GoodOnPaper Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Do you feel you've lowered your standards and/or settled on your current significant other? By "lowering standards" and "settling" I mean that you feel as though you could do better, or that you deserve better, but, for whatever reason, decided to settle for your significant other rather than to wait to find genuine happiness with your "true love"? If you have settled, why have you done so, and are you are happy/content in the relationship viz. would you do it again? Yes, I settled. Typical story of a shy, nerdy guy who crashed-and-burned in "nice guy"/doormat fashion a lot. Then out of the blue comes this girl who was actually crazy about me, and even though I wasn't especially attracted to her (weight issues), we got along well and I figured it was probably the best I was going to do. I thought attraction at my end would grow over time. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way . . . Finally, if you have settled on your significant other, would you end the relationship if you found someone else whom you felt could better meet your original standards? Fast-forward 15-20 years to mid-life with young kids: I ask myself that question every day, especially as there is a good candidate for the "someone else". Looking back, I realize that it wasn't the weight that was the problem. It was that I had no idea what I really wanted -- or that that even mattered. A good take-home message to those with "nice guy" tendencies is to start working out your issues before getting into an LTR -- actually attracting a woman can cause bigger problems than not being able to attract them.
Isolde Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 (edited) Nobody is really arguing that one of those two is not important. The real argument lies within which of those points is most important. The more you focus on all the traits and features and titles that swirl around someone... the less likely you are able to see a real person. It's not so much about traits as about values, yeah. But, traits like looks, intellect, and surface demeanor are what attract you to someone in the first place, and further, often in themselves shape behaviors, even in subtle and unseen ways. You can't distill people down to their essence and treat them as such, before knowing them well. That's why dating can be so difficult. Getting to know someone is a long process, and for sure, you want to make sure you're not rejecting people you might grow to like. It's always a good idea to have input from friends on whether you are too picky in general. But compatibility won't appear by will, no matter what your standards are. Back to the original debate, I think the only people who need to worry, are "grass is greener" people. Most rational individuals are capable of deeply loving someone who's imperfect in several aspects. Edited November 5, 2009 by Isolde
threebyfate Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 (edited) Sounds like a great catch TBF And I agree, a guy who can take a slight blow to his ego is sometimes better because you can be more open and honest to him without worrying about him having a hissy fit about something you've said.It's less about him being a catch and more about compatibility. He came from a similar background as myself, in the way we were raised. This resulted in similar core values and also, similar styles within relationships. This is by far, the easiest relationship I've ever been in, in that his and my actions are intuitive. We speak a similar language of love and appreciation so it's not a daily struggle, to make things work. Once again, neither one of us is perfect or close to it. What we are, are two individuals who are very similar but with some complementary character traits of which one is, that he's a de-escalator. I'm stubborn and opinionated but when he goes into de-escalation, it forces me to be a mature adult and sheath my claws and fangs. He understands how to push my positive triggers, which is generally the way he acts with people in general. That's why he's such an effective win-win style negotiator, in his career. Having said that, he's also good at drawing blood, if it comes down to a head-to-head. And yes, I've felt it before and yes, I've also drawn blood too. With all this in mind, I'm so glad that I didn't settle, even though there were opportunities to do so. I do strongly encourage people not to settle, within reason. Once you settle, your perspectives are all wrong, in that you'll always feel like there's something better out there aka grass is greener. If you view your partner as the cat's meow, whatever his character traits, you're going to remain satisfied in your relationship/marriage, unless you're the self-entitled type. Edited November 5, 2009 by threebyfate
Author always_searching Posted November 5, 2009 Author Posted November 5, 2009 Kamille and Untouchable_Fire: Indeed, I am single. LOL, but do feel free to feel sorry for my future boyfriend, Untouchable_Fire. To everyone who has posted: I want to make clear that my question was not articulated to condemn or condone "settling." I asked not in relation to me, but just wanting to hear some insightful responses. However, since I have articulated my own opinion, which is that settling is wrong, I want to address those of you who are seeming to claim that my having a high-standard is juvenile and something that you too did in your twenties, etc.: I never claimed that my standard included some qualitative list--I actually argued against this. I'm stating that one should get in a relationship with someone whom they love--THAT viz. being in love is the "high standard" of which I refer. By "settling," I'm more indicating that you don't feel as though you are "in love" with the person whom you are with. I'm claiming that the method that Sam Spade and Untouchable_Fire use to find their significant others (i.e. the first available person who is decent looking and interested) will result in a loving friendship at best--NOT two people IN love. So, no: I don't believe in lists, but I do believe you shouldn't just settle for someone merely because they are available and decent looking, but because there is some incommunicable (for lack of a better term) element in your significant other that engaged your interested in the first place. So, yes: you can admire qualities about a person, but that isn't going to get you "love." However, those qualities are what allow you access into the incommunicability of the person. So, if you're just going with whomever because they're available: you are not only de-personalizing them, but you are selling yourself short. In essence, I think that settling is bad and waiting to find "true love" by being "swept away" (overcome with affections) in the very presence of the person whom you love is good--this affectionate response is the high standard that one should seek and wait for.
