How important is conversation and having stuff to talk about in relationships?

[xxoo]

I'm not sure if that's true. I've never felt 'thrilled' to be with anyone even though they were good men and I wanted to be with them. It was more contentment and inner peace, not so much excitement.

 

I suppose it could also be a good thing, because I skip the 'initial excitement' and 'honeymoon' phase. There is no dying down of anything and I can sooner evaluate a relationship with an objective approach.

 

I don't think falling in love is necessary to a successful relationship, which is why I'm questioning whether or not intellectual stimulation is neccesary. Think about it, when you start or maintain a relationship based on a more objective approach, do the odds of it lasting not increase?

 

If you choose a partner based on shared core values, compatibility and overall how you 'fit', isn't that a stronger foundation than how much stimulation they can give you in a certain area? Is stimulation a necessary component for strong relationship foundations? Or could it be something else?

 

ALSO, can stimulation be developed? It's kind of like sex, takes some time to get to know each other and what works, what doesn't etc. Maybe it's all part of relationship maintenance, and you improve certain areas as you go along...

 

I wasn't talking about instant butterflies. But for me, falling in love is thrilling, and especially so when we share core values, compatibility, etc. I'm still so, so in love with my husband, and we've been married over 20 years. So far, so good.

 

Yes, I do think that stimulation can be developed, but if it's not there after 2 months or so, I don't think it's going to happen. From there, it can develop and deepen into love.

[central]

It wouldn't work for me. As you get (much) older, conversation becomes as - or more - important than sex. If you have other things that fill this gap, then perhaps it can work out.

[Gaeta]

I value humor above deep-intellectual conversation.

 

I know some people must have intellectual orgasms with their mate but not I.

 

I want a partner that will make me laugh.

 

Of course he has to be able to feed a conversation about current affairs, politics, economy, social issues, etc. To me that is not having intellectual conversation though, that is just being well informed and be able to form a personal opinion on things. An Intellectual conversation would be debating authors, history, philosophy, psychology, theology. That I can have with my friends or siblings who are well versed on those. I don't need it from my partner.

 

That being said, my ex-husband didn't care about current affairs. He had no idea of what economy we were living in, and had no wish to know the current political issues. THAT I found very hard to live with.

 

So this man you are dating what does he talk about? I understand he doesn't speak about John Lock philosophy but can he at least express opinions on your current elections and different issues your country has?

[SwordofFlame]

I value humor above deep-intellectual conversation.

 

I know some people must have intellectual orgasms with their mate but not I.

 

I want a partner that will make me laugh.

 

Of course he has to be able to feed a conversation about current affairs, politics, economy, social issues, etc. To me that is not having intellectual conversation though, that is just being well informed and be able to form a personal opinion on things. An Intellectual conversation would be debating authors, history, philosophy, psychology, theology. That I can have with my friends or siblings who are well versed on those. I don't need it from my partner.

 

That being said, my ex-husband didn't care about current affairs. He had no idea of what economy we were living in, and had no wish to know the current political issues. THAT I found very hard to live with.

 

So this man you are dating what does he talk about? I understand he doesn't speak about John Lock philosophy but can he at least express opinions on your current elections and different issues your country has?

 

Just curious, how do the rest of you ladies define "intellectual" conversation?

[BluEyeL]

It really depends of what your needs are. My current has a lot more of the stereotypical male characteristics and that includes a lower ability to endlessly converse about abstract topics. My ex was more steoreotypically feminine.

 

My ex was rambling for hours. I enjoyed that, but he came with other very negative traits.

 

Since I have enough intellectual stimulation and conversations at work and with friends and enough of it with my SO, I'm happy with our interaction, although he propensity for discussions is not as high as it might be ideal for me.

 

So it really comes down to what YOU want and how you feel.

 

And it is not realistic to have "everything" but it's realistic to have your top three preferences in a man and feel satisfied. Nobody will ever act 100% the way you'd act or you'd imagine they should act.

[GoodOnPaper]

Just curious, how do the rest of you ladies define "intellectual" conversation?

 

Yeah, struggling guys reading this thread can really be led astray - terms like "intelligent" and "intellectual" are WAY more subjective in the attraction/dating world than they (we) think.

 

I'm a Ph.D. academic, so providing intellectual conversation was never an issue, but here is how girls responded:

 

1. They were put off, bored or uninterested, or . . .

2. They loved it but only in a friendzone context

 

The direct-thinking and -talking blue-collar tradesman will always be considered more masculine and have more sex appeal than a live-in-his-head, constantly-analyzing intellectual.

