Althouse: "We’re not dating, but we’re still sleeping together three years after breaking up. Sleeping

August 3, 2019

"We’re not dating, but we’re still sleeping together three years after breaking up. Sleeping — not having sex."

"So we’re married? Ha. We can date other people if we want. So, we’re open? No, 'open' implies a relationship. Are we poly? No. Single? Technically. And we have no desire to date? Not at the moment. We are more than friends but less than partners. Maybe not 'less.' This girl is my soul mate. Would I someday like to marry her? Someday. Maybe. When we’re like 60. Sometimes [it] feels as if we already are."

A "Modern Love" story — published along with various other snippets in the NYT.

33 comments:

Fen said...: And we have no desire to date? Not at the moment. We are more than friends but less than partners. Maybe not 'less.' This girl is my soul mate. Would I someday like to marry her? Someday. Maybe. When we’re like 60. Sometimes if feels as if we already are.

I've heard this so many times. Always from the male. And the female always wishing more from him but afraid she'll lose him if she pushes.

Dude, you're a doing her a disservice. If she is really your soul mate, commit to her.; 8/3/19, 6:53 AM
gilbar said...: i have two friends that have been living together for the last 25 years
"they're not Into marriage", that is; the GUY isn't into marriage.

Now that i've retired early, he's been asking questions about it, 'cause he wants to too.
I said to him, 'the biggest problem is health insurance, too bad you're not married'
and the girl told me (latter), "this might be the thing that makes him marry me"

It's Always the male that hides from marriage; sometimes it looks like it's the girl, but
it's Always the male

ps. no, these two have no kids; 8/3/19, 7:01 AM
alanc709 said...: How is that a modern "love" story. It's an example of the demographic failure awaiting western civilization.; 8/3/19, 7:05 AM
rhhardin said...: There's some romcom with a divorced but living together couple with the lady's dates showing up from time to time and cordial ex-husband answering the door. I can't remember enough of the plot to google which one it might be. No doubt they got together again.; 8/3/19, 7:09 AM
traditionalguy said...: Women are a lot of work for sure. But the good ones are worth it.; 8/3/19, 7:19 AM
Howard said...: She's a safe mate, not a soul mate. Friends with benefits would be more honest.; 8/3/19, 7:23 AM
Leland said...: I'd be worried, but my children are this age now and not as stupid.; 8/3/19, 7:26 AM
Ann Althouse said...: I can't really tell from the text if they live together all the time or if they just get together as friends and have sleepovers sometimes. If it's the former, they are both preventing the other from finding a more passionate companion. But it's possible that they're doing what they want. My default opinion is that people do what they want. If they monopolize each other's time and don't have sex, then what they want is to avoid sex. They should own it. They don't need to marry. Not marrying is what they do. It seems to be as stable as marriage. Marrying AND not marrying are strategies for stability and stasis. Pick one.; 8/3/19, 7:29 AM
Meade said...: "It's an example of the demographic failure awaiting western civilization."

Blame dead white males. For letting themselves become so... dead.; 8/3/19, 7:37 AM
Meade said...: "Would I someday like to marry her? Someday. Maybe. When we’re like 60. Sometimes if feels as if we already are."

If it feels to you as if you already are married, and it feels to her as if you already are married, it will likely feel, to the state, that you, ready or not, are married already. And depending on the obligations the state feels like imposing, you and/or she risk suddenly realizing you no longer feel like the soul mates you thought you once felt like. So take care.; 8/3/19, 7:55 AM
gilbar said...: in iowa, anyway, Common Law marriage is pretty tough to prove without kids; 8/3/19, 8:04 AM
Meade said...: According to Wikipedia, Iowa is one of the 7 states in which common law marriage can still be contracted.; 8/3/19, 8:10 AM
J. Farmer said...: Isn't the only major difference between a close friend and an intimate partner sex (and its derivatives, children and family creation)?; 8/3/19, 8:16 AM
David Begley said...: Meade: Not Nebraska! Another example of Nebraska’s superiority.

“Marrying AND not marrying are strategies for stability and stasis. Pick one.” Great point by Althouse.; 8/3/19, 8:16 AM
Tank said...: @Meade

You make it sound like a disease.; 8/3/19, 8:16 AM
Fen said...: Isn't the only major difference between a close friend and an intimate partner sex

I don't think so. I remember reading something about kissing in your 20s, something exchanged in saliva through kissing that bonds couples more closely together. IRRC through a dopamine high, and the bonding more strongly affected the women.

I may have muddied that up, it's old memory. I'll try to dig up a source.; 8/3/19, 8:25 AM
Fen said...: Here we go: evidence for a mechanism by which OXT may contribute to romantic bonds in men; 8/3/19, 8:30 AM
J. Farmer said...: @Fen:

Here we go: evidence for a mechanism by which OXT may contribute to romantic bonds in men

Yeah, oxytocin has been the go-to "love" and bonding hormone for a while now. But for my point, kissing would go in the category of sex. A friend is someone you don't kiss intimately or otherwise involve your erogenous zones. If you don't have sex, are very close to someone, occasionally sleep over, and date other people, aren't you just friends?; 8/3/19, 8:57 AM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: Ladies, stop going along with this crap and it will stop happening. I’m not saying necessarily celibacy before marriage, but don’t live together. Maintain your space and your life. Don’t take this half-assed nonsense. If he wants to create a committed life together with you, he can do that; until he does, date, sure, but your job is to build your own life, not to play house with a manchild. It’s far better to live in dignified solitude than to tacitly agree that you’ll allow him to share your home and your life unless and until he finds a better opportunity.; 8/3/19, 8:58 AM
Seeing Red said...: As my dad said, if he wants to marry you, he will. If he doesn’t, he won’t.

