Jump to content
While the thread author can add an update and reopen discussion, this thread was last posted in over a month ago. Want to continue the conversation? Feel free to start a new thread instead!

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Haha... very amusing. The choice for most people is simple - "settle" for a less-than-ideal relationship, or take the chance of never finding anything better. And the chance of never finding anything better is very real indeed.

 

If you're an all-or-nothing compulsive gambler, then go for it. Otherwise, be grateful for what you've got!

Edited by Nemo
Posted

I don't believe in shooting low. Always aim high.

Posted

Realistically speaking, if you're dumber than a bag of hammers and have dug yourself into financial ruin, don't expect to meet a wealthy Einstein and have him fall head over heels in love with you, no matter how good-looking you are.

 

Hmmm..blonde with big knockers, well, you might have a chance...nvm...

Posted

I felt that the author of the article held unrealistic ideals about potential partners in her past. It seems as if she never came to the realization that some of her ideals were unrealistic, and instead tossed the whole concept out the window. She seemed to swing too far from one extreme to the other.

Back when I was still convinced I’d find my soul mate, I did, although I never articulated this, have certain requirements.

Take the date I went on last night. The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that.

 

She also seems to be taking the position that being alone is the single worst thing that could happen to someone. Which validates her stance that settling for someone is a better option.

 

Also... I felt there was an underlying message that our ideals of Mr. Right are influenced mostly through society, and "settling" actually means choosing a man who may not look like a catch in societies eyes, but is great for you.

 

So although I think there are some flaws with the presentation of the argument, the concept is still valid. If people took a moment to analyze their concept of who they want in their life, toss out the unrealistic or simply materialistic bull crap, and focus on the core factors.. then maybe they could actually find someone they could enjoy a life with. Instead, it seems many people have clung to an ideal that doesn't even fit the person that would (in the long run) make them happiest.

Posted
Haha... very amusing. The choice for most people is simple - "settle" for a less-than-ideal relationship

 

Well, every human relationship is less than ideal.

 

But it matters very, very much which specifics you allow yourself to settle on. If you know yourself well enough, have a good enough intuition, or are just lucky, you end up with a person who has what you need to (A) be healthy (B) feel fulfilled.

 

You can't settle on the stuff that is a must-have.

Posted

This topic reminds me of the old SNL John Lovitz sketch. He plays this couch-potato nerd doing a TV commercial, basically advertising himself as a potential mate. His audience is single women. He's dressed in a too-small T-shirt, holding a TV remote in one hand and a bag of potato chips in the other. And, well, you know what John Lovitz looks like.

 

He gives a spiel about all the reasons women over 35 can't afford to be too picky, and ends each point with the refrain, "Lower!...your!...standards!"

Posted
Exactly. One cancels out the other.

 

For something like what Curm describes to happen, the two parties involved must have a lot of love for one another and a good, solid foundation to work from when problems arise, as inevitably they will throughout the course of their journey together.

 

When one settles, well, one settles because there is very little to begin with. Or even if there once was, it got lost somewhere along the way. It happens.

 

The cases of people having the type of relationship I describe unfortunately now seem to be even more few and far between. That foundation you mentioned is absolutely essental. For all the recent issues my wife and I have had, and there will most likely be others along life's path together, that foundation still exists and always will. It's the five years of friendship and admiration that preceeded our dating and marriage.

 

Although marriage to the ex lasted 25 years, it was decidedly settling on both our parts and there was little, if any, foundation.

Posted

I think it's common for people to have bouts where they go into that "should I just settle?" dilemma. Isn't internal conflict part of the human condition? It doesn't mean there's an easy and correct answer...eg settle for a man you're not particularly into, and never mind what that man's romantic hopes and dreams are...or how instrumental you'll be in dashing them as you pursue your own need for security.

 

The author of that article wants an answer for herself. For whatever reason, she needs to convince herself that "settling" is the right option for her by attempting to persuade other women in a similar situation that it's the only realistic option for them too.

 

I very much doubt she's genuinely invested in helping other women figure out how to be "happy enough". It looks to me like she's more interested in battering other people over the head with her version of truth and reality until they wearily concede her point just to get her to shut up....thereby validating her need to feel okay about the decision she's making.

