Settling is selfish

[tigressA]

One of the biggest debates in relationship talk is probably about settling. Why do it? Women do it because they want to take advantage of their dwindling fertility. Men do it because they think they won't be able to find anyone better after having held out for so long. But nowhere have I seen or heard the thought that settling is, at its core, selfish and manipulative.

 

People who settle do not think of anyone but themselves. They do not think of the man or woman they are manipulating into a relationship/marriage. They are conning someone into believing that they are truly loved, wanted, and appreciated.

 

I have a guy friend who has had no luck with girls (I posted a thread awhile back about how he'd unfairly had a stalking complaint filed against him), and it's not because he's not a nice guy or anything; he's just awkward. He has high standards and not once has he backed down from them just to have companionship. He's one of the few people out there who I truly admire because of this. Why can't more people be like that? Oh, right--because it's so much more "difficult" to be true to yourself than be with someone who you don't really love.

[Bejita463]

He has high standards and not once has he backed down from them just to have companionship. He's one of the few people out there who I truly admire because of this.

 

He is not alone in this view, but it seems so far to be an express ticket to solitude.

[Phateless]

It can be very difficult to tell what your real feelings are at times.

[Thaddeus]

I think it depends on how you define 'settling.'

 

One school of thought seems to agree with the notion that if the other party isn't EXACTLY what you're looking for, whether in appearance, ethnic background, education, financial status and whatnot, then they shouldn't even be considered.

 

Another school of thought tends to support the notion that looking for a made-to-measure fit in an off-the-rack world is futile.

 

There's also (sadly) a gender-bias component in this. I've heard plenty of women say they won't settle for a man who's, say, shorter than they are, and that's somehow "having high standards." But if a man says he's only interested in a woman with a large bust size, he's somehow "shallow."

 

So, just for an example, let's say that I'm only interested in busty, blue-eyed blondes with at least a Master's degree. Is that shallow, or does that mean I have specific standards?

 

(For the record, that's just an example... I have no such desire to restrict my dating pool to women who have those specific requirements.)

[Bejita463]

It can be very difficult to tell what your real feelings are at times.

 

You have a talent for understatement friend.

[Trimmer]

He is not alone in this view, but it seems so far to be an express ticket to solitude.

He's not alone in his view, but he may be alone as a result of it...

[Bejita463]

He's not alone in his view, but he may be alone as a result of it...

 

That is what I was saying. Only I was adding self reference to validate my opinion based upon personal experience.

[butcher's hook]

It can be very difficult to tell what your real feelings are at times.

 

 

If you don't know what you feel then you don't really want what you have. To me it's that simple. You would be considered someone who settled.

 

 

I think Thaddeus brought up a good point you need to define "settling:. For some people they don't feel like they are settling it could just mean that given the options they are faced with vs their need to find and keep love, it means they have to reassess their criteria in order to fit where we they are in life. I find it is unrealistic to have the exact same criteria when choosing a mate at say 21 than you would when you are 40 it is simply ridiculous to have the exact expectations unless you remained exactly as you were at 21 now at 40, in every single aspect.

 

What is settling really?

 

To me settling would be the example of not knowing how you feel with someone if you don't know how you feel with them, then you definitely short changed yourself and settled. You are picking a partner on social criteria not personal ones.

[Trialbyfire]

I'm a big believer in not settling and have never settled. IMO and IME, the question is, what does not settling mean?

 

From my perspective, not settling includes reasonable expectations based on what you personally can bring to the table and not whining about "no more good men/women", "no more attractive men/women", "no more normal men/women" or "everyone else is a problem", if you're going to be a picky or hyper-critical. For that matter, if you can't bring whatever you want to the table, what right do you have to demand it?

 

Sorry, I'm on a bit of a vendetta against victim mentality. It's so evident on so many threads lately.

[tigressA]

Okay, my definition of "settling" is, for example, a woman getting married to a man just so she can have kids, knowing that the man isn't even close to what they typically want in a partner. Another example is women and men getting married to or entering into a relationship with someone who would meet only their bare minimum standards just to have someone around to take care of them and/or fawn over them.

