Talk about your attitude toward your current relationship/non-relationship status

[tkgirl]

I learned to let go of a lot of things. One day (I think it was my first week here), I was taking a two mile walk. Something just felt better all around. I didn't feel nagged by my past errors and mistakes. I felt good about being me. And proud of the changes I've made. It was a very refreshing change. And as I let go, a lot of my worries went with. If that makes any sense.

 

that's so great DG! I think the fresh mountain air helps some too

[Thornton]

Oh, wow. Are you being serious, or is this a joke?

 

Very pragmatic I think... the last thing a girl needs is a hot sexy husband who doesn't do anything around the house and has an eye for the ladies. A guy like that might make acceptable boyfriend material, but you wouldn't want to marry him. Too many women would marry the hot guy, have a miserable marriage where they're always running around after him, and end up divorced because he cheats... much more sensible to marry a faithful guy who does the housework and can hold an interesting conversation, even if he isn't so hot.

 

Of course the guy who's husband material would be a more attractive prospect if he was better looking, but you can't have everything... I'd rather have a faithful guy who's a good partner than some cad with sexy eyes and a tight ass. Is that such a bad thing? Aren't we always complaining about people being too superficial and focusing too much on looks anyway?

[tinklebell]

I'm single and I'd like to be in relationship, but don't want to "settle" just so I'm not alone. I've been thinking about how I really want to learn to be happy again being on my own.. I feel like I've forgetten how since I've been going through... um, whatever crap I was putting myself through just to be with someone I thought I would be so happy to be with!

 

 

I'm not even thinking of whether I would be settling or not. I'm just thinking of dating and finding that special someone. The rest will fall into place.

[hoping2heal]

I thought a rebound was where you dated someone while you got over your ex and then dumped them. I have no reason to dump this particular guy... my ex ain't coming back, and this guy is good husband material as I said.

 

Okay, so as long as you aren't planning to dump him, you think it's fine that you really want your ex back, and you're just using him to satiate your agenda?

[tinklebell]

Very pragmatic I think... the last thing a girl needs is a hot sexy husband who doesn't do anything around the house and has an eye for the ladies. A guy like that might make acceptable boyfriend material, but you wouldn't want to marry him. Too many women would marry the hot guy, have a miserable marriage where they're always running around after him, and end up divorced because he cheats... much more sensible to marry a faithful guy who does the housework and can hold an interesting conversation, even if he isn't so hot.

 

Of course the guy who's husband material would be a more attractive prospect if he was better looking, but you can't have everything... I'd rather have a faithful guy who's a good partner than some cad with sexy eyes and a tight ass. Is that such a bad thing? Aren't we always complaining about people being too superficial and focusing too much on looks anyway?

 

 

Pragmatic is the word. I think it's important though I recently told a guy I didn't feel that way toward him even though it could be a good relationship with him being more into me than I into him. So I chose to fall head over heels over pragmatism.

 

Looks or no looks, the ability to be attracted to and like an SO is so important. I think that's the minimum requirement.

[hoping2heal]

Very pragmatic I think... the last thing a girl needs is a hot sexy husband who doesn't do anything around the house and has an eye for the ladies. A guy like that might make acceptable boyfriend material, but you wouldn't want to marry him. Too many women would marry the hot guy, have a miserable marriage where they're always running around after him, and end up divorced because he cheats... much more sensible to marry a faithful guy who does the housework and can hold an interesting conversation, even if he isn't so hot.

 

Of course the guy who's husband material would be a more attractive prospect if he was better looking, but you can't have everything... I'd rather have a faithful guy who's a good partner than some cad with sexy eyes and a tight ass. Is that such a bad thing? Aren't we always complaining about people being too superficial and focusing too much on looks anyway?

 

Why do you talk about wanting a faithful partner when you aren't?

[SoulSearch_CO]

Very pragmatic I think... the last thing a girl needs is a hot sexy husband who doesn't do anything around the house and has an eye for the ladies. A guy like that might make acceptable boyfriend material, but you wouldn't want to marry him. Too many women would marry the hot guy, have a miserable marriage where they're always running around after him, and end up divorced because he cheats... much more sensible to marry a faithful guy who does the housework and can hold an interesting conversation, even if he isn't so hot.

