Regarding the woman who lives with her boyfriend and can't understand why he doesn't want to marry her. The reason is not a secret! Why should this man, or any other, marry a woman who is willing to live with him outside of marriage? Our elders have warned us for generations that men in this position conclude, "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?"
Having just declared that there are only three certainties in life (death, taxes and that highlights are expensive to maintain), I realize I omitted a fourth: that anytime I advise a woman who's cohabiting and wants to get married, some indignant readers will advise me, "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?"
So I'm getting this off my chest. Beginning with:
Well, gosh, thanks. I hadn't heard that one.
If I sound exasperated, that's only because I am. This homespun bit of mock-wisdom contains more sexism per syllable than a Monday night beer ad. Its grounding principle is (pick one):
1. That all men are emotionally bankrupt opportunists.
2. That all women want to marry men (because, of course, all women want to marry men, duh), but the only reason a man would possibly want a woman around is for sex. Love, companionship, trust, devotion, legal security, financial security, commitment, family, respect? Snort. Chick stuff.
So, pick your principle: an insult to all men of character, or an insult to all women of character.
Whichever you choose, any "cow" that was "bought" solely for "milk" should pack up her oats and find herself a new barn. If she hasn't done so already.
That some "cows" mooove in with milk freeloaders only to get their hearts broken is true, and unfortunate. But the same applies to all those "bulls" who get duped by opportunistic "cows." Either way, having their hearts broken after marrying these jerks doesn't strike me as an improvement. (Just no babies, please, till you're all sure you're sure.) Still, if the cows-have-no-inherent-value argument is the kind of bull you want to buy, then you're welcome to it; I get it for free every day. Just know before you start spreading it around, please, how bad it's going to smell.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a metaphor begging to be put out to pasture.
Following up on Sept. 16, why it's "so hard just to end a crappy relationship":
There are people who would rather be in a bad relationship than no relationship, but consider the inertia factor, too -- aka, "Better the devil you know." You're in a crappy relationship, but you know the limits of the crappiness and you figure it's not going to get any worse. Ending the relationship, especially if there's nothing on the horizon to replace it, means a leap into the unknown, which for some people represents a possibility of greater pain. That's not too cynical, is it?
No, I'd call it pragmatic.
And, wrong. Something mildly crappy doesn't just stay mildly crappy. Burdens that feel manageable the first mile can become debilitating by mile 26, with no increase in weight.
Alone is hard. Wishing you were alone is still harder. And when you like yourself, you can leap anywhere, knowing you can always come home to you.
Write to Tell Me About It, Style, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071, or email@example.com, and join Carolyn's live discussion at noon Fridays at www.washingtonpost.com/liveonline.