Settling

[Badsingularity]

Well, hopefully the woman you marry will love you and want to be with you!

 

It really isn't about stats (height, income, measurements, etc). It's about how you feel about each other.

 

 

SEE?!

[Eternal Sunshine]

Well, hopefully the woman you marry will love you and want to be with you!

 

It really isn't about stats (height, income, measurements, etc). It's about how you feel about each other.

 

 

This helps

[Oxy Moronovich]

It seems like guys are more likely to settle for a less ideal girl but girls will not settle for a less ideal guy.

Wrong. Women will settle for a less than ideal man. Why do you think more women initiate divorce than men? Why do you think there are so many single mothers who had kids by deadbeat dads?

[veggirl]

Wrong. Women will settle for a less than ideal man. Why do you think more women initiate divorce than men? Why do you think there are so many single mothers who had kids by deadbeat dads?

 

Immature gals are much more likely to settle than guys, I agree.

 

On the plus, I think women are more apt to "settle" for less attractive men than men would with women.

[Oxy Moronovich]

Immature gals are much more likely to settle than guys, I agree.

 

On the plus, I think women are more apt to "settle" for less attractive men than men would with women.

Yeah, guys put a huge premium on physical looks. But sometimes it's not hard for a woman to get a guy to change his mind about her. For instance, I just came back from class and there's this girl who always wears these frumpy outfits who normally sits up front. I've never taken time to notice her real well. However, she dressed a lot better today. It really opened my eyes about her. She didn't have to change herself physically or anything. She just had to wear something nice for a change. Sometimes a change of outfit is all it takes to get a guy interested in you.

[Star Gazer]

Settling involves compromising your "absolute must haves," NOT your "would be nice to haves" or "what would make someone absolutely perfect."

 

For me, my absolute must haves are someone who:

• I am physically attracted to, regardless of whether he's objectively attractive
  
• Finds me beautiful and irresistible
  
• Is emotionally available, open, and generous
  
• Is like my best friend, confidant, cheerleader, and ring coach
  
• Shares my life plan of having a family/children
  
• Enjoys an active, adventurous lifestyle
  
• Is a great communicator
  
• "Gets me"
  

 

My would be nice to haves/perfect are:

• Earns as much or more than I do
  
• Has an advanced degree
  
• Successful
  
• Objectively very attractive
  
• Skis and/or runs
  

 

I would gladly settle on my would be nice to haves/perfect to find a man who meets all of my absolute must haves... And maybe I have. We shall see.

[veggirl]

Yeah, guys put a huge premium on physical looks. But sometimes it's not hard for a woman to get a guy to change his mind about her. For instance, I just came back from class and there's this girl who always wears these frumpy outfits who normally sits up front. I've never taken time to notice her real well. However, she dressed a lot better today. It really opened my eyes about her. She didn't have to change herself physically or anything. She just had to wear something nice for a change. Sometimes a change of outfit is all it takes to get a guy interested in you.

 

 

OMG you need to copy/paste this into one of Verzhn's threads. She doesn't believe females who tell it to her.

[Cypress25]

Do you decide beforehand what is acceptable and what is not, which characteristics you absolutely will not compromise on, and then look for an appropriate partner?

 

Or, do you get to know someone, build a relationship, and then decide to stay because of the emotional connection, even if your partner is not up to your standards?

 

A little bit of both. The things that I decide on beforehand are absolute deal-breakers: I won't date a man if he has a temper, if he has kids, or if he has a drug addiction. Other than that, I'd have to get to know the guy before deciding whether to rule him out or pursue a relationship.

 

What are your standards? I am especially curious about the women. Honesty and loyalty are a given for most (if not easy characteristics to find), but what about good looks, success, and intelligence?

 

As far as standards go, I don't have general requirements, but I do have to feel a certain way about him in order to feel satisfied in a relationship. He doesn't have to be universally attractive, but he does have to be attractive to me. He doesn't have to be an Ivy League grad with a prestigious career, but he does have to be smart enough to have an interesting conversation and a job that enables him to pay his own bills. The rest is personality: sense of humor, fun to be with, patient, kind, self-sufficient, etc. I wouldn't even feel an emotional connection to someone who's personality was not compatible with mine in those ways, so a relationship would be out of the question. We wouldn't even get past the 2nd date if our personalities were incompatible.

