Isolde Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 It's a half full half empty kind of thing. I'd prefer to say that imperfection can be your personal perfection in a partner, to the extent you wouldn;t even want them to be perfect anymore.
sally4sara Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 BlueEyes, I'd take that advice with about 50 pounds of salt, unless you also want to be a bitter single mom. For people who say "don't settle", well that's sort of good advice and sort of not. Fact is, no one is perfect and if you're waiting for some idealized person you'll never find him. For me, an LTR is all about settling, finding someone you can love and cherish deeply in spite of their imperfections and who will do that same for you. Someone you can commit to for the long haul knowing that they fall short in some ways but also knowing that overall you can enrich each other greatly. I don't think it was unrealistic advise; being a single mom is leaps and bound better than raising kids with the wrong partner. Hell, my kid barely listened to a word I said when reprimanding him because he was use to his drunk father drowning me out the moment I tried. Thank god that's over! I use to worry he would turn out like his father. Record isn't telling her she shouldn't try to find a good partner, she is just pointing out that it isn't as bad as she fears and a damn sight better than raising a kid in a house where two people settled and now hate each other.
CommitmentPhobe Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 It's a half full half empty kind of thing. I'd prefer to say that imperfection can be your personal perfection in a partner, to the extent you wouldn;t even want them to be perfect anymore. I do see what you're saying, but to even suggest a concept of perfection in human beings in the first place would make me wonder if someone is easy to love. Do we for example, define a piece of music, or a work of art via perfection? If you have your own definition of what's perfect for you then why would you make that unrealistic?
Isolde Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I was just trying to restate what clv said in a more positive way. I mean, I do think part of the human condition is being able to accept that there isn't perfection in the world, and people that think about relationships in terms of perfection will have problems.
PinkKittyKat Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I was just trying to restate what clv said in a more positive way. I mean, I do think part of the human condition is being able to accept that there isn't perfection in the world, and people that think about relationships in terms of perfection will have problems. I tend to see perfection in imperfection. I suppose it's my inner Buddhist. A charred forest, an animal being eaten by maggots, wrinkles in someone's skin. I find these things beautiful somehow. Even my bf's occasional anger simply hides his vulnerability. It's hard to view these things as "imperfections". Maybe I'm just really strange.
pollywag Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I do see what you're saying, but to even suggest a concept of perfection in human beings in the first place would make me wonder if someone is easy to love. Do we for example, define a piece of music, or a work of art via perfection? If you have your own definition of what's perfect for you then why would you make that unrealistic? Beautifully stated! You hit the nail on the head, a person is incapable of love when they are seeking unicorns. The reason they seek unicorns in the first place is because they are severely discontent within themselves, nothing is or will ever be good enough. They are trying to fix something intrinsically wrong within via somebody that does not exist. Deep down people like this feel they don't deserve love which is why they are constantly upgrading even when they meet someone close to "perfection". To a certain extent we all do this in mate selection, we all look for "fixes" but the gap in those who are completely disconnected from themselves is a lot bigger and "the fix" is insurmountable leaving it impossible for any form of human being to embody these expectations. Perpetual discontent is all someone like this will encounter. Time tells all! I wouldn't even describe an ex like that, let alone a lover. Of course you wouldn't, you respect the women in your past for the human beings that they are, regardless of your differences. That's obvious!
pollywag Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I tend to see perfection in imperfection. I suppose it's my inner Buddhist. Totally with you on that one, which is why I hate fake flowers or plants. I would rather have a real flower for two days and watch it wilt away and disintegrate right in front of my eyes knowing that it emanated beauty if only for two days, than a fake perpetual flower that stares back at me in its chemically manufactured state.
clv0116 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I was just trying to restate what clv said in a more positive way. I mean, I do think part of the human condition is being able to accept that there isn't perfection in the world, and people that think about relationships in terms of perfection will have problems. That's a pretty nice way to say it. Essentially anyone we pair off with is going to do or say things or otherwise annoy us from time to time, and we will do the same to them. As you state, I have to accept my own limits and it's only reasonable that I do the same of others, more so to the woman I love. To expect otherwise is unrealistic and unwise.
Sam Spade Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 That's a pretty nice way to say it. Essentially anyone we pair off with is going to do or say things or otherwise annoy us from time to time, and we will do the same to them. As you state, I have to accept my own limits and it's only reasonable that I do the same of others, more so to the woman I love. To expect otherwise is unrealistic and unwise. I'm falling in love with my gf precisely because of the mellow and accepting nature she has demonstrated so far - it allows me to recognise my own dick-headedness, which in turn makes me more accepting of her faults, mostly imagined ones too.
