Isolde Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 I just realized something. There are a lot of people in this world. A lot. Why do people groan over the stress of meeting people when the truth is that there really should be someone for everyone? Life is short and intelligent, sane, kind people are not that uncommon. Why do people have such trouble coming together and enjoying one another's company? Why are perfectly compatible people sometimes so awkward and insecure? I am not dismissing the fact that some people are meant to be partners and some are not. This is a truism. However, if you think about it, most of the relationships that never come to existence, could have, if one or the other person made more effort. A simple question -- but sometimes these are the ones that most need to be asked. I think many girls spend so much time thinking in fuzzy, sappy terms that they fail to realize that they have tons of options out there and that romance doesn't have to be something specific to one individual or one period of time. A relationship should be inherently romantic--and if it's not, it's not a valid relationship. Maybe I'm just incredibly idealistic. But I find myself wanting to just reach out to people. It's thrilling--it feels like I'm beginning to "get" a concept I never understood before. All I know is that I refuse to see men as some sort of prize or object. Like Kamille said, I want to get to know men as human beings. I just want to get the chance to do that, you know. And I think a lot of LS'ers feel the same. It's a shame that there are all these people out there--and yet, it's hard not to see the opposite sex as a barrier to be conquered. I see that attitude too often in my thoughts and on here. That can't be healthy.
monkey00 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 You have some good points. Yes life is short, but not so short that everyone is desperate for a relationship. Some individuals are more happy with placing themselves or even a career first before a relationship or someone else that nothing manifests. Rather than try to understand the obstacles, people just live their lives the way they want to. Maybe complications bring happiness, maybe happiness brings complications. One's definition of happiness or unhappiness is defined individually. I think technology just allows us to communicate better about it, and at the same time complicates it.
Author Isolde Posted December 19, 2008 Author Posted December 19, 2008 You have some good points. Yes life is short, but not so short that everyone is desperate for a relationship. Exactly! Therein lies the problem We shouldn't be desperate--but we should also be aware of our own mortality. Far from being depressing, this is a prerequisite for experiencing real love, I think.
audrey_1 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Yes, life is too short, and I've never been desperate for a relationship. But at age 33, I think I may have learned my last tough lesson before realizing the adjustments I need to personally make before I can be in a healthy, lasting relationship of any length. That's been a high point of my day.
movingonandon Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 It's a shame that there are all these people out there--and yet, it's hard not to see the opposite sex as a barrier to be conquered. I see that attitude too often in my thoughts and on here. That can't be healthy. Can't be, isn't healthy. But, hope for the best prepare for the worst . The issue is simply that people want/need different things, and those needs and wants become increasingly diffrentiated, thereby making a good match increasingly difficult. Moreover, most of these needs/wants are purely egoistical. wanting only sex is just as egoistical as wanting a companion, a conversationalist, or The One. That's why the only chance to perhaps stumble on a good relationship is to completely let go, enjoy the ride, and evaluate possibilities as they come in (and understand that it may never happen). "Act like you don't need the ****, and they'll give you the **** for free", if you will. That's officially the last time *ever* I'm quoting "Swingers". What a milestone! Anyway, bottom line is that true love is not such a romantic thing. It's just true comparability in the things people consider important + decision to be devoted. (which is unlikely to be made occur unless there is comparability, wah-wah-wah:D)
movingonandon Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Yes, life is too short, and I've never been desperate for a relationship. But at age 33, I think I may have learned my last tough lesson before realizing the adjustments I need to personally make before I can be in a healthy, lasting relationship of any length. That's been a high point of my day. So what was the last tough lesson, eh? C'mon, hit us!:bunny::bunny:
Author Isolde Posted December 19, 2008 Author Posted December 19, 2008 That's why the only chance to perhaps stumble on a good relationship is to completely let go, enjoy the ride, and evaluate possibilities as they come in (and understand that it may never happen). Anyway, bottom line is that true love is not such a romantic thing. It's just true comparability in the things people consider important + decision to be devoted. (which is unlikely to be made occur unless there is comparability, wah-wah-wah:D) I agree with the first paragraph (though it's a scary thought!) but not sure about the second; I think true love is by definition romantic, if two people are experiencing it together. But then, I'm a girl.
monkey00 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Exactly! Therein lies the problem We shouldn't be desperate--but we should also be aware of our own mortality. Far from being depressing, this is a prerequisite for experiencing real love, I think. imho, humanity takes too much for granted. Look at global warming. Maybe if native americans ruled the world, things might be different.
movingonandon Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 I agree with the first paragraph (though it's a scary thought!) but not sure about the second; I think true love is by definition romantic, if two people are experiencing it together. But then, I'm a girl. I didn't mean to be cynical but merely to suggest that the feeling of romantic love is the outcome of such comparability, rather than a discrete force that all of a sudden decides to descend upon us.