 

I've never dated someone who I felt wasn't up to my standards. I've never had that feeling of "he's not good enough," so I can't relate to what you're experiencing. I guess I don't see the correlation between intelligence and "being good enough." For example, my dad is really smart and successful: MIT undergrad, Harvard Law School, six-figure income, etc. But he has no sense of humor, he's extremely rude, his idea of a conversation is to interrogate me with a series of yes-or-no questions and he cuts me off if I try to elaborate beyond that, he has an explosive temper, he treats my mom like crap, he's passive aggressive, and he's one of the most selfish people I've ever known. Really, he's a douchebag, and his high IQ doesn't change that. So when I'm looking for a romantic partner, I care more about personality and attraction than about irrelevant things like where he went to college and how much money he earns.

 

It really isn't about stats (height, income, measurements, etc). It's about how you feel about each other.

 

That's what I was trying to say.

[Jane2011]

I can't bring myself to settle. A friend of mine used to say "If I don't have the guy I want by 40, I think I would consider settling at that point." And though I've never said anything like that, her words have always been in the back of my mind, and I've thought...maybe I'd do that too.

 

But I really don't think so. I don't at all expect a perfect guy, but I expect to be with one I'm in love with. I've been in love in the past, and none of them were perfect, so it's not unreasonable. I just want to be in love.

 

I couldn't possibly be with a guy long-term if I'm not in love. There has always been a guy or two I knew of who liked me, who I could be with if I didn't want to be alone. But I'd rather be alone than just with some guy I'm not in love with.

 

I've had a couple (very casual) boyfriends in the past who I wasn't passionate about, and they knew it. I didn't see it as "settling," though, because I knew I wasn't going to stay with them. I think it's settling if you commit to (and really build a life with) someone you don't even want.

 

Also, no guy I was settling for would stay with me long-term because I'd inevitably not treat him very well. Those guys I settled for (mentioned above), I wasn't good to them. At times I downright disdained them for not being what I wanted.

[Oxy Moronovich]

OMG you need to copy/paste this into one of Verzhn's threads. She doesn't believe females who tell it to her.

I stopped reading her posts. She's the one who does the copying and pasting. It's always the same whiny posts every time. It's basically always the same thing. Once you've read one of her threads you've read them all.

[jobaba]

Settling involves compromising your "absolute must haves," NOT your "would be nice to haves" or "what would make someone absolutely perfect."

 

For me, my absolute must haves are someone who:

• I am physically attracted to, regardless of whether he's objectively attractive
  
• Finds me beautiful and irresistible
  
• Is emotionally available, open, and generous
  
• Is like my best friend, confidant, cheerleader, and ring coach
  
• Shares my life plan of having a family/children
  
• Enjoys an active, adventurous lifestyle
  
• Is a great communicator
  
• "Gets me"
  

 

My would be nice to haves/perfect are:

• Earns as much or more than I do
  
• Has an advanced degree
  
• Successful
  
• Objectively very attractive
  
• Skis and/or runs
  

 

I would gladly settle on my would be nice to haves/perfect to find a man who meets all of my absolute must haves... And maybe I have. We shall see.

 

My must haves:

- A vagina

- A heartbeat

- Someone who thinks Woody Allen is funny or at least is understanding to how one could think so

 

My nice to haves:

- A shaved vagina

- Someone who thinks Beavis and Butthead is funny or at least is understanding to how one could think so

-Somebody who owns a Smartphone

[spookie]

Settling involves compromising your "absolute must haves," NOT your "would be nice to haves" or "what would make someone absolutely perfect."

 

For me, my absolute must haves are someone who:

• I am physically attracted to, regardless of whether he's objectively attractive
  
• Finds me beautiful and irresistible
  
• Is emotionally available, open, and generous
  
• Is like my best friend, confidant, cheerleader, and ring coach
  
• Shares my life plan of having a family/children
  
• Enjoys an active, adventurous lifestyle
  
• Is a great communicator
  
• "Gets me"
  

 

My would be nice to haves/perfect are:

• Earns as much or more than I do
  
• Has an advanced degree
  
• Successful
  
• Objectively very attractive
  
• Skis and/or runs
  

 

I would gladly settle on my would be nice to haves/perfect to find a man who meets all of my absolute must haves... And maybe I have. We shall see.