 

Of course the guy who's husband material would be a more attractive prospect if he was better looking, but you can't have everything... I'd rather have a faithful guy who's a good partner than some cad with sexy eyes and a tight ass. Is that such a bad thing? Aren't we always complaining about people being too superficial and focusing too much on looks anyway?

Woggle, is that you? You sound like his female alter-ego.

 

No, I don't think it's bad to pick certain "features" that you like in a partner. But it sounds like you're settling, and I don't think that's cool to do with somebody. "You look like good breeding stock and you do the chores - let's get hitched." I guess I'd like a little more depth in my relationships, but that's just me. Maybe I'M superficial.

 

Thornton, I have nothing against you, girl, but I think it would do you worlds of good to spend some time single and get a feel for who you are outside of a romantic relationship. It would give you a healthier sense of what you're looking for.

[Thornton]

Why do you talk about wanting a faithful partner when you aren't?

I'm faithful in the sense that I'm not cheating with anyone else nor intending to do so. Missing an ex and moving on with your life as best you can doesn't exactly count as cheating, does it?

 

Looks or no looks, the ability to be attracted to and like an SO is so important. I think that's the minimum requirement.

Oh, of course. But someone doesn't have to be a 10/10 to be attractive, do they? It would be nice if you could find the whole package in someone who is a 10/10, but realistically someone is a good catch if they're even a 6/10 and have other things going for them such as a nice personality, interesting and intelligent, decent job, no debt, etc. I'd rather compromise on looks than on intelligence, for example.

[Citizen Drawn]

Good luck with that Thornton. It's not that uncommon to go from rebound into rationalising into serious relationship.

[hoping2heal]

I'm faithful in the sense that I'm not cheating with anyone else nor intending to do so. Missing an ex and moving on with your life as best you can doesn't exactly count as cheating, does it?

 

Yes, because your partner has to share your heart with someone else and they don't KNOW they are doing it. You're being unfaithful in a sense and lying all at the same time.

[tinklebell]

But someone doesn't have to be a 10/10 to be attractive, do they? It would be nice if you could find the whole package in someone who is a 10/10, but realistically someone is a good catch if they're even a 6/10 and have other things going for them such as a nice personality, interesting and intelligent, decent job, no debt, etc. I'd rather compromise on looks than on intelligence, for example.

 

 

No, not at all. It's in the eyes of the beholder. I can meet the ugliest guy but to me he can be the Brad Pitt of my world.

[Thornton]

Woggle, is that you? You sound like his female alter-ego.

Nope, sorry.

 

No, I don't think it's bad to pick certain "features" that you like in a partner. But it sounds like you're settling, and I don't think that's cool to do with somebody. "You look like good breeding stock and you do the chores - let's get hitched." I guess I'd like a little more depth in my relationships, but that's just me. Maybe I'M superficial.

Oh, my bf is a very nice and interesting guy... and he does the chores as well. There are some things I'm compromising on, but he fits the majority of what I'm looking for. I just don't think it's sensible to keep on looking for perfection that is probably non-existent and end up with nothing. If I was 20 I'd be more inclined to keep on looking, but reaching 30 makes you realise that if Mr Perfect hasn't turned up by now he likely doesn't exist, and your best bet is just to look for someone you can be happy with.

 

Thornton, I have nothing against you, girl, but I think it would do you worlds of good to spend some time single and get a feel for who you are outside of a romantic relationship. It would give you a healthier sense of what you're looking for.

Hmm, I admit I haven't spent a great deal of time single. But I know who I am and what I'm looking for in a relationship. Hell, I had exactly what I was looking for... well, apart from the fact that he cheated on me and was generally a d*ck. Now I'm of the opinion that not cheating is by far the most important part, and the rest is open to compromise. Call me an idiot, but I'd rather have someone kind and faithful and caring who was a 6/10 looks-wise, rather than a 10/10 who was selfish and lazy and cheated with other women.

[Thornton]

No, not at all. It's in the eyes of the beholder. I can meet the ugliest guy but to me he can be the Brad Pitt of my world.