Author Isolde Posted December 19, 2008 Author Posted December 19, 2008 I didn't mean to be cynical but merely to suggest that the feeling of romantic love is the outcome of such comparability, rather than a discrete force that all of a sudden decides to descend upon us. YES--exactly! I completely agree.
audrey_1 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 So what was the last tough lesson, eh? C'mon, hit us!:bunny::bunny: Well, I did the complete obvious of what movingonandon says below...it was potentially a brilliant relationship, and I panicked and swam against the current like a salmon. Gee, I wonder why we're N/C now? That's why the only chance to perhaps stumble on a good relationship is to completely let go, enjoy the ride, and evaluate possibilities as they come in (and understand that it may never happen).
Nemo Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Sure, life can be short. The years seem to go by quite quickly. But convert it to seconds, and it looks a whole lot different. In seconds, you can afford to screw around and it's no big deal.
CandyGirlXO Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 imho, humanity takes too much for granted. Look at global warming. Maybe if native americans ruled the world, things might be different. Global Warming is a myth I do agree, most people take a lot for granted.
movingonandon Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Sure, life can be short. The years seem to go by quite quickly. But convert it to seconds, and it looks a whole lot different. In seconds, you can afford to screw around and it's no big deal. The sad part about settling down (e.g. in marriage) is that big part of the reason to do it actually has nothing to do with love: it's about legal responsibility, joint assets, having somebody to take care of you if you're in trouble. Not such exciting stuff. So basically things are turned on their head in my mind: people don't get married because they're sooo in love; it's the opposite --> you reaaaaaly need to be in very, very much love in order to be able to justify the huge gamble and the huge inconveniences of the marriage. So after some time dating it's inevitable to start asking yourself if you'll ever find somebody to justify this huge risk (of course, there is no shortage of women that 'just want to get married'; the horror! the horror!). Hence, the feeling of "running out of time" - both for women, but also for men --> if you're not getting any younger, the chances that somebody will make the gamble probably decrease. So screwing around begins to seem as increasingly appealing alternative to the said gamble, though truth be told I'd prefer to come home to a loving wife, 2 kids, 2 cats, a dog, and the full catastrophe... But, the chances are that I'll be coming home to annoyed wife that wonders what good I am now that the assets are joint etc. Somehow I just managed do depress myself really, really, bad. Good thing I have a bag of cookies nearby.
Nemo Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Why do people groan Remember that one can groan in extreme pleasure, too.
Author Isolde Posted December 19, 2008 Author Posted December 19, 2008 The sad part about settling down (e.g. in marriage) is that big part of the reason to do it actually has nothing to do with love: it's about legal responsibility, joint assets, having somebody to take care of you if you're in trouble. I really don't think most people marry for legal reasons; it's just that the marriages that do occur for this reason tend to be disastrous and receive a lot of publicity. I think what usually happens is people want legal benefits with the one they love. Having somebody to take care of you is a nice thing, generally. There are some marriages that occur more or less for convenience--to not be alone. Though I think those marriages are sort of depressing, they sometimes do work out well. I would never judge someone who chose to settle, as long as it turned into a loving marriage for both partners. That said: I've always thought it made more sense to settle down when you met the right person--not when you reach a certain age--but it's easier said than done!
Trialbyfire Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 This is the balance between long-term and short-term gains. If you continually "go with the flow" with someone who has little to no compatibilities, the relationship will eventually implode and many times, quite painfully. The only way to "go with the flow" is to keep your emotions at low level. How many people can do that? As for "the one" or "soulmate", I don't believe in it. You'll find that as time goes on, you can be compatible with a number of individuals.
kizik Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Why do people groan over the stress of meeting people when the truth is that there really should be someone for everyone? Isolde, no offense, but aren't you subtly "groaning" in this thread? And the idea that there "should" be someone for everyone simply doesn't always pan out. In life, there is no should. There is no justice. You are allowed to eat and live with a roof over your head while others are starving and dying. "Should" does not come into play in matters of life and death - great people are always dying, terrible ones live, for example - and "should" has nothing to do with love, either. I "should" have a girlfriend because I am intelligent and kind, musically talented, funny, all that sh*t. But I don't - and I do not blame anyone for that. Not myself. Not women. This is just how life goes. X + Y does not = Z. I refuse to see men as some sort of prize or object. ... I want to get to know men as human beings. This sentiment I completely agree with. While men and women are different in some pretty obvious, and complex, ways - we all really want the same thing: someone to share life with; someone to be happy with. Isolde, what are you trying to say in this thread? It's very scatter-brained. Or maybe I just don't get it. You seem to be grumbling about the unfairness of life while simultaneously recognizing the objective unfairness of life as a fact of life. Do you feel that you deserve something you aren't getting (such as a man)? If so, I suggest completely disregarding such words and concepts as "should" and "deserve". Do you know what the only difference between my friends who are in relationships, and me, is? They happened into a situation where they met someone who they liked, who liked them back. They got lucky. I haven't gotten lucky yet. I will. In the meantime, I don't have the time, self-esteem to lose, or the energy to worry about why no one likes me. They will.