 

The trouble with those must-have's is that attraction, at least for me, is almost entirely in my head, dependent on my level of commitment.

 

When I start to emotionally withdraw, for example, by over-analyzing, attraction is the first thing to go. I can't bring myself to have sex with someone I'm not convinced I am into.

[spookie]

I wanted to clarify that intelligence/ success to me does not mean a bunch of degrees or a high-paying job. I am simply looking for someone who wants something more out of life than Sundays off to watch TV. Unfortunately, the types of men I have been attracting lately don't aspire to much more than that - even the ones who have advanced degrees. Is it an unreasonable standard to want the man you're with to want to accomplish something?

 

To phrase it differently, is it possible to be in love with someone you don't find interesting? Because that is what this issue boils down to.

 

The men I date are usually trustworthy and supportive, but I end up feeling like I'm running a one-man show, making all the plans, all the jokes, all the conversation.

 

Questions about jobs are answered with pained stares; questions about dreams are answered with blank looks. I just want someone who cares about something besides me.

[zengirl]

Almost everyone settles on some counts. You might wish your partner was hotter, more intelligent, or more successful. Or you might wish he was more affectionate, more reliable, a better communicator, better in bed. The fact is that nobody's perfect; at some point, if you don't want to be alone, you have to accept someone's flaws.

 

I have never felt like I was settling. That, to me, doesn't mean that anyone I've dated or even hubby is "perfect" in terms of 100% flawless in all areas humanly possible, but just that he was 100% what I wanted, which isn't broken down into a list like many folks have, I guess.

 

I think if you are trying to make a list of traits in a SO, you're doing it all wrong personally, and the better list to make is traits in a RELATIONSHIP (a trick I picked up from a lame dating book, but it helped me meet hubby) you want because it will encompass everything you need.

 

Mine had things like, "A relationship filled with love and laughter. A relationship where I never feel like I have to apologize for my erratic working hours. A relationship where I am engaged, intellectually and emotionally, every day. A relationship where I have lots of hot sex" and several other things. And I found it. I've had relationships where continuing them would've been settling, but that creates dissonance and I can't stand cognitive dissonance. So, they always ended.

 

However, I think people do both of these things:

 

Do you decide beforehand what is acceptable and what is not, which characteristics you absolutely will not compromise on, and then look for an appropriate partner?

 

Or, do you get to know someone, build a relationship, and then decide to stay because of the emotional connection, even if your partner is not up to your standards?

 

But it rarely ends well.

 

What are your standards? I am especially curious about the women. Honesty and loyalty are a given for most (if not easy characteristics to find), but what about good looks, success, and intelligence?

 

All of those, I guess, though I didn't really do well with personal standards about the person. But all of those would be required for the relationship I want to have -- however I'm not worried about comparison.

 

Maybe look at what you need from a relationship, instead of a person, and see if that works for you? That's my best suggestion.

[AD1980]

Settling to me is being with somebody you dont love just to be with somebody

 

Settling to some people is not being with the ideal person physically stauts wise etc people who chase those things will never be happy

[Saxis]

I felt like I settled in the first relationship after my separation/divorce. She was a great person, but I never really was that attracted to her and she really didn't have any life goals except becoming a wife and mother. I just knew that wasn't something I could do with her forever...

 

I don't really have a list of standards, but there are some mandatory items... attraction, communication, drug-free, self-sufficient, wanting to do more in life than be a wife and mother...

Edited February 14, 2012 by Saxis

[somedude81]

When I think of settling, it's giving somebody a chance even if they don't make a great impression right away and you don't think their looks are amazing.

 

It's taking the time to find out who they are.

 

And it shocks me how many women refuse to do that. That they refuse to even give anybody the time of day if he's not her prince.

