shoesies05 Posted May 3, 2009 Posted May 3, 2009 Lol, Avril Lavigne isn't even that high pitched. Now Hayley Westenra, now that is high pitched. The thought of a man trying to sing like her is Now tell me ladies. Would you "settle" for a guy who you're into (as in you like him) but has maybe one or two things you don't like about him. Like has a big nose (something that I'm sensitive about lol), or maybe drives a crappy car, or how about is two inches too short or whatever else you can think of? do you consider this settling? I read this a while ago, and I think the author thinks along those lines, that you should settle for a guy you're into but isn't your perfect partner or has some flaws you don't like. Because I think the author doesn't want anyone getting in a relationship with someone she's not into. Oh and if women should settle, men should settle too. It's only fair lol. i would settle for a few flaws of course. Thats part of being in a relationship, learning to be more understanding of differences and accept the personfor who they are. Besides, some of those "flaws" can be so adorable... big nose? who cares... crappy car? i have a crappy car... my friends also call my car "the abyss" lol.
Jaytb Posted May 3, 2009 Posted May 3, 2009 i would settle for a few flaws of course. Thats part of being in a relationship, learning to be more understanding of differences and accept the personfor who they are. Besides, some of those "flaws" can be so adorable... big nose? who cares... crappy car? i have a crappy car... my friends also call my car "the abyss" lol. Well I think that's what the article was about. I think the author doesn't want you to marry a man you don't love. But the author was addressing women who have high expectations in the first place and expect absolute perfection from a man. Same for women who dump a man for no reason other than thinking there's someone better than him (and not fundamental incompatibilities).
mental_traveller Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Never settle. As for single mothers over 30/35 being "undateable" - a single mother in her 30s is *on average* much less appealing than a 20something woman with no kids. However, a 35 year old with 2 kids who is a great match for a guy is much, much better than a 25 year old supermodel who is not a great match. The most important and most difficult thing to find in a woman is a great personality & sexuality match, everything else is secondary if you manage to find that. Great sex 2-3 times a day and good laughs the rest of the time with a single mom is better than sex once a month and constant arguments with someone childless and 10 years younger.
Isolde Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 There are different degrees of settling. On the one end you have people who can barely tolerate one another living under the same roof just so they don't have the house to themselves. On the other end it's giving up on the idea of a wild, dizzying romance in favor of a less exciting but still somewhat romantic marriage (which isn't really settling if you're past a certain age). While I believe some people can be perfectly happy single, others are just happier in a marriage to someone like minded, in a situation like the second I described.
D-Lish Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Well, I am in my 30's, divorced, no kids.... I have no intention of settling for a mediocre relationship because of my age. I am really quite content to remain single and continue dating when I feel like it. I also never feel the need to compete with, or compare myself to younger chicks, I don't even ever think about it. I don't see a lot of men my age being able to land a girl 10-15 years younger! When I was 25 I wasn't interested in men 30 plus- nor were any of my friends. Even now, dating a guy 10-15 years older than me would never happen.
Trialbyfire Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 As long as you can bring everything to the table that you want in a man, why would anyone need to settle, at any age? Silly and self-limiting.
Jaytb Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 Never settle. As for single mothers over 30/35 being "undateable" - a single mother in her 30s is *on average* much less appealing than a 20something woman with no kids. However, a 35 year old with 2 kids who is a great match for a guy is much, much better than a 25 year old supermodel who is not a great match. The most important and most difficult thing to find in a woman is a great personality & sexuality match, everything else is secondary if you manage to find that. Great sex 2-3 times a day and good laughs the rest of the time with a single mom is better than sex once a month and constant arguments with someone childless and 10 years younger. A single mom is going to have the time to have sex 2-3 times a day?
pretty lies Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 I think she needs to hire a fulltime nanny and her attitude will change. Yeah, because that's not prohibitively expensive or anything.
MN randomguy Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 There are different degrees of settling. On the one end you have people who can barely tolerate one another living under the same roof just so they don't have the house to themselves. On the other end it's giving up on the idea of a wild, dizzying romance in favor of a less exciting but still somewhat romantic marriage (which isn't really settling if you're past a certain age). YES! You have to remember that you aren't the perfect wife. therefore, you're not going to get perfection. Is it really love if there's no cost to it? On the other hand, are you pretty solid and an all-in-all good catch? maybe settle for a good catch. You're attracted to, shares your values, compatible(whatever that means). we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle what the ****?! what would a fish want with a bicycle? it doesn't even have legs! this lady is on dope. straight up. Its in reference to the 1960s feminism. http://www.answers.com/topic/a-woman-without-a-man-is-like-a-fish-without-a-bicycle Of course in the 60s most people in power were on dope. But, yes, its basically saying that men are useless to women, because women can now support themselves financially.