lilbelle Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 I'm glad someone mentioned unconditional love in this post. For me it's not about settling it's about growing. When you have unconditional love you can overlook the mistakes and realize that each person is on their own journey. You are simply forming a partnership to help each other grow. Often you might show that person a different way of looking at or doing things. Criticism isn't as hurtful from that person because you know they believe in you and want the best for you. Sex is always an adventure for you both because you have an inner light that keeps each one going. You may find that one of you gets very scared because they have never had this type of love before and simply doesn't know how to deal with it. The reality is that this love does exist and while its rare that anyone finds it, it does happen. Sometimes your not ready or they are'nt ready. That's okay. This is a time to sit back reflect on yourself and your life and journey.
threebyfate Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 If you're looking for unconditional love in a romantic relationship, you're asking to get it up the backside. What comes close to unconditional love is a mother's love for her newborn infant. Beyond the first few months, there's still the expectation that the infant will love her back. Unconditional love is being a doormat, hence settling, since there's someone out there who will appreciate what you've got to give and will fully reciprocate what you have to offer AND want to meet your needs.
lilbelle Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 To answer your question in laymans terms. I will not settle. I want to be swept off my feet and have butterflys in my stomach. That itself sparks uncondentional love. Had that hate letting it go. Will stay stay single until I have it again
Isolde Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 In essence, I think that settling is bad and waiting to find "true love" by being "swept away" (overcome with affections) in the very presence of the person whom you love is good--this affectionate response is the high standard that one should seek and wait for. It might not happen at first sight, but this is how a serious relationship should ultimately be.
lilbelle Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Comparing lovers to a mother and infant is ridiculous. An infant is innocent. Adults are not and we all have baggage. Overlooking this baggage is not settling its helping that person be the best they can be and showing them that love doesn't cost them anything. What has love cost you? Ask yourself this. With unconditional love the cost is none because they love you truly. Again its rare but it exists and anyone that has experienced will know what I mean. Its easier to walk away because you know that the person you love is going through their journey. Its not about hurt its about you both healing from past experiences.
Author always_searching Posted November 5, 2009 Author Posted November 5, 2009 I define settling differently. If you are genuinely in love with your partner then you are not settling. It doesn't matter if he is 4 feet tall, unemployed and lives with his parents. If he makes you truly happy and you are crazy about him, you have found your true love. Now settling means that for some reason as much as you like your partner or even love them, you are just not "in love". He can be a multi-millionare surgeon and underwear model on the side, if you are not in love: you are settling. Yes. I absolutely agree with you. My responses have been more in relation to how one found his/her significant other and whether the method he/she used is an indication of "settling," or "having high standards." I suppose the terminology is too loose, but the question was articulated due to more of a fleeting-intellectual and not a personal interest. So, I didn't take time to thoroughly define what I meant. Anyway, I agree love is the key. However, whereas some people think love can "grow" out of having a history together (I agree that love does "grow" or diminish with time), I am more inclined to say that we have an initial affective response to a person which may be related to admirable qualities, but not reducible to qualities--I believe in a kind of "love at first sight." However, allow me to qualify by saying that just as this love can further "grow," it can, indeed, also diminish with time. However, I think that dating someone whom you did not having that initial "spark" of interest with is already settling.
threebyfate Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Baggage shouldn't be overlooked since it will come back to haunt. That's why it's important to find the most compatible partner, since one person's baggage, is another person's perfect mate. If you gloss over what you consider to be "baggage" without fully embracing it as part of their personality, sooner or later, you're personally going to get zoo-ed or find that this "baggage" is annoying as hell. It's like drama. It's only drama if it's not yours. If it's yours, it's an issue. Glossing over perceived "baggage" is a form of settling.