[Almond_Joy]

Almost everyone settles on some counts. You might wish your partner was hotter, more intelligent, or more successful. Or you might wish he was more affectionate, more reliable, a better communicator, better in bed. The fact is that nobody's perfect; at some point, if you don't want to be alone, you have to accept someone's flaws.

 

I am wondering what the point is at which that usually happens.

 

Do you decide beforehand what is acceptable and what is not, which characteristics you absolutely will not compromise on, and then look for an appropriate partner?

 

Or, do you get to know someone, build a relationship, and then decide to stay because of the emotional connection, even if your partner is not up to your standards?

 

What are your standards? I am especially curious about the women. Honesty and loyalty are a given for most (if not easy characteristics to find), but what about good looks, success, and intelligence?

 

I seem to run into the same issue over and over again in my relationships. As I get to know someone, I can't help but feel he's not good enough, even as I develop feelings and set up the foundation for a relationship. Even if he treats me wonderfully, and we have a great time together, if I perceive him to be less intelligent/ less aggressive/ devoid of a drive for success, a feeling of hopelessness overtakes me. I start to feel like I've settled with every aspect of life. Yet, it's hard to break up, because he's such a good guy, and has become my best friend.

 

Maybe it has something to do with having graduated from a high school full of competitive overachievers, and having had high expectations for myself.

 

Or maybe I feel this way because my dad is the smartest man that I know, so I always envisioned my future spouse to be at least as intelligent as I am.

 

I guess the truth is that I want a man who will take charge and lead, whom I can trust to be the head of my household... and most of the guys that I date, by my assessment, are not cut out for that role. They are better suited to be wives, than husbands. I'm not saying there are no hot smart trustworthy guys out there; I just seem to end up with ones whose niceness is the primary draw.

 

Should I be adjusting my expectations, or raising my standards?

 

I've been struggling with this idea for the last couple of months myself. Up to now, my reasoning's gone as follows:

 

If I trust a guy, and feel wanted and respected by him, then I stay. Those, I feel, are the bare bones - the absolute essentials needed - for love to flourish. Besides that, I don't know what I can and cannot put up with until I've been exposed to it.

 

I truly believe that having a "bare-bones" approach to having a relationship has allowed me to learn more about what I want and don't want, or need and don't need, than I would have learned if I went into each dating/relationship experience with this list of preconceived restrictions on the kind of person I'll have in my life.

 

I think everyone knows a few things that they absolutely have to have for a relationship, though.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Almond_Joy

[spookie]

It's probably telling of something about me that I have received 3 pages of replies, yet none of them have confirmed that my "standards" are in any way reasonable.

 

Girls, does that really mean you would not consider it settling, to be in a relationship where u work harder because u have more ambition, make more money as a result, and are aware of being a faster learner, having more common sense, and better organizational skills than your spouse? Is all u are looking for the other person to bring to the table, his humor, good values, sexiness, and affection?

 

Or am I looking at his from the wrong angle? Should I be approaching it as a compatibility issue, where my intellectual needs are not being met?

[Mme. Chaucer]

It's probably telling of something about me that I have received 3 pages of replies, yet none of them have confirmed that my "standards" are in any way reasonable.

 

Girls, does that really mean you would not consider it settling, to be in a relationship where u work harder because u have more ambition, make more money as a result, and are aware of being a faster learner, having more common sense, and better organizational skills than your spouse? Is all u are looking for the other person to bring to the table, his humor, good values, sexiness, and affection?

 

I think this is the first time in this thread that you've clearly defined your standards like this.

 

The way you put it above communicates that you think feel, overall, superior to the guys you date.

 

It's possible for someone to be happy with a person with less ambition, because they bring MORE of something that is complementary to YOUR ambition.

 

A person with less common sense might be bringing more beauty and romance to the relationship than the one blessed with all the common sense.

 

Etc.

 

But, the way you express it, the guys are just lacking all around, and don't bring much of anything, while you do all the bringing.

 

If that's the case, then yes, I would consider it settling in the most extreme way imaginable. But I must say you aren't painting yourself in a very flattering light when you attribute all these good qualities to yourself but don't seem to see any in the guys you get together with - along with seeing them as "low hanging fruit."

