ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Gender and Relationships»
  • Dating & Online Dating

Long-Term Relationship Means Marriage - PERIOD!

Updated on August 15, 2014

Neither agreeing or hearing "I love you" are enough for a long-term relationship.

Neither agreeing nor hearing “I love you” is enough for a quality, sustainable long-term relationship. Why would anyone want to be in a long-term relationship for more than a year having not discussed marriage? We are not here for test-driving. When I hear of grown men giving grown women ‘commitment’ rings and not an engagement ring, that is proof that he is ‘test-driving’ her. A 'commitment ring'? What is this, middle school? A man and a woman know if they want to spend the rest of their lives together in a few months.

Social pressure attempts to brainwash us into believing that words mean more than action.

How many times has someone told you that he or she loved you, but treated you like crap? It was obvious their actions said, “I hate you . . . I disrespect you . . . I do not love you!” Yet, as long as you are in a relationship, it is all good.

Do not settle for a long-term relationship that is not marriage-driven.

My final assessment is that a long-term relationship means a lifetime of commitment shown through the vows of marriage. That is far better and loving than dating and giving away your marital benefits.

How do you prefer to receive love?

What's more important in a relationship, saying "I love you" or showing "I love you" through actions?

See results

© 2014 Queen of the Pen


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • rissa62 profile image

      Queen of the Pen 3 years ago

      I did not take offense to your opinion. I appreciate and respect your point of view. We all have life experiences that shape our opinions. I understand where you are coming from. I just see the circumstance a bit differently. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge, too.

    • dashingscorpio profile image

      dashingscorpio 3 years ago

      rissa62, This is a very interesting topic of discussion. I'm sorry you took offense to what I've said.

      I'm a big fan of (honesty) and what I was saying is there are (some) women who use the word "commitment" when what they really mean is they want "financial security" or "insurance" in the event the relationship fails.

      I said (these women) should be up front with men about what they mean by using the word "commitment. Most men assume they're talking about monogamy, exchanging vows, a wedding ceremony, and building a future together. I never said (you) were one of those women looking to cash out or be paid if things didn't work out.

      I was raised by a single mother and was always told: "You are responsible for your own happiness."

      Each of us (chooses) our own friends, lovers, and spouses.

      This woman (chose) to give up her career. She (chose) to become financially dependent upon this man. Apparently over the course of those {40} years (he kept a roof over her head, clothes on her back, and made sure she as well as their children were taken care of.) Most people would call those the traits of a "Real man". That's more than my father ever did for us. It sound like this man stayed and raised his children.

      It was not as if this woman did not get anything during those years. It takes two people to make children. She wasn't doing him a (favor) by having (their children). Our lives are for the most part the end result of the choices and decisions (we) have made along the way. I can't say "yes" a hundred times and when things fall apart act as though it's another person's fault. That is a (powerless and victimization) stance to assume.

      All relationship and marriage (choices) are gamble in some respects. However to put all the blame on this man for (choices) this woman made of her on accord is to absolve her of the responsibility of looking out for herself. Clearly she thought she was getting a great deal at the time. We'll never know what went on in their marriage. The press is only providing one side of their story. Rarely if ever is their a situation where one person was a "saint" and the other was the "devil" in any long-term relationship or marriage. I have no animosity towards women.

    • rissa62 profile image

      Queen of the Pen 3 years ago


      I find it quite offensive that you would comment that a woman should tell a man she should be paid if the relationship fails. What you FAIL to comprehend is in the 40 year dating relationship between Orman and his live-in girlfriend, he FATHERED four (4) children. This woman took care of him as if she were his wife and he left her financially destitute. So, please to not offend those of us women who believe giving of our lives to our man and children do not respectfully justify financial security. That is what a REAL man does for his woman and children.

    • dashingscorpio profile image

      dashingscorpio 3 years ago

      rissa62, I wasn't attempting to be silly by mentioning the wedding between Kim and Chris. I was simply pointing out that marriage is NOT "commitment". Anyone can go to Las Vegas and get married within an hour.

      It sounds to me like half the people define commitment as being married or exchanging vows and the other half define it as having some type of legal (financial recourse) in the event the relationship/marriage fails.

      In my opinion the latter is about (security) and not "commitment". Most marriages these days do not last 40 years.

      Essentially when some women use the word "commitment" with a man they really should be telling him they want to be "paid" if the relationship fails. It's not about the vows, monogamy, or desire to be together. As one woman said: “He can’t just (walk away) after taking up ten years of your life!”

      I suspect there is a reason why these women do not present their desire for marriage this way. Awhile back I wrote about this topic as well.

    • rissa62 profile image

      Queen of the Pen 3 years ago

      First, it is silly to compare a farce relationship like Kardashian and Humphries to Russell and Hawn. The premise of my article is based on mutual commitment and I do understand that just because someone marries does not mean they love, care, or respect each other. As for Russell and Hawn, they have a mutual agreement. Hawn does not have to worry about financial stability because she brought her own into the relationship.

      However, there are plenty of stories of folk living together for decades and the man leaves the woman for a younger model. A prime example is Roscoe Orman of Sesame Street who lived with his girlfriend for 40 years, fathered four children, and left her for a younger woman. Roscoe left Sharon destitute!

      The Orman circumstance is just one example. So, you can use Russell-Hawn as your example; but far too many who live together are not as fortunate.

    • dashingscorpio profile image

      dashingscorpio 3 years ago

      With a divorce rate of nearly 50% it's kind of difficult to argue that taking vows insures a lifetime of commitment. Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries were only married for 72 days before splitting. Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn have (lived together) for 30 years. Which couple has the real commitment?

      Too often people spend way too much time trying to ascertain what is "right" and what is "wrong" in relationships. There is only "agree" and "disagree". The goal is to find someone who shares your same values!

      There is no amount of "work" or "communication" that can overcome being with someone who does not want what you want.