Yeah, but you'd know he wasn't Brad Pitt sort of good looking, wouldn't you? I mean, I'm sure you'd love him and all, and would find him attractive, but you'd still be aware he wasn't exactly movie-star handsome? That's what I mean about a guy being 6/10 looks-wise but still being attractive because of his other attributes - as long as he exceeds your "yuck" threshold then that's good enough, after that his other attributes become more important.

[hoping2heal]

Nope, sorry.

 

 

Oh, my bf is a very nice and interesting guy... and he does the chores as well. There are some things I'm compromising on, but he fits the majority of what I'm looking for. I just don't think it's sensible to keep on looking for perfection that is probably non-existent and end up with nothing. If I was 20 I'd be more inclined to keep on looking, but reaching 30 makes you realise that if Mr Perfect hasn't turned up by now he likely doesn't exist, and your best bet is just to look for someone you can be happy with.

 

 

Hmm, I admit I haven't spent a great deal of time single. But I know who I am and what I'm looking for in a relationship. Hell, I had exactly what I was looking for... well, apart from the fact that he cheated on me and was generally a d*ck. Now I'm of the opinion that not cheating is by far the most important part, and the rest is open to compromise. Call me an idiot, but I'd rather have someone kind and faithful and caring who was a 6/10 looks-wise, rather than a 10/10 who was selfish and lazy and cheated with other women.

 

I'm still baffled. Maybe YOU know who you are, your partner doesn't though. And again, amazing how you are in love with someone else, your partner doesn't have the slightest idea about this, and you talk about how not cheating is a high priority for you.

[SoulSearch_CO]

Call me an idiot, but I'd rather have someone kind and faithful and caring who was a 6/10 looks-wise, rather than a 10/10 who was selfish and lazy and cheated with other women.

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I'm 6 months shy of 30. I hope I don't "settle" after I turn 30. Yikes. I'd rather be alone than settle. But c'est le vie - everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[tinklebell]

Yeah, but you'd know he wasn't Brad Pitt sort of good looking, wouldn't you? I mean, I'm sure you'd love him and all, and would find him attractive, but you'd still be aware he wasn't exactly movie-star handsome? That's what I mean about a guy being 6/10 looks-wise but still being attractive because of his other attributes - as long as he exceeds your "yuck" threshold then that's good enough, after that his other attributes become more important.

 

 

Yup, but knowing doesn't matter. As long as you like what you see, who cares? I feel that way so know what you mean.

[Thornton]

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? I'm 6 months shy of 30. I hope I don't "settle" after I turn 30. Yikes. I'd rather be alone than settle. But c'est le vie - everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Good luck in finding a nice, genuine guy who's faithful and intelligent and domesticated and all the rest of it, and who's also incredibly handsome. Mr Handsome is usually to be found out and about banging all the chicks his good looks attract, not sitting at home with wifey. There are a minority of great guys who are also hot, but they've usually been snapped up already. Tbh I hardly even see any gorgeous guys around, never mind finding one who's all that and single as well!

 

I just think if you're going to settle, you might as well settle pragmatically. Settle for a higher quality of "good enough" at 30 while you can still get it, rather than being left with the dregs at 40. Let's face it - by 30 you've probably been dating for a decade and a half, so if Mr Right hasn't come along by now he probably isn't going to, and the old biological clock is ticking ever more loudly...

 

I just think people have far too many criteria for Mr Right, and surely they have to compromise on some of them, especially given the time constraints on female fertility? And out of those criteria, surely looks is one of the less important ones? Your dream man is a dream because you dreamt him up and people reject a lot of good partners who they could be happy with because they're looking for this non-existent perfection.

[LucreziaBorgia]

The women who settle and marry pragmatically are the ones who nearly invariably end up cheating on their husbands or wanting to. You read it all the time here: women who talk about how dependable their husbands are, how good of a father he is, how they love him but aren't turned on by him anymore, etc. but they just can't stay away from banging some hot narcissistic assclown who is nearly always married himself. They put their families and everything 'pragmatic' at risk that they spent years building...

 

... all because they settled in the first place.

