butcher's hook Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 I love that quote Thaddeus!!!! "an obdurate fact of surrender" wow so true. See, I would equate "choosing to love" to "settling". To me they go hand in hand.
Thornton Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Settling is when you stay in a relationship with someone who isn't ideal, just because you can't find anyone better or because you want to have kids before it's too late. I'm struggling to define the difference between settling and compromising though. Let's say I want a really handsome guy, and someone comes along who's a 5/10 looks-wise but he's a nice guy in other ways, and I haven't seen any better options around. Am I settling because ideally I wanted someone more handsome, or am I making a sensible compromise between looks and personality? Is it sensible to dump an otherwise great guy because he doesn't fit one of your arbitrary requirements? Your dream guy is a dream exactly because you dreamt him up, and nobody is likely to fulfil all of those criteria. So is settling for "close enough" such a bad thing? I think people need to look at other people as a package when deciding whether they like them; a guy may not be handsome but he might be fun and nice, he may not be rich but he might be very good looking and sexy; as a package he'll have positives and negatives, and you need to find a combination you can live with rather than continually looking for non-existent perfection. If everyone was looking for perfection, not only would he have to be exactly what you're looking for, but you'd also have to be exactly what he was looking for... a very tall order. To a certain extent most people settle for each other. Here's an interesting article about settling: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry
Stark Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Let's say I want a really handsome guy, and someone comes along who's a 5/10 looks-wise but he's a nice guy in other ways, and I haven't seen any better options around. All that should matter is that you find him attractive sexually, how hot they are shouldn't matter too much so long as you find them sexually attractive. It's been a good rule for me generally, because there's always going to be someone out there thats more attractive than you or more attractive than who you have.
Isolde Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 All that should matter is that you find him attractive sexually, how hot they are shouldn't matter too much so long as you find them sexually attractive. It's been a good rule for me generally, because there's always going to be someone out there thats more attractive than you or more attractive than who you have. I couldn't agree more.
Thornton Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 This is interesting too: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200802u/gottlieb-interview Excerpt: What constitutes settling, exactly? Well, it’s different for different people. But you look at what you need and what you want. You may have certain needs, like having a child. And kindness from your spouse. And reliability and stability and safety. But beyond that, what do you desire? You desire passion. You desire shared interests. You desire a certain level of intimacy. If your needs are met but your desires aren’t, that may be how you can tell if you’re settling.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 I don't know about that.... Have you ever had someone say to you "that shouldn't make you laugh it's not funny" yet you cannot explain why it's funny to you and not to them? Or something should not make you angry or should not "affect" you? everyone feels things differently to some extent. Sure you can control what you do out of those emotions but we all have different triggers. I tend to find love much of the same, so how do we choose to fall in love? If it were that simple I think we would not last two days being single we would just choose to fall for everyone we like. We all know it's just not that simple. How come we don't fall in love with our friends? How come our friends have all the typical qualities we go for and we find appealing yet we don't fall in love with them? I suppose it's not something you can prove. However to my mind, it stands to reason that if you can stop yourself from falling in love with someone... then you can push yourself towards being in love. I think most people resist the notion because it strips away some of the mystery and romance. Maybe I'm like that because I'm a guy... or maybe because I've put some effort into learning how. Just take my word for it when I say that some of us know how to create and maintian love. Well put. It reminds me of a quote that a friend of mine sent me a long time ago. Sorry, I don't know the name of the author: Nice quote... very romantic.
GoodOnPaper Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Speaking as someone who settled . . . I certainly didn't go into it with any malicious intent. I had the whole nerdy, "nice guy" thing going on and had very little success in attracting women. The shift from college to grad school was especially rough. Then all of a sudden, this cute but very overweight girl latched on to me and wouldn't let go. Even though I wasn't that into her, I figured my feelings would grow given how much she was into me -- certainly much more than anyone else had ever been. I also trapped myself in my own logic -- I felt that women unjustly dismissed me without giving me a chance; how could I do the same to her? Long story short -- my feelings didn't grow, and now I have all the responsibilities of marriage and family without feeling like I have any of the benefits. Now, it's not the weight that bothers me, but the lack of intimacy. I also thought that skipping forward to later relationship stages would erase sex/relationship issues that I developed in my youth -- that didn't work. I think you need that initial can't-keep-your-hands-off-each-other stage to lay the foundation for long-term intimacy. Of course, if you are not the kind of guy whom women hurl themselves at, can you ever have that can't-keep-your-hands-off-each-other stage?