Posted
I felt that the author of the article held unrealistic ideals about potential partners in her past. It seems as if she never came to the realization that some of her ideals were unrealistic, and instead tossed the whole concept out the window. She seemed to swing too far from one extreme to the other.

She also seems to be taking the position that being alone is the single worst thing that could happen to someone. Which validates her stance that settling for someone is a better option.

 

Me too.

 

The author of that article wants an answer for herself. For whatever reason, she needs to convince herself that "settling" is the right option for her by attempting to persuade other women in a similar situation that it's the only realistic option for them too.

 

I very much doubt she's genuinely invested in helping other women figure out how to be "happy enough". It looks to me like she's more interested in battering other people over the head with her version of truth and reality until they wearily concede her point just to get her to shut up....thereby validating her need to feel okay about the decision she's making.

 

Dang lady, you are on FIRE today. Did you eat razorblades for breakfast because that tongue of yours is shaaaarp. I like it. ;)

Posted

Well, also, her suggestion that people should settle is more controversial than any of the more sensible things we've said here. Look at all the discussion it is generating, while a more conventional suggestion wouldn't be nearly as provocative. It is faulty thinking but enticing journalism.

Posted
Did you eat razorblades for breakfast

 

It's important for a woman to keep her iron levels up any way she can when she gets to my age, sb129.

Posted
It's important for a woman to keep her iron levels up any way she can when she gets to my age, sb129.

 

:laugh::laugh:

 

Well this discussee is going to sleep. Work in the morning and all that.

Posted
I felt that the author of the article held unrealistic ideals about potential partners in her past. It seems as if she never came to the realization that some of her ideals were unrealistic, and instead tossed the whole concept out the window. She seemed to swing too far from one extreme to the other.

 

She also seems to be taking the position that being alone is the single worst thing that could happen to someone. Which validates her stance that settling for someone is a better option.

 

Great points! I just read her "sperm donor" article and couldn't stop laughing. She is saying things like he must be at least 6ft, have a high GPA and SAT score, have a flawless genetic & health background, no mental issues in the family etc. Hello? You are talking about a broke 19 year old college student beating one out into a test tube, not your future life partner. If her standards are that high for a sperm donor, no wonder she didn't find a suitable husband - he would have had to be a cross between George Clooney, Einstein, and Jesus before she got interested!

 

I read that her mother kept telling her not to be so picky with men. I think in this case the mother appears to have been spot on. Well, now karma has made its payback and she is pushing 40, single, and a test-tube baby momma - no wonder she's starting to consider settling!

Posted

To me this article is absurd and I feel sad for women who feel like this. I suppose this is good advice for a woman whose ultimate goal in life is having a husband and child?

  • Author
Posted (edited)

I don't completely agree with the author, but she makes some valid points that you guys are ignoring.

 

One is that past a certain age the single guys left over (in your age range) will be mostly damaged fruit. That means either undesirable, commitment-phobic or divorced. You will also be less alluring past a certain age, which will further narrow your dating pool. So your two alternatives may be settling at a young age for someone almost ideal vs. settling when you're older for someone far from ideal. Even if you hold out, odds are you'll be forced to settle eventually, so why not settle for someone better when you have more choices available? Honestly, I would be very hesitant to marry a guy I met when he was over thirty because chances are he would have too much baggage.

 

I believe most people settle, whether they admit it to themselves or not. Consider that most women probably seek out roughly the same qualities in an ideal partner.

Let's say some variation on:

1) Handsome

2) Smart

3) Kind/Faithful/Respectful

4) Successful

5) Shares common interests and core values

6) Great chemistry

7) Sane

 

Now think about the number of guys who actually possess all these traits. It's pretty few. And most of those guys will already be taken. Also consider the fact that the vast majority of women are probably not what most men would consider their "ideal" mate either. So what's the chance that their dream guy would even want them?

 

Everywhere I turn I see couples who have clearly settled for each other, and yet many of them seem pretty happy.

 

Most people settle because they have no other choice. It's depressing, but that's life.

Edited by shadowplay
Posted
Those who settle NEVER reach it, never have a chance to since they already knew that wasn't going to happen when they settled.