 

I can see how a shared sense of intellectual curiosity with your partner could be a strong foundation for compatibility, but I think that's more a matter of personality styles and certain degrees of shared interests meshing well together rather than the intellectual content of one's discussions.

[Hopeful30]

I guess the bolded is really the crux of your question, not so much the intellectual stimulation.

 

Personally, my belief is that you need both attraction AND objective measures. If you want to be in a marriage of convenience, where you each are with each other just for the 'practical' perks of having a mate, then yes you only need the 'objective measures'. But it's something that you really need to be honest with your partner about. If he loves you and thinks that you love him, when really all you want is a 'decent partner', is it fair to him to remain in that delusion?

 

Also, imagine this scenario - you marry an 'objectively good' man, go on and buy a house with him, have children etc. Then... you meet someone whom you DO experience all those feelings with, that you have never experienced with your partner. What do you do?

 

I know I can never be with someone I don't love, because I know that in that situation I will fall apart completely. On the other hand, when I love someone, I am blind to other people. I can't just fall in love with someone else, because that spot is already taken.

 

You're response is based on the precipice that I don't love him. I'm not sure why you got that idea. I love my man

 

So this man you are dating what does he talk about? I understand he doesn't speak about John Lock philosophy but can he at least express opinions on your current elections and different issues your country has?

 

Oh he's very smart. He knows a lot about a lot, it's just the actual act of conversation that doesn't flow between us. There is no lack of content.

 

Basically we don't click when it comes to talking. Put me in a room with one of his friends, and we can chat for hours. Put him in a room with the same friend, and they can chat for hours.

 

Put us both together in the same room, and it's going to take some effort to chat to the same degree. I'm not sure why that is.

 

Just curious, how do the rest of you ladies define "intellectual" conversation?

 

In a word, DEEP.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Hopeful30

[Sunkissedpatio]

Originally Posted by SwordofFlame View Post

Just curious, how do the rest of you ladies define "intellectual" conversation?

 

Can only speak for myself but I never said "intellectual conversation" I said intellectual connection. Big difference.

 

There is physical connection, there is connecting via interests and shared experiences, and then there is connecting via the intellect. To me that translates to being able to have fluid conversations about anything and everything and it feels natural not forced.

 

Makes sense?

[Hopeful30]

Can only speak for myself but I never said "intellectual conversation" I said intellectual connection. Big difference.

 

There is physical connection, there is connecting via interests and shared experiences, and then there is connecting via the intellect. To me that translates to being able to have fluid conversations about anything and everything and it feels natural not forced.

 

Makes sense?

 

What if you have a great intellectual connection but don't need to speak to connect? For example, playing chess. We've played chess before, and though we barely spoke, there was lots of non-verbal exchanges that indicated our interest in the game.

 

When I would make an unexpected move, I would get a cute look, or a groan, or he would shift in his seat, and visa-versa.

 

Is conversation the only channel for intellectual connection?

Edited October 7, 2016 by Hopeful30

[Sunkissedpatio]

Are you seriously citing as an example not talking during a game of chess!?

 

How else would you concentrate to win if not by shutting your mouth and planning in silence!?

 

I'm not even even sure what you are asking anymore. Do I need to be with a chatterbox and be a chatterbox 24/7 or even 8/7? NO! I love silent moments with the one you love but having strained conversation when you do engage is not sexy to me.

[The_Onceler]

Though the man I'm currently seeing is interesting and has much to tell, our conversations don't really flow. With some people, you can talk for hours and don't even realize how time passes. With him, it's an effort. We just don't flow when it comes to talking.

 

How important is ease of conversational flow? It's not causing any problems or anything, our communication is more 'acts of service' based (that's our love language).

 

Can a relationship be strong and bonding if conversation is stagnant? I don't mean communication. You can communicate without having a conversation.

 

About 12 years ago I walked away from a woman who may have been one of the best friends I have had in this life. She wanted us to be a couple, and while that would have been great on so many levels, I had ZERO physical desire for her. Kissing her was like kissing my sister. Worse. Like kissing my brother. I don't know why this was, but it was.

 

But my friendship with her was stupendous. We used to spend long stretches of time together - hiking, driving, walking, etc. We never, ever lacked for conversation. Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say, we never felt that we lacked for conversation. Because I can recall many times, say driving from SF to Tahoe, where we would might talk for hours, and then sit in comfortable silence for hours.

