Warning, the following advocates settling for adequacy.
My brother recently had a year long relationship with a girl who was attractive, smart, spiritual, friendly, and easy to get along with. My brother shares most of those attributes. They seemed to get along great - helping each other with tasks like cooking without getting in each others' way or awkward contests of deference, they both liked ballroom dancing, seemed content just to be with each other without putting on a performance. She got along with the potential in-laws, and as far as I know my brother had no issues with her family either. (He's a very inoffensive person.)
After a year my brother wanted to marry and the then-girlfriend said that she had prayed about it and wasn't inspired to marry him. They split up shortly afterward.
I can only apply imprecise outside judgment to the situation but it seems that this was a very compatible relationship, and marriage would probably have been successful with relatively low effort. I consider it a shame that this young lady felt she had to have divine inspiration before making that commitment.
One of the things I've come to believe about enduring love is that it is not just a feeling, but also an act. Really, a set of acts, and a voluntary mindset. The romantic version of love might exist, but I don't think it is often enduring enough to substitute for a commitment to actively love another person. By this I mean to serve, respect, rely on, comfort, trust, confide in, and be with another person, with no expiration date.
I think successful marriage (or other permanent LTR) requires committed, active love. I do NOT think it requires ongoing feelings of infatuation, powerful physical attraction, or the feeling that God Approves. All of those latter things are certainly nice to have, but they are at best hard to attain, and near-impossible to retain. Of course, I also think marriage requires mutual commitment and basic compatibility, but compatibility is only as important as the mutual commitment is weak. (And let's face it, no one is perfectly strong - you better be somewhat compatible!)
Returning to my earlier example, my brother and his girlfriend seemed to have all the compatibility in the world. They were both attractive people, so it's not like either of them would be forever distracted and demoralized by how ugly their partner was. They shared interests, they enjoyed being together. What a waste to seek some potentially unattainable ideal just out of their reach.
We've all seen many hasty marriages between infatuated but immature children, that were doomed to failure because the participants weren't equipped with the wisdom or the desire to succeed. However, I seem to see just as many singles pining for love as they engage in serial pursuit of their ideal mate. I've also seen existing marriages break up because a formerly-perceived ideal is no longer met. The classic example in my neighborhood is the wife who chooses a divorce because her husband doesn't want to go to church anymore.
Sometimes I want to scream "Your happiness depends on your attitude, not on the perfection of your mate!!!"
Lowering your expectations isn't just for losers on SNL. It's for people that feel doomed to solitude because an item or two on the checklist remains unchecked.
I want people to find a companion and a partner. I want them to go ahead. Get with someone who's got a few rough spots, and when you know them well enough to rule out misery, make a commitment. Then love that person. Don't bother trying to perfect the other, just love. It works.
It's better than wishing for something you'll never get.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I completely agree. The key part there being someone that you love and enjoy being with. If every time you are with the other person you wish you were alone or anywhere but there, then getting married is a bad idea.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well said.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It does seem to me that if you believe prayer works, you ask your god "Should I marry this man?", and you get a negative reply, you'd be fairly stupid to ignore that. This is of course a very silly way to make major life decisions, but it's internally consistent.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I worked at a dating company for several years, and ultimately, this was one of the major reasons the people there didn't have partners. It isn't about lowering expectations, it's about having realistic expectations.
I obviously don't know the exact situation, but the idea that God didn't want them to be married just sounds like an excuse or justification to me. I saw lots of people who broke up because one person liked to ski, or hated fishing, or was 1 inch too short.
Either the person giving the excuse just isn't ready for a relationship, or doesn't like the person they're with (or themself) enough to want to stay with them, but they look for some tangible reason that they want to end the relationship, no matter how trivial or arbitrary.
People shouldn't lower their expectations in the sense that they settle for an inferior or unfulfilling relationship just to have any relationship. What people do need, is to be self-aware enough to see in themselves when they're just making up excuses or setting up unrealistic expectations in order to sabotage or prevent their own relationships.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:It does seem to me that if you believe prayer works, you ask your god "Should I marry this man?", and you get a negative reply, you'd be fairly stupid to ignore that. This is of course a very silly way to make major life decisions, but it's internally consistent.
