To think women should prioritise being equally yoked when choosing a partner?

[ThisLimeMoose]

As a woman, I firmly believe that if you don’t have children, you should prioritise dating a man who doesn’t have children. If you’re financially stable, you should be looking for a man who is equally financially stable. The same applies to emotional maturity, ambition, lifestyle and general circumstances.

I think far too many women enter relationships where they’re taking on responsibilities, complications or burdens that they wouldn’t otherwise have, simply because they’ve been encouraged to believe that love should be enough. Stay equally yoked in all things and I genuinely believe you’d avoid a significant proportion of the relationship problems we regularly see discussed on here.

AIBU?

😂😂😂😂

Shakespeare? That Johnny-come-lately.😃

It doesn’t matter when it was used
it’s certainly not common and the most common usage of yoked for humans is similar in vibes to chained , imprisoned , harnessed for a life of toil , that’s not what marriage should be

If it's not common, then how can you confidently state what its most common usage is?!

You can, of course, interpret it as you like, but that doesn't make it the universally-understood understanding of it. There's no need to read negativity into it; it's just a neutral metaphor. When companies advertise a job for somebody who will need to be 'able to hit the ground running', they obviously don't mean that they're going to literally throw them out of an aeroplane on to tarmac; if somebody blames you for 'throwing them under the bus', they aren't really suggesting that you tried to kill them by instigating an actual traffic-based tragedy.

Of course marriage isn't a prison or being in chains, but it IS a serious, firm commitment that two people make, intending to bond themselves together legally and socially.

You ok tonight OP? Why don't you tell us what's really wrong instead of having a general swipe at other peoples relationship choices and people's unfamiliarity with an pretty unfamiliar term.

I’m as poor as a church mouse. Thanks to my ex husband ruining us. I had better make sure I keep my blinkers on and focus only on equally poor men.

Eh? Just because word or a phrase isn’t commonly used (and this one really is not commonly used at all) doesn’t mean people can’t confidently know its meaning. Bizarre perspective.

So should single parents stay single or only pursue other single parents? (Which often causes its own issues)

I was a single parent. Dh and I met when dc were 4 and 6 , I’d been divorced two years. We took things very slow but a lovely relationship developed between him and my dc. He has helped raise them and to them he is more of a dad / role model than their actual father .

That might be feasible for someone who falls in love with anyone who they take a shine to. However, for many people, love is a rare and special thing that doesn’t come around often. You expect people to deny that rare opportunity for happiness because the other person’s life circumstances aren’t perfect?? I know I’d much rather be with someone I loved even if they didn’t make much money, and had kids from a previous relationship, than with a rich child-free man who I liked but wasn’t in love with. Yes, the first one might make my life a little messier, a bit more stressful at times, but overall I’d be much happier because I was with someone I was truly in love with…isn’t that what every human is searching for at the end of the day? I’d much rather life a messy happy life, than a stress-free, ‘tidy’ life with someone I wasn’t in love with. I’d end up deeply unhappy.

Hmmm you are a journalist? You appear to present a debate for discussion. I don’t judge others based on theories or ideals that they do or do not subscribe to. I mean, one can find love conquers life challenges and differences. From most of what is read on here, it’s usually the people involved that make life impossible for others due to their own selfish ideals.

That’s Cinderella out on her ear

Although it's not been said, I can't help but wonder if what some people really think on this topic is 'marry for money'. 🤔

Some posters have confidently stated that using the expression signifies ties to evangelical Christianity. It may be that some evangelical Christians use it, but in actual fact its use is much wider than that - though old-fashioned now.

As I said in a previous post, I heard it more when I was young and it was probably more widely used in rural areas. There are umpteen examples given in the online Scots dictionary which I linked above and they don't have the evangelical associations that some here have suggested.

Not in your childhood, maybe.

Most people fall in love with people they spend the most time with.

For me, those would be the same people who share my values, life goals and expectations with. They might not be identitical, but aligned enough to be compatible.

When my marriage broke down and I started dating again, I realised I didn't want to blend families so I made two choices - date but no serious relationships until my children were older and no dads of young children. And I stuck to it.

Does that mean I might have missed out on the absolute most perfect man for me just because he had young children? No. Because the fact he had young children would have made him not perfect for me.

I did briefly date a man with young children before I had that realisation, which is what made me realise I didn't want it because his parenting style, approach to a happy/good childhood, what he wanted his children's childhood to look like didn't align with what I wanted for my children. It wasn't better or worse, just different. But it wasn't compatible either.

So I stopped dating him. I have no idea whether or not I could have fallen in love with him. We were very compatible in other ways but I didn't wait to find out.

I actually find it quite surprising reading the thread that other women wouldn't think like this. Not specifically about children just spending time and continuing a relationship with someone who was incompatible with them.

But I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone should share their life with someone they don't love just because they look good on paper either.

For me, and others apparently, it's more about having similar shared values and attitudes rather than lives being perfect.

I think a hell of a lot of women are looking for a man to bankroll them, and a depressing number of men just want a mother for their kids /someone to cook & clean for them.

I can't speak for men because Im not one and then I know don't fall into that category.

Historically, women had to do that due to limited earnings potential and lack of rights. I don't see many women now (either in my own age range or daughter's) who are looking for a man to bankroll them.

I see women who want education, a career and independence. All of which will afford them the opportunity to make a good choice of partner (or no partner) rather than feel they have to marry the first man who shows an interest in them.

Not in my childhood circles, certainly.

The online Scots Dictionary does make the point that the expression is lesser known outside Scotland.

tr. or intr. To link, join, unite: (1) specif. in marriage (Ork., Cai., Ags., Per., Ayr. 1974). Rare or obs. in Eng. Hence ill-yokit, ill-matched in marriage (ne.Sc. 1974).Sc. 1765 Corresp. Boswell and Johnston (Walker 1966) 167:
At any rate I shall be in no hurry to yoke as my Father calls it.

https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/yoke