 

I settled a couple of times before out of low self-esteem; I just really wanted a boyfriend because everyone else had one and I had never had one before, so I latched onto the first guy who payed attention to me when I was 19.

[GorillaTheater]

Regardless of the definition of settling, and whether in any particular instance the "settler's" expectations are realistic or not, the fact that they ARE settling, without any change in those expectations, seems very unfair to the one settled for. I can't imagine that relationship being very good or having much of a shelf life.

[Sam Spade]

The "settling" debate is destructive, and one fith clear gender division lines . Women obsess over settling, it is so bad that "not settling" becomes a goal in itself. (Guys are so much simpler - any pretty girl with decent attitude is a possible relationship material .)

 

Framing the choice of partners as "settling" is very destructive, precisely because it wrecks the notion of unconditional love. I'd much rather have love where after you spend sometime with someone you eventually decide "Oh, well, she/he could really improve their manners/be a little smarter/whatever flaws you find - just like in abybody else, but I care about him/her just the way they are" .

 

So, the OP is wrong, and I'm right . Holding people to arbitrary personal template is selfish, not getting to know then, with their imperfections, and learning to accept (and love) them.

[butcher's hook]

Okay, my definition of "settling" is, for example, a woman getting married to a man just so she can have kids, knowing that the man isn't even close to what they typically want in a partner. Another example is women and men getting married to or entering into a relationship with someone who would meet only their bare minimum standards just to have someone around to take care of them and/or fawn over them.

 

I settled a couple of times before out of low self-esteem; I just really wanted a boyfriend because everyone else had one and I had never had one before, so I latched onto the first guy who payed attention to me when I was 19.

 

 

Yup that's definitely my definition of settling! It's selfish indeed.

I guess now that we have the definition out in the open the next question would be is this something that is being observed from the outside or from the inside? Sometimes people see couples that seem like they are settling but the participants are convinced they are not, is that settling?

[Sam Spade]

Okay, my definition of "settling" is, for example, a woman getting married to a man just so she can have kids, knowing that the man isn't even close to what they typically want in a partner. Another example is women and men getting married to or entering into a relationship with someone who would meet only their bare minimum standards just to have someone around to take care of them and/or fawn over them.

 

The first part is way beyond settling, IMO - that's being borderline psycopath .

 

The second part (minimum standards) is smart and it is not settling insofar those minimum standards are met.

[Sam Spade]

Regardless of the definition of settling, and whether in any particular instance the "settler's" expectations are realistic or not, the fact that they ARE settling, without any change in those expectations, seems very unfair to the one settled for. I can't imagine that relationship being very good or having much of a shelf life.

 

 

The keyword here is "change in expectations", and the process of adjusting expectations is certainly not "settling".

Settling would be staying in sub-par relationship AND being disdainful of it all the time.

[butcher's hook]

The "settling" debate is destructive, and one fith clear gender division lines . Women obsess over settling, it is so bad that "not settling" becomes a goal in itself. (Guys are so much simpler - any pretty girl with decent attitude is a possible relationship material .)

 

Framing the choice of partners as "settling" is very destructive, precisely because it wrecks the notion of unconditional love. I'd much rather have love where after you spend sometime with someone you eventually decide "Oh, well, she/he could really improve their manners/be a little smarter/whatever flaws you find - just like in abybody else, but I care about him/her just the way they are" .

 

So, the OP is wrong, and I'm right . Holding people to arbitrary personal template is selfish, not getting to know then, with their imperfections, and learning to accept (and love) them.

 

 

I would have to agree with your whole post except the only little thing is the unconditional love thing I don't believe romantic love is unconditional.

Do you honestly believe it is? You have no conditions at all when it comes to love?

[GorillaTheater]

The keyword here is "change in expectations", and the process of adjusting expectations is certainly not "settling".