monkey00 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 The way I see this, there are 4 categories that people fall into: 1) High Standards 2) Realistic Standards 3) Low Standards 4) Settlers (5) Unrealistic Standards 1) The first group has high standards. Whether it's financially, looks, personality, age, etc. It could be a combination of some or the whole package. They are unwilling to go out with just anyone until they meet that X person who comes remotely close or absolutely to their standards. Accordingly there's a saying that people with high standards are usually successful themselves and want the same in their partner. 2) This group is a bit vague. They have realistic standards and know what they want and what they can bring to the table. They may have been through thick and thin and know what constitutes a functioning relationship Without weighing too much on high standards or too much on low standards. (Not to say the first or third are unrealistic in any way) 3) This group has low standards. They make compromises and look pass people's shortcomings and accept them for who they are and/or what they look like. 4) The settlers. They might have low-self esteem, are desperate, or just want a SO to fill a void or fulfill something lacking from their lives. Maybe finances, security, attention, etc. Both parties may even mutually benefit each other given the situation. (5) Unrealistic Standards. Last but not least this group is very rare. They have unrealistic expectations, and likely have little to no dating experience. They place themselves high up on the pedestal due to insecurities and/or inexperience.
Ariadne Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 They are conning someone into believing that they are truly loved, wanted, and appreciated. Yes, I agree that settling has to do with love. If you don't have love, then you are settling (it doesn't matter the person's characteristics). But the truth comes up and eventually it'll all crumble down. When you settle, not only you won't make each other happy, you are also taking away the love of someone else. I can see a lot of pressures for people to settle though: financial matters, a wish to leave a bad situation, wanting to have children, wanting to have a partner and not be lonely, etc. But you can't fabricate truth, the same way you can't fabricate love.
Sam Spade Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 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? Well, this would be compromising if you look at that as the sum of individual traits/qualities of the relationship and then do the math. But this is usually not the case and a relationship is typically percieved holistically - i.e. all the shared history, the inside jokes, the quirks, etc. That's why relationships can't really be upgraded like cars (and the people who can actually do that, well I don't want to do anything with them ; i know women can do that ). Take for example my relationship with my dog. He is disobedient, undisciplined, vomits on the carper, and keeps bugging me to play tug of war even after I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not in the mood. All pretty annoying traits. But, he's my lil' buddy (and sidekick for life ), so I wouldn't exchange him for any better behaved dog .
Sam Spade Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Speaking as someone who settled . . . I certainly didn't go into it with any malicious intent. I had the whole nerdy, "nice guy" thing going on and had very little success in attracting women. The shift from college to grad school was especially rough. Then all of a sudden, this cute but very overweight girl latched on to me and wouldn't let go. Even though I wasn't that into her, I figured my feelings would grow given how much she was into me -- certainly much more than anyone else had ever been. I also trapped myself in my own logic -- I felt that women unjustly dismissed me without giving me a chance; how could I do the same to her? Long story short -- my feelings didn't grow, and now I have all the responsibilities of marriage and family without feeling like I have any of the benefits. Now, it's not the weight that bothers me, but the lack of intimacy. I also thought that skipping forward to later relationship stages would erase sex/relationship issues that I developed in my youth -- that didn't work. I think you need that initial can't-keep-your-hands-off-each-other stage to lay the foundation for long-term intimacy. Of course, if you are not the kind of guy whom women hurl themselves at, can you ever have that can't-keep-your-hands-off-each-other stage? Wow, that's a pretty extreme example. Didn't you like her at least a little a bit in the beginnig? What about her - is she not attracted/have feelings for you?? YOu said that she latched onto you so I'd imagine she's quite fond of you? I ask because that IMO is the single most important variable in relationship success (if a girl is attracted to her guy, she'll shut up and be happy ). I approached my current gf with the same mindset you describe, but I do find that I'm developing feelings for her (and find her more and more attractive over time, not that there was anything wrong with her to begin with - she's quite pretty, just didn't strike me as exceptional during the first month or so, but now I'm so glad I gave it a chance; it doesn't mean that I'd approach marriage casually, but I actually have the feeling that this might work out just fine...).