 

I disagree. It's all about the character of both parties, and their ability to adapt and adjust, "make lemonade" as it were. You can learn to love someone over time; it's possible (although I admit it doesn't always happen) as long as they are of good character - honest and trustworthy, loyal, hardworking, kind, gentle, sane.

 

The spark and passion at the beginning is nature's way of making sure we hook-up and have babies (propagating the species). But like anything in nature, it doesn't last. So if it's not there in the beginning, so what - the end result is the same anyway. Marriage becomes a comfortable old shoe; a business/financial partnership; a long-term contract. Successful marriages are all about being kind to each other.

 

In the end, only kindness matters.

 

That's the way I see it, anyway.

Posted
You will also be less alluring past a certain age, which will further narrow your dating pool. So your two alternatives may be settling at a young age for someone almost ideal vs. settling when you're older for someone far from ideal.

 

Hey, watch it with the way you're throwing around that "aging thing," will ya!?! :D:D

Posted
Settling is living a life of soul-killing quiet desperation - stuck with someone you don't want to be with. If you've never done that, you don't know how miserable and depressing it is, so it might be appealing from the outside looking in because it appears to be a better option to have a man, any man, than being on your own. But when you are in it and can't stand the way he breathes much less anything else, you know better.

 

Women back in the 50's and early 60's did that all the time. They married young because they were supposed to, had the kids, and then lived lonely, unfulfilled lives. And had affairs! As did their husbands.

 

That's why divorce became so acceptable over the years...those women wanted to kill themselves, but fortunately for them, divorce became an option and they started leaving those lives in the 70's.

 

 

I dont think she said "someone you don't want to be with." I think what she is saying is "Mr or Ms Perfect." I think the point of the article is to stop looking for perfection in a S/O and start looking at reality.

 

NOBODY but NOBODY is perfect. There are NO Mr or Ms Rights. There's only people. Average, every day people with faults and quirks. I could have been married 3x over by now but I was looking for Ms Perfect.

 

The article did open my eyes a bit to my own insistence on having a dream woman which when you think about it really very unrealistic. I have learned as I get older to be more tolerant of other's quirks and habits. Though I don't know that when I do get married I will have settled.

 

I tend to think of it as me being more a more tolerant person. And I think that when it happens she will be Ms Right with her quirks and imperfect personality. But I'll love her just the same.

Posted
I don't completely agree with the author, but she makes some valid points that you guys are ignoring.

 

One is that past a certain age the single guys left over (in your age range) will be mostly damaged fruit. That means either undesirable, commitment-phobic or divorced. You will also be less alluring past a certain age, which will further narrow your dating pool. So your two alternatives may be settling at a young age for someone almost ideal vs. settling when you're older for someone far from ideal. Even if you hold out, odds are you'll be forced to settle eventually, so why not settle for someone better when you have more choices available? Honestly, I would be very hesitant to marry a guy I met when he was over thirty because chances are he would have too much baggage.

 

I believe most people settle, whether they admit it to themselves or not. Consider that most women probably seek out roughly the same qualities in an ideal partner.

Let's say some variation on:

1) Handsome

2) Smart

3) Kind/Faithful/Respectful

4) Successful

5) Shares common interests and core values

6) Great chemistry

7) Sane

 

Now think about the number of guys who actually possess all these traits. It's pretty few. And most of those guys will already be taken. Also consider the fact that the vast majority of women are probably not what most men would consider their "ideal" mate either. So what's the chance that their dream guy would even want them?

 

Everywhere I turn I see couples who have clearly settled for each other, and yet many of them seem pretty happy.

 

Most people settle because they have no other choice. It's depressing, but that's life.

 

Right but this is only true assuming that the main goal and desire for a woman is a husband. Many women would be happier w/o a husband they aren't in love with than in a sham marriage.

  • Author
Posted (edited)
Right but this is only true assuming that the main goal and desire for a woman is a husband. Many women would be happier w/o a husband they aren't in love with than in a sham marriage.

 

That's well and good when you're young, but what about when you're old and grey? I suspect settling would look a lot more appealing at that age than being alone with no one to take care of you.

Edited by shadowplay
Posted
That's well and good when you're young, but what about when you're old and grey? I suspect settling would look a lot more appealing at that age than being alone with no one to take care of you.