Settling would be staying in sub-par relationship AND being disdainful of it all the time.

 

Agreed. Of course, I'm speaking hypothetically. After 25 years I assume my wife has at a minimum adjusted any expectations I've failed to meet. And vice versa.

[Sam Spade]

I would have to agree with your whole post except the only little thing is the unconditional love thing I don't believe romantic love is unconditional.

Do you honestly believe it is? You have no conditions at all when it comes to love?

 

Well, you're right, it is never trully unconditional, but I think it is fair to loosely use the term at least to distinguish it from situations where the relationship is based solely on computation (e.g. I'll be with him/her because they're pretty, have money, and we look great together, whatever).

 

So "unconditional" really means "he/she has more flaws than I could list in 5 minutes, but I still like them a lot and would rather be with them than with anybody else :)"

[tigressA]

I guess now that we have the definition out in the open the next question would be is this something that is being observed from the outside or from the inside? Sometimes people see couples that seem like they are settling but the participants are convinced they are not' date=' is that settling?[/quote']

 

That's a really good question. I think that if I were in that relationship in question, I would appreciate outside perspective, but when it comes down to it if neither I nor my partner thought we were settling then we're not. No one can fully know and understand all the ins and outs of a relationship that they're not a part of.

[tigressA]

Settling would be staying in sub-par relationship AND being disdainful of it all the time.

 

Very well-put.

[GorillaTheater]

So "unconditional" really means "he/she has more flaws than I could list in 5 minutes, but I still like them a lot and would rather be with them than with anybody else :)"

 

That seems to be a good working criteria of whether a person is "settling" for another: is there anybody or any "type" they'd rather be with.

[Trialbyfire]

I think anyone can negative a partner, thus a relationship to death, if the focus is on flaws v. positive qualities. Balance, respect and proportionate reality, are key.

[Bejita463]

I think anyone can negative a partner, thus a relationship to death, if the focus is on flaws v. positive qualities. Balance, respect and proportionate reality, are key.

 

There are times when the negatives seem much more important than they are until it is too late. A vicious trap that perpetuates itself.

[butcher's hook]

So "unconditional" really means "he/she has more flaws than I could list in 5 minutes, but I still like them a lot and would rather be with them than with anybody else :)"

 

 

Aha! got ya. I guess what you call "unconditional" I tend to call compromising. We are coming from the same place just using different language. But see compromising could be perceived as settling. How much are you willing to compromise and what's really the goal?

If someone has more things wrong with them than you can mention in 5mins, what do you really still like about them? Is it really "them" that you like or is it the idea of having something with them that you like more?

 

I guess this is where it gets murky what's compromise or unconditional and what's settling?

 

 

That's a really good question. I think that if I were in that relationship in question, I would appreciate outside perspective, but when it comes down to it if neither I nor my partner thought we were settling then we're not. No one can fully know and understand all the ins and outs of a relationship that they're not a part of.

 

 

Reason I brought that up is because unless someone flat out states "I was running out of time so I married my partner but I am not sure I am in love with them" then really how do you know that the person is settling? Maybe the fact that they were runnning out of time made them reflect on the types of priorities they have been basing their choices on all along, and it was enough of a reality check to make them realize that if they ultimately wanted to find happiness they had to rework some of their expectations out.

 

I had read once that men tend to actually want to marry and settled down when three things happen to them in life:

 

1. they lose their hair, their male attraction starts to dwindle so does their pool of selection

2. all their buddies are married or tied down, therefore leaving him feeling more alone

3. when he goes into a bar and no longer feels like he can pull as many women as he once could he feels the need to take himself out of the dating pool

 

You know how they say it's about "timing" well there is the timing factor.

 

I know they sound silly, but honestly I think there is some truth to that.

[espec10001]

If anything this is what online dating is supposed to do, in theory. You specify the type of person you are looking for, from the physical qualities, education, smoker, etc. Problem is the majority of single people are still not keen on online dating because there is still a stigma attached to it.