fral945 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 I agree with the first paragraph (though it's a scary thought!) but not sure about the second; I think true love is by definition romantic, if two people are experiencing it together. But then, I'm a girl. Isolde, I've never met a girl who didn't have romantic notions of love. Even the most cynical among us (which might include me) have a little idealism in us. It's ok to have idealistic beliefs, just not to let them get to the point where no man or woman can meet those expectations, or we severely limit ourselves and set ourselves up for constant disappointment. Another poster on her posted about how romantic comedies gave people unrealistic expectations of how romance should be vs. how it really is in a relationship. I think that applies more so to women (obviously romantic comedies are chick flicks), but men have idealistic notions as well. I used to think the sex in relationships would always be great and like a porn movie all the time before I got involved in any actual relationships. I've come to realize over time that that is the exception and not the rule.
Author Isolde Posted December 19, 2008 Author Posted December 19, 2008 Isolde, no offense, but aren't you subtly "groaning" in this thread? And the idea that there "should" be someone for everyone simply doesn't always pan out. In life, there is no should. There is no justice. You are allowed to eat and live with a roof over your head while others are starving and dying. "Should" does not come into play in matters of life and death - great people are always dying, terrible ones live, for example - and "should" has nothing to do with love, either. I "should" have a girlfriend because I am intelligent and kind, musically talented, funny, all that sh*t. But I don't - and I do not blame anyone for that. Not myself. Not women. This is just how life goes. X + Y does not = Z. I realized this thread is scatterbrained; that's why I almost didn't post it. It's just a bunch of musings. This sentiment I completely agree with. While men and women are different in some pretty obvious, and complex, ways - we all really want the same thing: someone to share life with; someone to be happy with. Isolde, what are you trying to say in this thread? It's very scatter-brained. Or maybe I just don't get it. You seem to be grumbling about the unfairness of life while simultaneously recognizing the objective unfairness of life as a fact of life. Do you feel that you deserve something you aren't getting (such as a man)? If so, I suggest completely disregarding such words and concepts as "should" and "deserve". I'm not saying I deserve something I'm not getting, actually. If I'm "groaning," I'm groaning at people's collective problems, not specifically at my own. Simultaneously grumbling at unfairness and recognizing the unfairness--maybe. But I think my point was more to say that sometimes people take life for granted to the extent that they gamble with fate rather than finding someone compatible. Do you know what the only difference between my friends who are in relationships, and me, is? They happened into a situation where they met someone who they liked, who liked them back. They got lucky. I haven't gotten lucky yet. I will. In the meantime, I don't have the time, self-esteem to lose, or the energy to worry about why no one likes me. They will. This is a terrific attitude, and one that I espouse as well.
Author Isolde Posted December 19, 2008 Author Posted December 19, 2008 This is the balance between long-term and short-term gains. If you continually "go with the flow" with someone who has little to no compatibilities, the relationship will eventually implode and many times, quite painfully. The only way to "go with the flow" is to keep your emotions at low level. How many people can do that? Are you rejecting the "go with the flow" theory or merely qualifying it? I wouldn't necessarily agree that you can't be emotional and go with the flow at once, but it seems very difficult. Certainly, there are two extremes--being complacent or passive, versus being so charged with emotion that you almost don't think about the other person and their wants and needs.
Trialbyfire Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Are you rejecting the "go with the flow" theory or merely qualifying it? I wouldn't necessarily agree that you can't be emotional and go with the flow at once, but it seems very difficult. Certainly, there are two extremes--being complacent or passive, versus being so charged with emotion that you almost don't think about the other person and their wants and needs. I'm primarily rejecting it. If you're the type of person to bond hard and fast, it's the direct route to heartbreak, which if it happens often enough, leads to cynicism. There's only so much incompatibility that's worth "going with the flow". If you're 90% different, you're going to find yourself asking to be emotionally bent over.
Author Isolde Posted December 20, 2008 Author Posted December 20, 2008 Wow, I don't even know what I was trying to say in this thread, guys. I'm sorry ^_^ TBF: A lot of the successful LTR's I know about started out with some degree of uncertainty as to whether they would work, but I agree the basic compatibility was definitely there. I'm arguing that compatibility is very important, but we shouldn't be wasting our lives talking about compatibility when it could be before our very eyes.
Recommended Posts