Kamille Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Anyway, I agree love is the key. However, whereas some people think love can "grow" out of having a history together (I agree that love does "grow" or diminish with time), I am more inclined to say that we have an initial affective response to a person which may be related to admirable qualities, but not reducible to qualities--I believe in a kind of "love at first sight." However, allow me to qualify by saying that just as this love can further "grow," it can, indeed, also diminish with time. However, I think that dating someone whom you did not having that initial "spark" of interest with is already settling. Well, love does grow and there is no saying when that spark will happen. I always loved my bf's smile. I loved his smile even before we started dating. Yet, I wouldn't say there was a spark the first few months we were dating. I was still getting over someone and we were both really busy. But that spark happened in time - while getting to know each other so that now yes, I do have that spark. With hindsight though, I could say that it was love at first sight since I do remember the first time I met him years ago and how much I loved his smile. Only, for various reason, we only fell in love once we got to know each other. His smile though: I can be mad at him (like last week) and the minute I see him and he smiles at me all my anger melts. So yeah, that spark does help us move things along.
canadaguy98 Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 If you have settled, why have you done so, and are you are happy/content in the relationship viz. would you do it again? Finally, if you have settled on your significant other, would you end the relationship if you found someone else whom you felt could better meet your original standards? Also, if you haven't currently settled for anyone: would you settle and, if so, why? I haven't "settled" per se but I have become a lot more open minded now. Like 10 years ago I'd never date a fat chick, but I've tried one out now. Would have never dated a chick with kids but I've done that too. I am also more willing to accept more, more obvious, and bigger flaws than I would have in the past. If there was a why, it's because I'm getting older now. I'm not old, but I'm 33 and the concept of mortality is a lot more real than when I was 23. I had my "true love" 9 year relationship end up blowing up in my face for reasons that had nothing to do with me. 10 years ago I was looking for "the one". Now I realize that "the one" today is quite possibly the toxic bitch of tomorrow and there's no real way to tell because people change over time. I guess the "why" circles around that things rarely last forever and it seems everyone who is single now has been damaged by someone. The nubile young 20 year old girls I used to date 10 years ago were blank slates. The late 20s and early 30s women I'm meeting now are anything but - and a virgin in her late 20s or early 30s would quite honestly scare the hell out of me I'd run like the wind.
Author always_searching Posted November 5, 2009 Author Posted November 5, 2009 I guess the "why" circles around that things rarely last forever and it seems everyone who is single now has been damaged by someone. The nubile young 20 year old girls I used to date 10 years ago were blank slates. The late 20s and early 30s women I'm meeting now are anything but - and a virgin in her late 20s or early 30s would quite honestly scare the hell out of me I'd run like the wind. Hahahahaha! What about a virgin in her mid-twenties?
canadaguy98 Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 that would depend on why she was a virgin in her mid 20s what the story was. the upside to virgins is that once you 'break the seal' they become absolute nymphs for a while. the downside is that its hard to break them into new and interesting stuff a virgin too late in life, i'd be afraid might be an 'old dog you couldnt teach new tricks to' if you know what I mean lol
Sam Spade Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 What about a virgin in her mid-twenties? No worries, we're in business, baby ! (My gf was a virgin until 24, it's kind of cute).
Untouchable_Fire Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Anyway, I agree love is the key. However, whereas some people think love can "grow" out of having a history together (I agree that love does "grow" or diminish with time), I am more inclined to say that we have an initial affective response to a person which may be related to admirable qualities, but not reducible to qualities--I believe in a kind of "love at first sight." However, allow me to qualify by saying that just as this love can further "grow," it can, indeed, also diminish with time. However, I think that dating someone whom you did not having that initial "spark" of interest with is already settling. Your right, this is where we disagree! I believe that if you don't both put effort into your relationship... that is true settling. The difference between us is attitude and approach. Your attitude says your going to be the grass is greener type.... my attitude says I'm going to be watering my lawn. See we all choose what conditions we put on our love. My conditions are solid, while yours are fleeting and ephemeral. If he makes me feel like this, then I will be in love with him. Isn't that how it works for you? Well, he is not always going to make you feel that way... what then?
Author always_searching Posted November 5, 2009 Author Posted November 5, 2009 No worries, we're in business, baby ! (My gf was a virgin until 24, it's kind of cute). :bunny:Well, I'm 24...maybe it's my lucky year!
Untouchable_Fire Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Hahahahaha! What about a virgin in her mid-twenties? Technically, they are all virgins... until they have been with me.