 

And we spent a LOT of time together. We were for all intents and purposes behaving like a couple, except that we were totally platonic (much to her dismay, and ultimately the cause of the end of our friendship).

 

Anyway, in contrast, I have spent most of the intervening years with another woman (my ex) with whom I had INCREDIBLE sexual attraction. However, in those same sorts of situations - long drives, long walks, hiking, etc - she would suggest verbal games that we could play, just to fill the silence.

 

Even later, in our home life, she would want to spend our "alone time" either watching a movie or playing a game. And she was no intellectual midget. She and I are comparable in our intellect, and we both like conversation. But for whatever reasons, conversation never flowed naturally between us.

 

Now that I am alone, and both women are gone from my life, I can tell you that I dearly miss my old friend, and the times that we spent, much more than I miss my ex, despite what she and I have shared.

 

I would say that your ability to have satisfying conversation is extremely important, and will grow more and more important as time goes by.

[Hopeful30]

About 12 years ago I walked away from a woman who may have been one of the best friends I have had in this life. She wanted us to be a couple, and while that would have been great on so many levels, I had ZERO physical desire for her. Kissing her was like kissing my sister. Worse. Like kissing my brother. I don't know why this was, but it was.

 

But my friendship with her was stupendous. We used to spend long stretches of time together - hiking, driving, walking, etc. We never, ever lacked for conversation. Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say, we never felt that we lacked for conversation. Because I can recall many times, say driving from SF to Tahoe, where we would might talk for hours, and then sit in comfortable silence for hours.

 

And we spent a LOT of time together. We were for all intents and purposes behaving like a couple, except that we were totally platonic (much to her dismay, and ultimately the cause of the end of our friendship).

 

Anyway, in contrast, I have spent most of the intervening years with another woman (my ex) with whom I had INCREDIBLE sexual attraction. However, in those same sorts of situations - long drives, long walks, hiking, etc - she would suggest verbal games that we could play, just to fill the silence.

 

Even later, in our home life, she would want to spend our "alone time" either watching a movie or playing a game. And she was no intellectual midget. She and I are comparable in our intellect, and we both like conversation. But for whatever reasons, conversation never flowed naturally between us.

 

Now that I am alone, and both women are gone from my life, I can tell you that I dearly miss my old friend, and the times that we spent, much more than I miss my ex, despite what she and I have shared.

 

I would say that your ability to have satisfying conversation is extremely important, and will grow more and more important as time goes by.

 

This has been the best response so far, thank you.

 

Do you think good conversation can develop overtime? Or is it like sexual attraction, it's either there or it isn't?

 

My ex boyfriend was very quiet and shy, and I always complained that he never talked. I was bored early in the relationship, but he put in the effort and slowly came out of his shell. About a year in, we started having great conversations, and they flowed well.

 

I'm left wondering if conversation, like a relationship, needs to evolve and grow first before it can be great. Sometimes it's great from the start, but sometimes it takes time. I just don't want to find myself in a situation where I hope this aspect of the relationship can improve, when in reality it's one of those things that either exists, or doesn't.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Hopeful30

[RecentChange]

I don't think falling in love is necessary to a successful relationship, which is why I'm questioning whether or not intellectual stimulation is neccesary. Think about it, when you start or maintain a relationship based on a more objective approach, do the odds of it lasting not increase?

 

I disagree, but we are all different aren't we?

 

For me, I wouldn't want to dedicate myself, commit myself, make myself exclusive to some I didn't LOVE, and love immensely.

 

For me, its that LOVE that pulls us through the difficult times, creates that will to work things out and stay connected. Its love that makes me want him, not how he lines up on paper.

 

And part of that love, is I love how I am completely at home with him. Its never awkward, the conversation just flows. It did the first day I met him, it still does today 15 years later.

 

Sure, we are compatible when it comes to the paper stuff as well. But the fact that we are crazy about each other, and love each other - that is what has pulled us through. Not "being objective" if we were being objective, I feel any difficult time would have been met with a pro and cons list, check the boxes to see if we want to work it out.....

 

No, instead we have always worked it out, because we know this is what we want, because we love each other, not because of a pro con list.

 

To me, it sounds like you are thinking about compromising on a number of things. Perhaps it will bring you happiness to do so - I don't think it would work for me.

[Bialy]

I was thinking about this question a bit more.

 

Yes, I wouldn't mind if a man wasn't intellectually curious... *IF* he was faithful and an incredible lover and, what the hell, a wonderful father to our children.