Sam Spade Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I believe that the more compatible two people are... the easier it is for them to choose to love one another. In terms of bonds... that is something you create together... with shared, thoughts, emotions, and experiences. It takes work to create that bond, and work to maintain it. Complacency typically occurs when each person focuses more on themselves than on each other. If you spend more time worrying about your spouse than yourself, and you receive the same in return complacency typically isn't an issue, even in tough times. I know that it's comforting to think that love is something fated that is beyond our control.... that way when someone loves us it feels more secure... like they have no choice. However, it's a false security and in my opinion it causes the vast majority of relationship failures. Some hold on too long to something that is bad for them, because they bought the "soulmates" myth. Some end a good relationship once it begins to require effort, because they believe if it isn't easy... then it isn't fate. Very nice, I think along the same lines, and I would only add that there are so many pathways towards creating such a bond. So, the fireworks and unicorns image of love peddled as the only credible one is really quite annoying (I've always wanted to bitch-slap the smug azzholes telling me that "you just know" ) As far as selfishness is concerned - much like in kids, this is something that people need to get out of their system before they commit to a serious relationship. I don't know if this is true for women too, but I would resent getting married before I had the opportunity to live a couple of years as a full fledged independent adult. Now I'm getting over this and have all the stylish gear to make one very, very cool dad . I'll dominate the floor of Costco .
Author tigressA Posted July 16, 2009 Author Posted July 16, 2009 Very nice, I think along the same lines, and I would only add that there are so many pathways towards creating such a bond. So, the fireworks and unicorns image of love peddled as the only credible one is really quite annoying (I've always wanted to bitch-slap the smug azzholes telling me that "you just know" ) I HATE when people say that--"Oh, you just know!" How the heck do you do that?! I've never had that feeling and I probably never will. And that image of love you just described is phooey. Sure, it feels like that at first but then later when it goes away, when it gets hard, people just want to give up without trying anything. That's another thing--when do you know it's time to give up? I never could answer that question.
BlueEyedGirl Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Settling is not when a person doesn't match your list of ideal characteristics. Settling is not when you are with someone who is 5/10 on the looks scale when you really think you could get an 8 or a 9 (as long as you are sexually attracted to that 5) Settling to me is defined by lack of passion, true physical chemistry, can't keep your hands of them stage. Further, settling is also being in a relationship because you want to get married and you want to have kids - so you have a relationship for a specific purpose rather than you are so in love with that person that you can't bear to be apart. I guess when you settle, if you spend enough time with this person you will grow to love them in a way as you do a sibling or a long term friend. But you will never be in love with them. Again it has nothing to do with your wants, needs, or lists. The "in love" feeling is just not there. You are thinking love, but not feeling love. I do believe that about 80% of people that get married are settling (what I mean is at least one partner is settling). I would rather die alone than settle.
GoodOnPaper Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Wow, that's a pretty extreme example. Didn't you like her at least a little a bit in the beginnig? What about her - is she not attracted/have feelings for you?? YOu said that she latched onto you so I'd imagine she's quite fond of you? I ask because that IMO is the single most important variable in relationship success (if a girl is attracted to her guy, she'll shut up and be happy ). Sure I liked her a little and we got along great, but I had conflicting issues going on. Of prime importance to me was shaking the nerdy, loserish self-image. I figured that attracting a woman that was considered datable in a universal sense would do that -- my now-wife didn't meet that criterion in my view. On the other hand, the more universally datable I considered a woman, the less confidence I would have in my prospects with her. Yes, my wife is very much into me and very dedicated to our marriage and family -- and outside the bedroom this shows very much. Inside the bedroom, things are very tame. I find this strange as I always figured that the more a woman was into a man, the less inhibited she would be in bed with the opposite being true as well.
Ariadne Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Settling to me is defined by lack of passion...a relationship for a specific purpose rather than you are so in love with that person that you can't bear to be apart. Agreed. I'd like to add that to me, love also has to do with intimacy, depth, and communion. You may be able to communicate with someone that you settle with, but you won't be able to have the sort of intimacy and rapport you feel with someone you love.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 Very nice, I think along the same lines, and I would only add that there are so many pathways towards creating such a bond. So, the fireworks and unicorns image of love peddled as the only credible one is really quite annoying (I've always wanted to bitch-slap the smug azzholes telling me that "you just know" ) I HATE when people say that--"Oh, you just know!" How the heck do you do that?! I've never had that feeling and I probably never will. And that image of love you just described is phooey. Sure, it feels like that at first but then later when it goes away, when it gets hard, people just want to give up without trying anything. That's another thing--when do you know it's time to give up? I never could answer that question.Speaking as a smug azzhole, you do just know. Dating and relationships are like a dance. Each right move, creates a reciprocal "right" reaction.
