This is me being curious about the perspective of others. I'm 48 years old, and, in my opinion, I've been in several differnt kinds of relationships. One night, a week, a year, a couple of years, 15yrs. But is it really about time? Can a long term relationship be just a couple of years, with a lot of intensity? Yes, I'm feeling philosophical this evening.
Had a one night stand that lasted 26 years, three months, 26 days and about 12-1/2 hours
Well...I'd say a year at the minimum, yes. It's more the intention that counts when you say you're looking for it, I think - are you ltrying to get someone to be with for the rest of your life? I guess on a more realistic note, you might say a large part of your life. But as for looking back on it...I couldn't label mine. They were all quite important, with all but one being very important and serious to me (well, it was at the time but looking back on it, it really wouldn't have worked anyways, for multiple reasons), but only one of them lasted a little over a year straight through. Two of them were a couple years on and off, one was just over 6 months, and that last, less important one was two months...in summary, if you're looking for long-term, I believe the intention needs to be that you're getting into a serious relationship that you want to last. I don't think you really need to quantify the time if you don't want to.
I think it comes down to intent. No relationship may last forever. The wish to remain with someone until an end is reached, death etc., Is what I would consider longterm. Obviously, we all change in different ways and to different degrees, this may change the dynamics of such as to make the continuation burdensome to impossible. I do not think there is anything for this. It should be taught as a given I would venture.
One or two years is LT, as far as I’m concerned.
I think anything that lasts beyond the "honeymoon" stage -- by honeymoon I don't mean the trip you take after a wedding, but after all the intensity and excitement at the beginnings of a relationship wears off and you're faced with the day-to-day living with your partner. This is the place where a lot of relationships break off, because people think it's not love anymore, but actually it's love that's changing into something deeper, solid, and more steady. Two people who have each other's backs and want to be there for each other, and still have both the closeness and flexibility in their connection. The strongest trees have the deepest roots, but are still able to sway in the breeze.
Beyond the honeymoon stage really resonates with me.
In both my marriages the intensity never waned. It was fabulous. They each lasted 13 years. Maybe that's why I'm not married anymore!
not an easy answer but i would say anywhere well after the honeymoon period is long term.
I prefer long lasting to long term. The latter relates better to confinement than internal choice; such as, the more severe the crime, the longer the term. It is like hearing a school has been locked down when for years it was applied to prisons.
There's also the expression that 'married men (women) don't live longer. It only seems longer'.
Lasting long describes to me, something altogether diffferent in nature. There is no hint of any 'sentence' or qualifying chronological measure. It conveys the idea of somethiing having a life of it's own that is lasting. Lasting love and fidelity transcend time definition and ideally at least, life itself.
I consider long and short term to only apply to intentions and continuation. A relationship that lasts for life is long term, a relationship that is not intended to last for life is short term. After its over "term" no longer applies. It is simply long or short and at that point it is relative.