Isolde Posted May 4, 2009 Posted May 4, 2009 MNRandom, I'm still not personally sold on even the "its not really settling" form of settling. However, I say that for some people, where it's the same feeling for both partners of wanting to "settle down," it's a perfectly valid option, as long as there's compatibility and a pretty decent physical chemistry to compensate for the lack of raging passion.
MN randomguy Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I've never really met a couple that honestly thought that each other was actually THE hottest person they'd ever met. But, Yeah, it is hard to get motivated to pursue a girl where you're like, I bet she looks pretty good naked, but, she's not the first one you notice when going to a party.
Isolde Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I've never really met a couple that honestly thought that each other was actually THE hottest person they'd ever met. You're missing the point. Attractiveness and attraction aren't correlated in a linear way. You could be married to someone hot and still have settled if he didn't meet your needs and still have other guys you're far more attracted to on the whole.
Sam Spade Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 There are different degrees of settling. On the one end you have people who can barely tolerate one another living under the same roof just so they don't have the house to themselves. On the other end it's giving up on the idea of a wild, dizzying romance in favor of a less exciting but still somewhat romantic marriage (which isn't really settling if you're past a certain age). While I believe some people can be perfectly happy single, others are just happier in a marriage to someone like minded, in a situation like the second I described. I'd never advocate the former, and think that the latter is themost realistic shot at a long-lasting and happy marriage (and increasingly begin to think that my girlfriend is perfect). Which is something given that I wasn't impressed with her for the longest time, but now I'm so happy i gave it a chance. Should it happen that our priorities align closely, I'm totally going to marry her and not look back. Every time I get annoyed at her that she doesn't seem to read that much (except for school), I remember that I haven't read a book that's not work related in a year myself , for example. As for single vs. married life, unless somebody is certified "free spirit" and actually does crazy inspiring things with their single life that clearly don't jibe well with marriage (e.g. save blind kids in africa, fight terrorists in afganistan, fly the mail [and some coke on the side] in Latin America etc.) I have hard time believing that single life is preferable to a low-key, low-maintenance sane marriage between two mature adults . Single life that's just comfortable as a reason not to marry is lazy . I know I'll miss it, but I'm not doing anything that I won't be able to do while married .
Miss Ting Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 I'm sorry, I have to agree with a lot that was said. (By the way, I found it quite comical at times). The reality is that she is speaking the truth, some things many women think to themselves and maybe wouldn't want to admit out loud (because it simply isn't fair). Everyone settles to some extent anyway, when we're young, we just call it "comprimising." Either way, most women need to stop living in the land of makebelieve and acknowledge reality. Whether you like it or not doesn't matter...in the end it won't change the outcome. At some point you just have to wake up and be honest and realistic. Life doesn't play out like the Cinderella stories we grew up on...even when it appears to be doing so, we soon find it out, it's a far cry from that storyline. Don't be extreme...she's not saying to settle for a crackhead or someone who's going to beat you every night, but don't cast of the "less than spontaneous but decent guy" because he doesn't give you butterflies. Hell, butterflies don't last anyway!
Sam Spade Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Settling deserves the pejorative meaning only when it refers to situations when somebody tolerates bad or disrespectful behavior. Settling with somebody you appreciate and understand, including their imperfections (and who does the same to you), is awesome . Then there is the not settling because "i deserve more" group. (Are you *sure* you deserve more? , Many people who bought houses they couldn't affors thought they deserve them ) And the worst of all is when *not settling* becomes a goal in itself, rather than personal boundary. For latter two groups I have no sympathy . I don't like the article much, but it baffles me how people **** on the author without noticing how self-deprecating the whole thing is. She understood the stupidity of entitlement, if a bit too late.
Trialbyfire Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 You're missing the point. Attractiveness and attraction aren't correlated in a linear way. You could be married to someone hot and still have settled if he didn't meet your needs and still have other guys you're far more attracted to on the whole.Your partner should be a package deal, not just an external shell! If you're just looking for a partner due to his/her external shell, you get what you paid for.
Isolde Posted May 6, 2009 Posted May 6, 2009 Precisely. Marrying someone for their superficial qualities and ignoring the complexities that lie underneath is a recipe for disaster. Looks, money, being superficially a "nice guy"... none of those things are enough. BTW, I don't think staying single in search of those "butterflies," is inherently stupid; it's risky, but so is settling for someone you're not head over heels in love with.
Recommended Posts