doooooooooo, make us happy......and accompanying emotional blackmail "you never want to see what I want" "but I really want you tooooooo" and pulling of strings etc You get the picture.

Independence, in my way of seeing it, is being able to do what is important to you, whether or not your patner agrees/comes along/likes it or not. What is important, not every little whim and ego gratification.

If I choose to be in a monogamous relationship, for me the giving up of sexual freedom isn't a compromise, since when I am interested in a monogamous relationship, I am not interested in having sex with anyone else (I notice however from other threads that this is not true of everyone!!! ) So I am not compromising anything.

I don't need to walk away when I don't get my own way because I am never really interested in getting my own way. It doesn't really bother me what other people do. If my partner doesn't want to go on a holiday with me, I will go by myself, its no problem, and I will be faithful and have lots of stories to tell him when I get back. I think that's healthy. Most people find it confronting.

I don't see why loving someone creates dependency. Only if you do that kind of love which is thinking that the other person will make you happy/fulfill your needs/always be there for you etc, which seems to go hand in hand with fearing abandonment/can't live without/will be devastated by the end of the relationship stuff, and in that situation, people start compromising all kinds of things to keep the relationship going which results in a loss of integrity for everyone.

I prefer the kind of love which is about honouring the beauty, sacredness and uniqueness of another, and in that context, we can share experiences which are intimate and empowering. Yes including working together towards a common goal, exchanging ideas and learning from each other. How does that include dependence?

When people want me to do what they want, they usually bring up the compromise word

When people are confronted by my lack of dependence on them, they bring up the c word

When people belive that monogamous relationships mean becoming siamese twins, oh here comes that word again!!!

Help! Am I seriously hanging around the wrong people? But I honestly find that people really like it when you need them, it gives them power. The fact that I don't really need anyone (notwithstanding the economic/social structure of which I am a part - no I don't kill my own dinner!)

I like to share with other people, but I don't need to, is something that seems to make people nervous. And then that word comes in again.

Oh hel_l, where is that island again???

[sbk]

Since you asked so politely, I am 36, female and heterosexual, but if I was bi does that mean that I have no right to speak? Are you really that bigotted?

My whinge about my last boyfried was not about this issue at all, it was about honesty of expression.

I am not lecturing anyone on how to live their lives or relationships, I am simply suggesting that there are other ways to do it, and I find it interesting that you are so defensive about your way.

Do you think that succeeding in maintaining one relationship over a long time means that you know more about it than someone who has had many different styles and types of relationships? I do not consider a longer relationship to be more "successful" than a shorter one. I am interested in quality, not quantity.

I have enjoyed many different types of relationships over the last 20 years in several different countries (and cultures), and each one has taught me many new things and contributed to my growth as a person.

However, I would never pressure someone I love, (or even someone I don't) to compromise their own wishes for the sake of mine. Therefore I don't accept it in return.

In this life we are given free will, and this is our birthright. To consider someone giving that up for you as a sign of love is something I find very, very common and very sick.

Love is unconditional.

Are you really so unaware of the numerous trolls that have enjoyed posting on this forum to make me wonder why you would post about an ex boyfriend in one thread and a former girlfriend in another? You do not know me so I suggest refraining from accusing me of bigotry, think before posting.

As for the defensive remark! Well, lets see, you quote my post, pick it apart point by point and then accuse me of being defensive when I refute you!

You make alot of assumptions about me and my relationship when you don't even know me, know nothing about me and assume what you wish based on your own past experiences.

I suggest that you think twice before posting such twaddle about another member. Quality not quantity my foot. What the heck do you know about me? Nothing.

I suggest an apology would be more forthcoming for posting such misguided drivel about someone you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

Do I sound offended? Good. Because you have overstepped the mark.

Usually the sure sign of a troll, btw.

[MishaMagic]

Since you asked so politely, I am 36, female and heterosexual, but if I was bi does that mean that I have no right to speak? Are you really that bigotted?

My whinge about my last boyfried was not about this issue at all, it was about honesty of expression.

I am not lecturing anyone on how to live their lives or relationships, I am simply suggesting that there are other ways to do it, and I find it interesting that you are so defensive about your way.

Do you think that succeeding in maintaining one relationship over a long time means that you know more about it than someone who has had many different styles and types of relationships? I do not consider a longer relationship to be more "successful" than a shorter one. I am interested in quality, not quantity.

I have enjoyed many different types of relationships over the last 20 years in several different countries (and cultures), and each one has taught me many new things and contributed to my growth as a person.

However, I would never pressure someone I love, (or even someone I don't) to compromise their own wishes for the sake of mine. Therefore I don't accept it in return.

In this life we are given free will, and this is our birthright. To consider someone giving that up for you as a sign of love is something I find very, very common and very sick.

Love is unconditional.

Are you really so unaware of the numerous trolls that have enjoyed posting on this forum to make me wonder why you would post about an ex boyfriend in one thread and a former girlfriend in another? You do not know me so I suggest refraining from accusing me of bigotry, think before posting.

As for the defensive remark! Well, lets see, you quote my post, pick it apart point by point and then accuse me of being defensive when I refute you!

You make alot of assumptions about me and my relationship when you don't even know me, know nothing about me and assume what you wish based on your own past experiences.

I suggest that you think twice before posting such twaddle about another member. Quality not quantity my foot. What the heck do you know about me? Nothing.

I suggest an apology would be more forthcoming for posting such misguided drivel about someone you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

Do I sound offended? Good. Because you have overstepped the mark.

Usually the sure sign of a troll, btw.

I have made no post about a former girlfriend

[Boo]

don't feed the troll

Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.

So you don't rely on the market or supermarket to provide food for you to buy? You don't rely on the electric company to provide power for your house.

As I said, you aren't totally independant, no one is.

[Boo]

as for the rest of your posts, yeah, ok . Carry on having quality relationships, how long do these last btw, a week, a year? Something must change though for the quality to be lost, otherwise, wouldn't you still be together?

The issue was never about losing independence, although you seem to think it is, it was about changing your name. I happily changed mine, but then I am in a successful relationship full of compromise & consideration (from both of us)