It was the 70s. We were discussing Christopher Reeve. Clint Eastwood was the same.

Stupid female. No legal protection. Where’s the I am Wonan, hear me roar?; 8/3/19, 9:19 AM
Seeing Red said...: Woman.

Those are desperate women.; 8/3/19, 9:21 AM
gilbar said...: Brody Jenner and Kaitlynn Carter split, marriage was never legal

WHAT is The Point of having a fake marriage, if you're just going to throw it all away?
Fake Marriages take Work!; 8/3/19, 9:35 AM
JAORE said...: Sounds like they are too scared of being alone. Or too lazy to make a change. But, yeah, the guy doesn't want more... until 60 when he assumes, wrongly, sexual life is over.; 8/3/19, 10:04 AM
Tomcc said...: I'd describe it as an "organic" relationship. I think it became popular in the 60's as I was growing up. I certainly don't understand why it deserves space in the NYT (but I don't really understand the NYT gestalt).
I have a good friend, smart, stable, employed, who never married his gf. They've been together for over 20 years. No kids. Made a commitment without formalizing it, I guess.; 8/3/19, 11:37 AM
Oso Negro said...: Good grief. The perpetual celebration of pathos by the New York Times.; 8/3/19, 1:31 PM
bagoh20 said...: "it's Always the male."

Well, of course it is, unless the woman is rich and he's not, then amazingly it tends to reverse. What could cause this?; 8/3/19, 2:12 PM
bagoh20 said...: I've supported and raised two families of kids, but I have never been married, and I've never had a child of my own. I don't regret any of it, and still think marrying would have only been an extremely bad addition and unnecessary encumbrance. My relationships have given me, the women, and the children everything we needed, and still allowed us to go our own ways when it was time without a fight or a long drawn out struggle. I'm still in nearly daily contact with all of them and remain best of friends with the women and a mentor to all the kids. It has really been near perfect.

My step daughter(27) and I were discussing marriage the other day. We have many married friends, both mutual and separate, gay and straight, but we couldn't come up with a single relationship that was better after the marriage, and all are currently in a state that we would want to avoid at all costs: little sex, little intimacy, strained friendship, and abundant friction. I still imagine a wonderful partnership with enough trust and compatibility that marriage would enhance and expand it, but I don't see them in real life, except for couples past retirement age. Even then it's less than half. Like everybody else, I want marriage to be as it's sold, but I don't see it.; 8/3/19, 2:33 PM
hstad said...: Blogger gilbar said...
in iowa, anyway, Common Law marriage is pretty tough to prove without kids

8/3/19, 8:04 AM

He's dead[married] if he lived in California - whether he believes it or not!; 8/3/19, 2:39 PM
gilbar said...: He's dead[married] if he lived in California - whether he believes it or not!

iowa law (unlike California?) :
To have a marriage by common law, these 3 things must be true:
Both spouses have an agreement that they are married,
Both spouses live together continuously as partners, and
Both spouses publicly act like a married couple.

The agreement does not have to be in writing.
Living together continuously means:
...Live together as spouses, which generally means they have a sexual relationship
Publically acting like a married couple means:
.. Couple must act married,
... Examples of acting like a married couple are:
... Using same last name
... Wear wedding bands
... Using "husband" or "wife" to describe the spouse in public
... Using the terms "Mr. and Mrs." to describe the couple
... Failing to correct others that call them a married couple
... Sharing joint bank accounts. or credit cards
... Filing joint tax returns (which can only be done if the couple is married)
... Anything else that would make others believe the couple is married

My Friend Andy, has ALWAYS been Very diligent about correcting anyone that calls Kris his wife. She DOES live in his house (for the first TEN YEARS(!) he charged her rent.
A lawyer could probably get a judge to say they're married, but
A lawyer could probably get a judge to say they're NOT married
would depend on the judge

He no longer makes her wash and wax his Harley, i'm not sure if this is proof for or against; 8/3/19, 3:27 PM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: Andy sounds like a prince of a guy there gilbar; 8/3/19, 4:31 PM
ALP said...: I recently reconnected with a female cousin in my age group - mid 50s. She just bought a house with a man she's been friends with for years - totally platonic. They had owned a townhouse together.

Who cares? Works for them. Both appear to be uninterested in romantic relationships. Neither want to live alone. Sharing the expensive of a house, rather than pining away for one as a single renter, is a win win situation.

bagoh20 @ 2:33 - what you said. Going on 25 years here, we consider tying the knot but just don't see the advantage to 'incorporating as a unit'. Plus I prefer to keep finances separate anyway. Its a legal/financial option, nothing to do with love or commitment.; 8/3/19, 6:15 PM
Seeing Red said...: Not our friend group, bag. And my in-laws. 2-hands worth and then some.

We all are 30 years and counting and happy.

And we don’t want to be out there if our spouse passes sooner than we hope.; 8/3/19, 6:55 PM
Tina Trent said...: Reality check: the unmarried cohabiting patents automatically qualify for federal CARE insurance for their offspring based on the lowest income they choose to report. Also, potentially subsidized Obamamcare for at least one parent and a plethora of other goodies especially if the lower income one claims head of household, which they would be counseled to do by any dishonest social worker type, which is all of them. And none of that would substantially affect the other taxpayer unless he or she earns more than 125K, and even then it doesn't offset the benefits of the fraud.

And if one is illegal, it's even better for them.

Nice story. Sucking my family's money out of my pocket for the lies of the Times and the rest of the elite.

Facts exist; they are easily accessible, and they matter more than oil crayon impressionsim, don't you think?; 8/3/19, 7:53 PM