 

Or am I looking at his from the wrong angle? Should I be approaching it as a compatibility issue, where my intellectual needs are not being met?

 

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle, but not in the way that you state.

 

If you don't like, admire, and don't find your man extremely complementary to you, and don't find that you both are able to help one another thrive - then it's certainly settling.

 

If you NEED to be with a man who is as smart or smarter than you are, then you ARE settling if you don't have that.

 

But if you have an ideal of perfection and the guy doesn't match up, you are NOT settling; you are dealing with a real human being in real life.

 

And, if you believe you yourself are the paragon of all things you admire and you are looking for your equal, and it seems you never find that - you might have an ego problem.

[xxoo]

Girls, does that really mean you would not consider it settling, to be in a relationship where u work harder because u have more ambition, make more money as a result, and are aware of being a faster learner, having more common sense, and better organizational skills than your spouse? Is all u are looking for the other person to bring to the table, his humor, good values, sexiness, and affection?

 

Or am I looking at his from the wrong angle? Should I be approaching it as a compatibility issue, where my intellectual needs are not being met?

 

I vote wrong angle.

 

As a couple, you are a team. Each person brings strengths and weaknesses. Together, hopefully, you have a good balance.

 

If one person (the woman or the man) excels in earning money, organizing, money management, or whatever, that's great! You don't both need to be excellent in that regard, as long as you have a team approach (the other partner isn't practicing poor money management and dragging the team down, for example).

 

The other person will have strengths, too. They may not be the strengths you have. That's probably a good thing. If you value your strengths (earning money, ambition) more than theirs, that might be a sign of unhealthy narcissism.

 

People also have different intelligences. He might be absolutely brilliant in ways that you are not--but will you recognize it if you only value your own kind of intelligence?

[zengirl]

It's probably telling of something about me that I have received 3 pages of replies, yet none of them have confirmed that my "standards" are in any way reasonable.

 

Girls, does that really mean you would not consider it settling, to be in a relationship where u work harder because u have more ambition, make more money as a result, and are aware of being a faster learner, having more common sense, and better organizational skills than your spouse? Is all u are looking for the other person to bring to the table, his humor, good values, sexiness, and affection?

 

Or am I looking at his from the wrong angle? Should I be approaching it as a compatibility issue, where my intellectual needs are not being met?

 

I think that if your intellectual NEEDS are not being met, it's an issue, but I do not think everyone necessarily has the same 'needs' as what's listed here. I think you need to decide whether these are really what you need and want.

 

I don't compete with my hubby. We're a team, so it'd be silly to do so. He's better than I am at some things and not as good at others, and that's great. We complement each other.

 

I definitely wanted a smart, educated man who was passionate about his career when I was dating, but that didn't necessarily mean I wanted to compare them to myself but rather that I wanted intellectual stimulation from and appreciated education and intelligence in a mate. I appreciate some ambition but am not a fan of too much ambition or materialism, personally, but to each their own. I definitely dated intelligent men, however, but I never sought to 'compete' intellectually with a SO; that's a recipe for disaster.

 

However, if you're dating men you cannot appreciate or find aren't meeting your intellectual needs, then, yes, that's settling.

[SteveC80]

It's probably telling of something about me that I have received 3 pages of replies, yet none of them have confirmed that my "standards" are in any way reasonable.

 

Girls, does that really mean you would not consider it settling, to be in a relationship where u work harder because u have more ambition, make more money as a result, and are aware of being a faster learner, having more common sense, and better organizational skills than your spouse? Is all u are looking for the other person to bring to the table, his humor, good values, sexiness, and affection?

 

Or am I looking at his from the wrong angle? Should I be approaching it as a compatibility issue, where my intellectual needs are not being met?

 

A women could never respect a man like that,lets not be pc here most women want a man better then her

[Mme. Chaucer]

A women could never respect a man like that,lets not be pc here most women want a man better then her

 

Does that include a man who has a better command of grammar and spelling than she has?

[poodle]

I can't relate to what you're saying. When I like someone, I forget all about the standards I had. Everything about them becomes all I want from that moment on. Could it be that you're so focused on their flaws because you don't really love them?