Author tigressA Posted July 16, 2009 Author Posted July 16, 2009 Speaking as a smug azzhole, you do just know. Dating and relationships are like a dance. Each right move, creates a reciprocal "right" reaction. So...what would you say to those who have never had that feeling of "just knowing"?
espec10001 Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 So...what would you say to those who have never had that feeling of "just knowing"? Know yourself, thats all you can ever know.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 So...what would you say to those who have never had that feeling of "just knowing"?I would say that you haven't met the right person or there's some internal work that needs to happen, if it's something you want. It's okay not to want it, since everyone is different. But if you do want it and are of the latter category that requires internal work, ask yourself why you can't give and receive love. You'll find in opening yourself up, you're going to get hurt sometimes. That's okay because we all survive and many times learn more about ourselves, thus are capable of handling the next relationship better.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 So...what would you say to those who have never had that feeling of "just knowing"? I would say that's Ok, because nobody "just knows".
Ariadne Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I would say that's Ok, because nobody "just knows". I can say that I "just knew" that my previous relationships and marriages were not going to work. I put my doubts aside and for different circumstances I got married, but it was like living a lie. You just know both ways.
Author tigressA Posted July 16, 2009 Author Posted July 16, 2009 I would say that you haven't met the right person or there's some internal work that needs to happen, if it's something you want. It's okay not to want it, since everyone is different. But if you do want it and are of the latter category that requires internal work, ask yourself why you can't give and receive love. You'll find in opening yourself up, you're going to get hurt sometimes. That's okay because we all survive and many times learn more about ourselves, thus are capable of handling the next relationship better. I never really could figure out what constitutes "just knowing". It's got to be different for everyone, sure, but shouldn't there also be some common thread in it? I did have difficulty in relationships before and that was because I didn't know myself and didn't work on myself internally. And in my current relationship, I have learned so much. It's been a year and 8 months; my longest relationship before that was 3 months. I've learned a lot about how relationships work, about how to handle the "honeymoon phase" fading away, about effective communication. I love my boyfriend dearly; he knows that, and he loves me too; I know what my bottom line is (needs), and he meets everything on that list, which is great. But as far as what I desire...well, that's another story. So according to the definitions of some posters here, I am engaging in a form of settling...wow, go me. Way to be hypocritical.
Trialbyfire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 I never really could figure out what constitutes "just knowing". It's got to be different for everyone, sure, but shouldn't there also be some common thread in it?The only way for me to describe it, is that with the right person, the relationship just flows naturally. This doesn't mean you never fight or there's no passion, thus wild monkey sex. It just means there's no drama-coaster, addiction to the crazy highs, since the lows are so low. I did have difficulty in relationships before and that was because I didn't know myself and didn't work on myself internally. And in my current relationship, I have learned so much. It's been a year and 8 months; my longest relationship before that was 3 months. I've learned a lot about how relationships work, about how to handle the "honeymoon phase" fading away, about effective communication. I love my boyfriend dearly; he knows that, and he loves me too; I know what my bottom line is (needs), and he meets everything on that list, which is great. But as far as what I desire...well, that's another story. So according to the definitions of some posters here, I am engaging in a form of settling...wow, go me. Way to be hypocritical.Relationships aren't projects. You shouldn't need to keep trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, no double-entendre intended. If your relationship is consistently hard work, the two of you aren't compatible enough, unless you enjoy fighting or being the one who does all the heavy relationship hauling. I don't recall enough about your relationship to say, one way or the other.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 16, 2009 Posted July 16, 2009 The only way for me to describe it, is that with the right person, the relationship just flows naturally. This doesn't mean you never fight or there's no passion, thus wild monkey sex. It just means there's no drama-coaster, addiction to the crazy highs, since the lows are so low. That's not just knowing. There are different types of chemistry... and thus different styles of love.
Recommended Posts