[Hopeful30]

I disagree, but we are all different aren't we?

 

For me, I wouldn't want to dedicate myself, commit myself, make myself exclusive to some I didn't LOVE, and love immensely.

 

For me, its that LOVE that pulls us through the difficult times, creates that will to work things out and stay connected. Its love that makes me want him, not how he lines up on paper.

 

And part of that love, is I love how I am completely at home with him. Its never awkward, the conversation just flows. It did the first day I met him, it still does today 15 years later.

 

Sure, we are compatible when it comes to the paper stuff as well. But the fact that we are crazy about each other, and love each other - that is what has pulled us through. Not "being objective" if we were being objective, I feel any difficult time would have been met with a pro and cons list, check the boxes to see if we want to work it out.....

 

No, instead we have always worked it out, because we know this is what we want, because we love each other, not because of a pro con list.

 

To me, it sounds like you are thinking about compromising on a number of things. Perhaps it will bring you happiness to do so - I don't think it would work for me.

 

Not once in your post did you mention being IN love, yet this is the claim you're disputing.

 

Love is absolutely necessary, but loving a man and being IN love with him are different things.

 

For me, loving someone is having a deep, genuine care that is unconditional. You love this person based on who they are, not who you both are as a couple. Being IN love with someone is far more conditional, and requires a certain chemistry between the two of you. It's far more selfish to be in love, and far more selfless to love.

 

But that's just me.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Hopeful30

[Michelle ma Belle]

Yeah, struggling guys reading this thread can really be led astray - terms like "intelligent" and "intellectual" are WAY more subjective in the attraction/dating world than they (we) think.

 

I'm a Ph.D. academic, so providing intellectual conversation was never an issue, but here is how girls responded:

 

1. They were put off, bored or uninterested, or . . .

2. They loved it but only in a friendzone context

 

The direct-thinking and -talking blue-collar tradesman will always be considered more masculine and have more sex appeal than a live-in-his-head, constantly-analyzing intellectual.

 

I can see how a shared sense of intellectual curiosity with your partner could be a strong foundation for compatibility, but I think that's more a matter of personality styles and certain degrees of shared interests meshing well together rather than the intellectual content of one's discussions.

 

I think this is a great point.

 

Yes, I love intellectual conversation with a man who is well educated, full of life experiences and isn't afraid to talk or have opinions about all sorts of issues but also open to hearing other sides.

 

More importantly, I love being with someone where conversation of any kind is easy and effortless and fluid. I've commented countless times on here how horrible people (especially men) have become anymore regards to carrying a basic conversation never mind anything meaningful. That's a HUGE turn off for me no matter how beautiful your packaging may be. If I have to spoon feed you topics and pull teeth to have a conversation, I'm done.

 

I also think Gaeta made a good point about having a sense of humor. Intelligent or intellectual conversations can sometimes be dry and very serious. It helps to have someone who doesn't always take themselves or life too seriously and can make me laugh no matter the situation. There is a time and place for everything of course but humor will often sway my interest if /when other attributes are lacking.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Michelle ma Belle

[The_Onceler]

I'm left wondering if conversation, like a relationship, needs to evolve and grow first before it can be great. Sometimes it's great from the start, but sometimes it takes time. I just don't want to find myself in a situation where I hope this aspect of the relationship can improve, when in reality it's one of those things that either exists, or doesn't.

 

It has been my experience that, while such things can change over time, they generally don't. Sure, you may have stilted conversation on your first date, and then much better on your second and third. But if you are in your third month or third YEAR of a relationship, and you find that you are unfulfilled with your conversations, that is not likely to change a great deal.

 

And there are probably plenty of people for whom great conversation is not a requirement at all. But the very fact that you are already taking note of this as a potential issue leads me to think that is is an *actual* issue.

 

I spent a long, long time TRYING to be attracted to that friend. And many people have puzzled over why I wasn't (my sister has often commented that she would have LOVED to have had a figure like my friend had). I knew intellectually that, if I could only conjure up even a little physical attraction, that I would have found a near perfect life partner.

 

But it wasn't there. And as much as I miss her, I am sure that she and I would not have lasted as a couple, because the physical component is important as the intellectual and emotional are. She and I may not have needed to be lusting after one another for it to work, but I found physical intimacy with her actually repulsive (and who knows what that might say about me??), and a woman is going to pick up on that, right?

 

Anyway, I digress again...