 

Then won't the husband be old and gray and need taking care of too? :rolleyes: I'm sorry, I think this is silly.

 

I suppose an uneducated woman with kids in need of a daddy and money may need this sort of security, but this article does not apply to your average sane, happy and successful female, sorry.

Posted (edited)
Then won't the husband be old and gray and need taking care of too? :rolleyes: I'm sorry, I think this is silly.

 

I suppose an uneducated woman with kids in need of a daddy and money may need this sort of security, but this article does not apply to your average sane, happy and successful female, sorry.

 

...you live in San Francisco by choice, I would question the sanity level! :laugh:

 

It will be interesting to take a poll of all these "average, sane, happy and successful females" who were on the cutting edge of feminism in another 10 or 15 years and see how many are alone and are also still feeling happy and fulfilled.

Edited by Curmudgeon
Posted
That's well and good when you're young, but what about when you're old and grey? I suspect settling would look a lot more appealing at that age than being alone with no one to take care of you.

 

I think it's crucial to get over one's fear of being alone, no matter who (or whether) you end up married to someone. There's nothing wrong with being alone, unless you're lonely and depressed about it. It's certainly not something to be afraid of.

 

The author of the article had many valid points, especially about our expectations of romantic partner being totally different from what we should look for in a marriage partner. But I think she's wrong about some things -- and what jumped out at me the most was her fear of ending up alone. The Musical Chairs thing, for example... "When do you take a seat, any seat, just so you're not left standing alone?" Well, what's wrong with standing alone?

 

For many of us, it's better to be alone than to be married to someone who has halitosis, or sends a shiver up our spine when they hug us (pulling examples from the article). And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Posted
...you live in San Francisco by choice, I would question the sane quotient! :laugh:

 

Correction, I now live in Berkeley :p And what's soooo insane about San Francisco? Personally living in a beautiful city full of delicious food, art, culture and nightlife, where you can make a decent living among intelligent, smart, hardworking people seems like a good idea to me :cool:

Posted
I believe most people settle, whether they admit it to themselves or not. Consider that most women probably seek out roughly the same qualities in an ideal partner.

Let's say some variation on:

 

I'm reordering these. The first two are crucial. The rest will fall in line.

 

1A) Great chemistry

A must. But since you will be looking for different chemistry than me, we won't be competing for the same man.

 

1B) Kind/Faithful/Respectful

Yes, this is a prerequisite for almost everyone because if you're not safe, then you can't love. But how many basically good people revert to unkind, disrespectful or unfaithful behavior because they have ignored 1A.

 

All the rest of these are secondary. Also, again, you aren't looking for the same traits I am, so it is not like we are in Filene's Basement, tearing apart a sweater we both want.

 

Handsome

Yeah, if you're looking for George Clooney in the first place, you may have to settle. Again, if you have chemistry then this one is moot.

 

Smart

Not all women are looking for a PhD. There are different kinds of intelligence. Some don't want a guy smarter than them. Some would rather have someone who can fix things. Others want someone with business smarts but don't care if he doesn't read Tolstoy.

 

Successful

This is soooo subjective. Yes, if he isn't contributing any income, you had better be either wealthy, generous, or willing to live simply. But maybe you want to work and he will be a stay at home dad. Also, some financially super-successful men are materialistic and shallow. I have encountered them. Believe me. And often they aren't at home much of the time so you may as well be single.

 

Shares common interests and core values

Again, I'm a broken record, but since these differ so much from person to person, another woman can't necessarily take "yours." she is looking for hers.

 

Sane

This covers a wide spectrum. Sure, you don't want someone who thinks he is President Lincoln or sees purple cats everywhere, but would you accept someone's neuroses if the chemistry was there? Most of us are neurotic ourselves anyway.

 

So if it's not there in the beginning, so what - the end result is the same anyway. Marriage becomes a comfortable old shoe; a business/financial partnership; a long-term contract. Successful marriages are all about being kind to each other.

 

But it is your memories of the passion that make this later contentment possible. If you don't have that, then you don't have a romantic foundation to build upon. You will have a nice friendship as a marriage. For some people, this might be enough. If so, fine.

×
×
  • Create New...