Sam Spade Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Kamille and Untouchable_Fire: So, no: I don't believe in lists, but I do believe you shouldn't just settle for someone merely because they are available and decent looking, but because there is some incommunicable (for lack of a better term) element in your significant other that engaged your interested in the first place. So, yes: you can admire qualities about a person, but that isn't going to get you "love." However, those qualities are what allow you access into the incommunicability of the person. So, if you're just going with whomever because they're available: you are not only de-personalizing them, but you are selling yourself short. In essence, I think that settling is bad and waiting to find "true love" by being "swept away" (overcome with affections) in the very presence of the person whom you love is good--this affectionate response is the high standard that one should seek and wait for. Well, this is the point there the dicussioin boils down to axioms/assumptions that can't be argued away. There is nothing wrong with being swept off your feet having "that feeling" etc. (and it's not like the feeling or the concept is foreigh to me), but in my experience this is more likely to signify emptional issues rather than actual external force that descends on the few lucky ones. In fact, I've learned to stay away from women who really believe in this, partly the result of having my ex (with whom i had as much in common as possible, no less ) sabotage a perfectly good relationship for no reason other than perceived lacking of an "in love feeling" (which wasn't even true, but that's another story; btw, the last time she called me she was lonely, miserable and depressed). More generally, it is very hard to argue that any one individual can posses some special set of characteristics that distinguishes them SO MUCH from everybody else we've encountered in our life, so that they "cause" that I'm in love at a first sight" feeling. Please. Nobody is that wonderful, myself included (hard to believe, I know!). In any case, there were certainly no sparks of any kind the first few months after I met my GF. But, a year later, I'm convinced that she's the cutest girl on earth and and such a sweet, nice and caring person, that I hope to have babies with her sometime soon and spoil her rotten .
Author always_searching Posted November 5, 2009 Author Posted November 5, 2009 Your right, this is where we disagree! I believe that if you don't both put effort into your relationship... that is true settling. The difference between us is attitude and approach. Your attitude says your going to be the grass is greener type.... my attitude says I'm going to be watering my lawn. See we all choose what conditions we put on our love. My conditions are solid, while yours are fleeting and ephemeral. If he makes me feel like this, then I will be in love with him. Isn't that how it works for you? Well, he is not always going to make you feel that way... what then? Who or what is to say that he isn't always going to make me feel that way? Honestly, I'd rather have a year of impassioned love that could potentially fade away--whether I stay in the relationship after the initial romance has faded is a different issue entirely, as it depends upon a number of factors. Regardless, at least I will be able to say that I experienced all encompassing, all consuming, impassioned, love, versus being content in a friendly companionship that has never had a moments worth of passion. Why bother being in a relationship at all? I have plenty of friends whom I feel fondly toward, but don't have any burning desire for. I suppose the answer depends upon what you want out of a romantic relationship: content, friendly, philia companionship, or burning, impassioned, eros love? You choose the former, and I choose the latter. You may have a more contented friendship with your significant other, but I have friends. Though friendship is important and, hopefully, comes about later on in the relationship: I want to experience passionate eros love with my significant other, a-thank-you-very-much.
Author always_searching Posted November 5, 2009 Author Posted November 5, 2009 Technically, they are all virgins... until they have been with me. Hahaha, is that so?
Untouchable_Fire Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Hahaha, is that so? That's how I see it. :bunny: You don't even know what real sex is... yet.
Author always_searching Posted November 5, 2009 Author Posted November 5, 2009 In any case, there were certainly no sparks of any kind the first few months after I met my GF. But, a year later, I'm convinced that she's the cutest girl on earth and and such a sweet, nice and caring person, that I hope to have babies with her sometime soon and spoil her rotten . Aww, that's sweet Sam Spade. I do wonder, though: are there sparks now, or have there been during the year that you've dated? If not, I wonder how you would react if after five more years, two kids, and all the spoiling, you meet someone who you do have that intial "spark" with. Because, mark my words: it will happen. So, what then? Are you just going to set those emotions aside and go home to your girlfriend whom you've never had any "spark" with and stop thinking about the other girl? Or will you have an affair?
Untouchable_Fire Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Who or what is to say that he isn't always going to make me feel that way? Honestly, I'd rather have a year of impassioned love that could potentially fade away--whether I stay in the relationship after the initial romance has faded is a different issue entirely, as it depends upon a number of factors. Regardless, at least I will be able to say that I experienced all encompassing, all consuming, impassioned, love, versus being content in a friendly companionship that has never had a moments worth of passion. Why bother being in a relationship at all? I have plenty of friends whom I feel fondly toward, but don't have any burning desire for. He can't always make you feel that way... because feelings come and go. Your happy one day, sad the next... ect. Ah, you think that unless you have some instant chemistry that you will never have it? I create passion. I have a fire inside, and when I put fuel on it... an inferno of passion consumes the relationship. Your thinking... Tis better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all, but I'm saying if you think Romeo and Juliet were really in love... then you don't know what love is.
Recommended Posts