Sam Spade Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 a person is incapable of love when they are seeking unicorns. The reason they seek unicorns in the first place is because they are severely discontent within themselves, nothing is or will ever be good enough. They are trying to fix something intrinsically wrong within via somebody that does not exist. Deep down people like this feel they don't deserve love which is why they are constantly upgrading even when they meet someone close to "perfection". To a certain extent we all do this in mate selection, we all look for "fixes" but the gap in those who are completely disconnected from themselves is a lot bigger and "the fix" is insurmountable leaving it impossible for any form of human being to embody these expectations. Perpetual discontent is all someone like this will encounter. Time tells all! Well, you make fun of me, but the above applies 100% to my ex. How can you not be worried about someone with this perception of self and relationships ?
RecordProducer Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 BlueEyes, I'd take that advice with about 50 pounds of salt, unless you also want to be a bitter single mom. For people who say "don't settle", well that's sort of good advice and sort of not. Fact is, no one is perfect and if you're waiting for some idealized person you'll never find him. For me, an LTR is all about settling, finding someone you can love and cherish deeply in spite of their imperfections and who will do that same for you. Someone you can commit to for the long haul knowing that they fall short in some ways but also knowing that overall you can enrich each other greatly.I don't think you know the meaning of the word "settle." Settling doesn't mean you're in love, but you accept someone with their imperfections. Settling means you marry someone you don't really love, because you think that's the best you can get.
Trialbyfire Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 I don't think you know the meaning of the word "settle." Settling doesn't mean you're in love, but you accept someone with their imperfections. Settling means you marry someone you don't really love, because you think that's the best you can get. Until someone falls in love and really understands the concept, they're not going to understand what this means. When people are solely in love with themselves, loving someone else is a foreign concept. What they call love, is that they love how the other person aka addendum, makes them feel about themselves and only themselves. It's like the other person is a mirror for them to admire themselves in.
RecordProducer Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 What they call love, is that they love how the other person aka addendum, makes them feel about themselves and only themselves. It's like the other person is a mirror for them to admire themselves in.This is absolutely the general concept of love in the western society. As soon as our partner doesn't make us feel good, we run. I don't see anything wrong with that. Would you stay with someone who doesn't love you deeply? (Let's say they treat you with respect and everything.) No, you wouldn't. Because you want to know you're adored. We are all self-centered, whether we admit it or not. Our society calls people who accept one-sided love - doormats. The point of love is to feel happy, pleased, and fulfilled on every level. Isn't this the mirror concept that you're talking about? We all want to see ourselves as the best thing since sliced bread in our partners' eyes. Can't you love someone without him thinking that you're great? I don't think you would.
Trialbyfire Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 This is absolutely the general concept of love in the western society. As soon as our partner doesn't make us feel good, we run. I don't see anything wrong with that. Would you stay with someone who doesn't love you deeply? (Let's say they treat you with respect and everything.) No, you wouldn't. Because you want to know you're adored. We are all self-centered, whether we admit it or not. Our society calls people who accept one-sided love - doormats. The point of love is to feel happy, pleased, and fulfilled on every level. Isn't this the mirror concept that you're talking about? We all want to see ourselves as the best thing since sliced bread in our partners' eyes. Can't you love someone without him thinking that you're great? I don't think you would. It takes more than just personally feeling great due to being fueled by an external source, that I call love. There's pleasure in giving, as well as the pleasure of receiving. If it's solely one-sided, one-way, then yes, one of the partners is a doormat and the other a selfish person.
Isolde Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 This is absolutely the general concept of love in the western society. As soon as our partner doesn't make us feel good, we run. I don't see anything wrong with that. Would you stay with someone who doesn't love you deeply? (Let's say they treat you with respect and everything.) No, you wouldn't. Because you want to know you're adored. We are all self-centered, whether we admit it or not. Our society calls people who accept one-sided love - doormats. The point of love is to feel happy, pleased, and fulfilled on every level. Isn't this the mirror concept that you're talking about? We all want to see ourselves as the best thing since sliced bread in our partners' eyes. Can't you love someone without him thinking that you're great? I don't think you would. While Western-style love isn't necessarily a narcissistic love, I kind of have to agree with you, RP, that things have changed a lot. Unrequited crushes are judged to be null and void feelings; if you still love your ex you're pathetic and hopeless, etc.etc. It's all geared towards positive self-reinforcement. Which is good in most ways, but it's also diminished other forms of love. While it's helpful to say that anything that's unrequited won't work out and therefore sort of pre-empt the feeling away, I'd argue that some of the most fulfilling moments of self realization can come from loving someone who doesn't love you back (not in a relationship context, though; I'm talking more of unrequited crushes; I've learned so much from them!)
Untouchable_Fire Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 This is absolutely the general concept of love in the western society. As soon as our partner doesn't make us feel good, we run. I don't see anything wrong with that. Would you stay with someone who doesn't love you deeply? (Let's say they treat you with respect and everything.) No, you wouldn't. Because you want to know you're adored. We are all self-centered, whether we admit it or not. Our society calls people who accept one-sided love - doormats. The point of love is to feel happy, pleased, and fulfilled on every level. Isn't this the mirror concept that you're talking about? We all want to see ourselves as the best thing since sliced bread in our partners' eyes. Can't you love someone without him thinking that you're great? I don't think you would. It takes more than just personally feeling great due to being fueled by an external source, that I call love. There's pleasure in giving, as well as the pleasure of receiving. If it's solely one-sided, one-way, then yes, one of the partners is a doormat and the other a selfish person. That is deep! Here is the issue as I see it. If he loves you, then he will think your great.... for him! He might not believe that your the best the world has to offer, but you will be all he wants. If you love him the same should apply. If it's unreciprocated... then is that love at all?