 

I also should say that, with both of these women, these patterns were almost immediate. With that friend, we had easy and fun conversation from our very first encounter (which is actually an entertaining story in itself, tho I have gone off subject enough by now...). With my ex, we didn't, but I chalked it up to first date jitters. And, very uncharacteristically of me, she and I quickly became physical, and that masked the conversation deficiency for a fair amount of time.

[RecentChange]

For me it's necessary to be IN love. I apologize if I did not make that clear. I fell IN love with my husband, and never fell out of love with him. It's an active thing

 

I can love and care for someone, and be willing to set them free. The sort of love and care I have had for others pales compared to the passionate falling in love that happened when I met my husband.

 

I have loved - but I have fallen in love only once.

[preraph]

It's the most important thing. Without it, there is no companionship, just sex with a roommate. Some guys don't care if a woman ever talks as long as they have sex with them, but that is no life for the woman and you can't raise kids in that environment.

[SwordofFlame]

I agree that it's also important to be able to sit comfortably together in the silence. But not awkward silence.

 

My H describes that as "home". We don't even need to talk, but he just feels peace being near me.

 

Still, we are each other's #1 person to talk to about, well, everything!

 

Perhaps I shouldn't have said awkward. But yeah, I'm an introvert, I can only converse for a certain amount of time (like a few hours max) before I inevitably run out of energy and become quiet (that's usually when I end first dates )

[Gaeta]

 

In a word, DEEP.

 

Deep in what sense? You want to talk about his most inner thoughts?

 

Maybe what you are looking for isn't intellectual but more personal? or emotional?

 

Now I am having a hard time Identifying what you are lacking.

 

Obviously he can converse so it's not about lacking conversation.

 

He is intelligent and can talk about many things so it's not about boring content.

 

Is it just about the flow? or it's about the content of these conversations?

[Hopeful30]

For me it's necessary to be IN love. I apologize if I did not make that clear. I fell IN love with my husband, and never fell out of love with him. It's an active thing

 

I can love and care for someone, and be willing to set them free. The sort of love and care I have had for others pales compared to the passionate falling in love that happened when I met my husband.

 

I have loved - but I have fallen in love only once.

 

You are a very lucky woman RecentChange I hope we all get the opportunity to experience something like that in this lifetime.

 

If I may ask, how long into being involved with your husband did you realize you were falling in love? Did you fit right from the beginning?

[Hopeful30]

Deep in what sense? You want to talk about his most inner thoughts?

 

Maybe what you are looking for isn't intellectual but more personal? or emotional?

 

Now I am having a hard time Identifying what you are lacking.

 

Obviously he can converse so it's not about lacking conversation.

 

He is intelligent and can talk about many things so it's not about boring content.

 

Is it just about the flow? or it's about the content of these conversations?

 

I think you're right. I'm realizing more and more that the lack of great conversation isn't because there isn't much to talk about or that he's incapable. He isn't my intellectual equal, that's what it is.

 

I've been reflecting on situations that brought this up for me, and I'm realizing it's not because he is poor with talking, I just tend to lead the conversations to deeper levels, and he's either uninterested or incapable of following my train of thought.

[RecentChange]

You are a very lucky woman RecentChange I hope we all get the opportunity to experience something like that in this lifetime.

 

If I may ask, how long into being involved with your husband did you realize you were falling in love? Did you fit right from the beginning?

 

Right from the beginning. A few weeks in my friends started teasing me about how I had found the one.

 

He said I love you after a little more than a month, I told him I felt the same way. We were living together 6 months later, might have been sooner even but I had to graduate college first!

[Els]

Perhaps I shouldn't have said awkward. But yeah, I'm an introvert, I can only converse for a certain amount of time (like a few hours max) before I inevitably run out of energy and become quiet (that's usually when I end first dates )

 

It's not about the quantity, it's about the quality. I think very few women want to be with a man who just keeps talking for hours on end just for the sake of talking. But a man with whom you have the sort of connection where your conversation just flows and you FEEL that you would love to do this for hours... that's golden.

 

I used to think that I would need to choose between that and good sex... but that was before I met my SO. I guess I am very lucky in that regard. If I absolutely had to choose, they would probably weigh equal in my opinion.

 

All the 'good on paper' stuff, like a good job and work ethic and such, is necessary to transform a dating relationship with a person I'm attracted to (intellectually and sexually) into a long-term relationship. But it doesn't do anything if the basis of attraction isn't already there.