 

Thorn, I'm not saying you'll follow this path, but having been here for as long as I have, and having read on infidelity boards as long as I have, it is hard not to see your story as very similar to many others I've seen here.

 

Just be sure, eh? He might be good for Mr. Right Now but I wouldn't suggest making it long term. It wouldn't be good for either of you.

[New Again]

I just skimmed the last few posts on the last page of this thread, so not sure of the details or how this got started. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but my thoughts on this are:

Love - the biochemical reaction - does not last forever. It has a very short shelf life of 24 months, TOPS.

 

Therefore I think it's smart, prudent, and much more realistic to marry someone you get along with, enjoy spending time with, etc., NOT someone you're "in love with." Cuz then what happens when you're not in love anymore?

 

I think what everyone else is calling "settling" is very smart, and very likely what the strongest marriages are built on. If you marry for love, and then are no longer in love, if you're going to make the marriage work and be happy in it, you're going to be working toward all of that anyways.

[Thaddeus]

Love - the biochemical reaction - does not last forever. It has a very short shelf life of 24 months, TOPS.

 

Therefore I think it's smart, prudent, and much more realistic to marry someone you get along with, enjoy spending time with, etc., NOT someone you're "in love with." Cuz then what happens when you're not in love anymore?

 

I think what everyone else is calling "settling" is very smart, and very likely what the strongest marriages are built on. If you marry for love, and then are no longer in love, if you're going to make the marriage work and be happy in it, you're going to be working toward all of that anyways.

This should be a 'sticky.' Brilliant, insightful stuff. It's exactly what I mean when I say that love is not a feeling, it is a decision.

[LucreziaBorgia]

I might have a different read on settling, but the way I see it, the strongest marriages aren't built on settling. They are built on the mutual ability to be and remain genuine friends even after the roses drop from around the doorway. That isn't settling for someone, that is growing with someone.

[tinklebell]

I just skimmed the last few posts on the last page of this thread, so not sure of the details or how this got started. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but my thoughts on this are:

Love - the biochemical reaction - does not last forever. It has a very short shelf life of 24 months, TOPS.

 

Therefore I think it's smart, prudent, and much more realistic to marry someone you get along with, enjoy spending time with, etc., NOT someone you're "in love with." Cuz then what happens when you're not in love anymore?

 

I think what everyone else is calling "settling" is very smart, and very likely what the strongest marriages are built on. If you marry for love, and then are no longer in love, if you're going to make the marriage work and be happy in it, you're going to be working toward all of that anyways.

 

 

I believe that it's important to be with someone you're COMFORTABLE with. That's something quite vital for me at least. I need someone I can be at ease with and be myself, with whom I don't have to tread eggshells but can say and do whatever and know he will always accept me for all those.

[Lizzie60]

I disagree with New Again.. I think at first, the 'in love' feeling HAS to be there.. it will slowly dissipated.. then it is replaced with a very strong feeling of 'friendship"...

 

but to marry without that first feeling is settling.. and is not good.

 

but that,s just me..

[BenThereDunThat]

I might have a different read on settling, but the way I see it, the strongest marriages aren't built on settling. They are built on the mutual ability to be and remain genuine friends even after the roses drop from around the doorway. That isn't settling for someone, that is growing with someone.

 

Exactly. I feel I settled for my ex-husband because I was comfortable enough to hold a conversation with him and we liked the same tv shows (I wish I was kidding here). Thinking my best years were behind me anyway (at 38, I know, stupid) I just thought, meh. This'll do.

 

It didn't do. We were married for 8 months when I asked him to leave.

[thegoodlife]

I chose to be single because I'm not interested in anyone, and I'm not the type of person that feels the need to always be in a relationship just for the sake of being with someone.

 

I'm not envious of my friends. Many of them have good, solid relationships that have been running about 4/5 years now. A couple of them just bought houses together this summer too. I'm nothing but ecstatic for them and hope that their relationships continue along the good path. Seeing them just makes me excited for them those things start happening in my own life, and it will happen in its own time. I don't think I'd be a good friend if I was envious of them.

 

I'm happy with my current status. If I wasn't I'd be trying to change that.