Trialbyfire Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 That is deep! Here is the issue as I see it. If he loves you, then he will think your great.... for him! He might not believe that your the best the world has to offer, but you will be all he wants. If you love him the same should apply. If it's unreciprocated... then is that love at all? You'd be surprised how many people believe that love is one way, where someone else has to fuel the inner emptiness inside of them. This is narcissistic behaviour.
You'reasian Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 When people are solely in love with themselves, loving someone else is a foreign concept. What they call love, is that they love how the other person aka addendum, makes them feel about themselves and only themselves. It's like the other person is a mirror for them to admire themselves in. Spot on. I agree with this.
Untouchable_Fire Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 You'd be surprised how many people believe that love is one way, where someone else has to fuel the inner emptiness inside of them. This is narcissistic behaviour. I have been surprised, especially by other men. This is just a guess, but I think it is much more likely that a man would marry someone he doesn't really love as compared to a woman. I could be totally wrong though. If it is one sided, I don't think those feelings qualify as romantic love. I would consider it more of a crush. I think those who want others to love them, but don't return that feeling are very small people. By that I don't mean short! Oh, to the original topic of the thread. Never be desperate, but it's often good to take a look at your selection criteria. When I hear someone use the word picky, it reminds me of a guy friend from highschool that was very fat and quite ugly... who would only consider dating attractive popular girls. To this day he is still single, and has refused to "lower his standards". The truth is he needs to raise his standards, because choosing women just based on looks... thats as low as you can get!
RecordProducer Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 It's all geared towards positive self-reinforcement. Yes, this is what I am talking about. If a man for example looks at porn, he's being disrespectful. Why? Because he has to look at me - or you - all the time. How dare he think that Jenna Jamison has a nicer body than mine? How dare he talk to another woman, how dare he forget your birthday, how dare he be unsupportive about my career....? The thread going through all the problems presented on this forum (where people are honest) contains the element of self-centeredness. Nobody ever posts about how concerned they are that their partner may get ill or lose their friends or family, etc. It's always about how the "ME" is being wronged. Of course, this applies to me, too. I am no different than anyone else. To be more correct and precise, it's all about the ego. As you said, not being loved back is considered pathetic, as in what business do you have loving someone who doesn't love YOU? That is deep! Here is the issue as I see it. If he loves you, then he will think your great.... for him! He might not believe that your the best the world has to offer, but you will be all he wants. If you love him the same should apply. It's not about thinking you're great in terms of looks, intelligence, wit, etc. It's about anything you do or say. Most people fight about ego-related issues. If it's unreciprocated... then is that love at all? Yes! That's the whole point! Love doesn't need to be returned,it can exist alone. You are talking about mutual love. You'd be surprised how many people believe that love is one way, where someone else has to fuel the inner emptiness inside of them. This is narcissistic behaviour.I got your point. I wasn't really opposing your view; I just started a new topic that's related.
You'reasian Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 When I hear someone use the word picky, it reminds me of a guy friend from highschool that was very fat and quite ugly... Dang, how could you bring me up like that....jk
Untouchable_Fire Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 Y To be more correct and precise, it's all about the ego. As you said, not being loved back is considered pathetic, as in what business do you have loving someone who doesn't love YOU? It's not about thinking you're great in terms of looks, intelligence, wit, etc. It's about anything you do or say. Most people fight about ego-related issues. Yes! That's the whole point! Love doesn't need to be returned,it can exist alone. You are talking about mutual love. I got your point. I wasn't really opposing your view; I just started a new topic that's related. Yes, I get what your saying. Does love contain a kernel of self interest? I would say that when love becomes mutually shared, the Me becomes We. Therefore the part of love that all alone would be self interested is instead a mutual interest. In other words if you love someone, and they love you, then you become Us-Centered instead of Self-Centered. That's the only way I can think to make those two things work together. If love exists on its own then I don't think it fits the criteria for Romantic love... it would be more like, I love my boat. BTW... I like the new... related topic!
clv0116 Posted April 10, 2009 Posted April 10, 2009 Ultimately everything boils down to self interest. People who return wallets full of cash do it to feel good about themselves.
Cherished Posted April 11, 2009 Posted April 11, 2009 You aren't going to be attractive to any decent men until you love yourself. You don't have to settle for married bosses, you can set your sites higher than that....but you have to love yourself, first. Right now, you are not painting an attractive picture of yourself to others....because you don't love or even like yourself.
Recommended Posts