You'd need a specific belief in both of the following: 1) God cares to answer that question 2) You'll correctly perceive the answer
In the case I was talking about, neither is guaranteed by the religious doctrine in question.
Edited to show what I was replying to.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There is usually a strong disconnect between the religious doctrine and what people actually believe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Baloney.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
I do believe that both men and women have hugely unrealistic expectations. [Thank you, corporate media and popular culture!]
However, while I agree compatability is important, and liking the person as well, did anyone mention love? Actual, deep-seated feelings of love. I don't mean "affection" [showing you care, not in this instance related to feelings] or active love-taking responsibility over what should be one of the best parts of your life to be an active participant to further the chances of something succeeding.
I do think people sabotage themselves. But, no matter how much people get along, no matter how "outwardly" perfect they are for each other, if there aren't actual, tangible feelings of deep love and affection [not the silly stuff in romance novels and movies], the relationship simply won't last.
As for your brother's girlfriend, either she was sabotaging herself, or, as previously stated, there was no real love there, or else it was just something that wasn't right.
You can't help who you love-and that works both ways. You can't get rid of the love for someone who isn't good for you just by willpower, and most certainly, no matter how hard you work, how much effort you put into it, you can't make yourself love somebody.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vyrus: You can't help who you love-and that works both ways. You can't get rid of the love for someone who isn't good for you just by willpower, and most certainly, no matter how hard you work, how much effort you put into it, you can't make yourself love somebody.
I disagree. To a large extent you certainly can.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Baloney.
Spam.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Vyrus: I would agree with rivka that we do have control to some degree over who we do and do not love.
If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me how you would differentiate what you call real love, from friendship, physical attraction, and the "silly stuff."
What would you say are the main differences in how a person feels that denotes "real" love vs. whatever other type there might be?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Vyrus, I'm with rivka. In fact that was one of my main points. You can choose who you love.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I don't think you get to choose your feelings. I do think you get to choose how to react to them - including the ability to deliberately think about something else instead. You can lessen its impact until it goes away, but the initial feeling still existed.
As for the specifics, I would probably say that friendship is comfort, infatuation is desire, and love is need. Friendship is a mutually beneficial relationship, taken in broad, general terms. Two people enjoy something about each other and weather various differences in order to return to the good times. People generally only keep a friendship as long as it's convenient.
Infatuation is a crush, pure and simple. Something about the person sparks something in you. Maybe it's sexual, maybe it isn't. But it's intense. Until it isn't, in which case you're over it and probably move on.
Love is less flashy and more enduring than either. It's wanting the best for that person, even if it's inconvenient for you. It's keeping in touch when you don't feel like it. Love is more primal. It hits on a level you can't necessarily explain.
Why do I love my parents? Why do I love my little sister who I didn't always like that much growing up? How can I even prove that I do? I can't. It's just there. I know I love them even though there's no evidence I can point to and say "There! That's love." Friends can transcend to that level, too. I think you know they have when you start describing them as "like family".
The husband's a different matter. I know I love him because I don't want to be with anyone else. I want to have him with me for the rest of our lives. I'm willing to set aside some of my own wants and desires and instead choose the options that are best for us as a single unit.
How is that different from possesiveness? Because if what was best was honestly for me to give him up, I would. I want him to be fulfilled and serene and joyous and content. I'm willing to help him have those things, but if I'm in the way, I'd rather stand aside so he could have them anyway.
I know I love my husband because I can't choose not to love him. I tried, back after high school. You know the bit in Bruce Almighty where Grace asks God to just make her not love Bruce anymore? Yeah, prayed that before. Didn't work. I couldn't get rid of him anymore than I could discard part of myself.
Romantic love is like a need. The person has almost become a force of nature to you. Having them is like having sunshine and rich earth. Not having them is a disaster that would take complete rebuilding to recover from.
In my opinion, anyway. Your milage may vary.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I don't think the difference between "This person drives me crazy and I want them to go away and never come back!" and "LOOOOOVE!" can be bridged by a conscious choice.
However, the difference between "I really love being around this person, but I've just got these doubts about marriage ..." and "LOOOOOVE!" most certainly can.
Either way, though, making a relationship work when you want it to is much harder than sabotaging a relationship That's why most people go for the latter.
[ January 23, 2009, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't think you get to choose your feelings. I do think you get to choose how to react to them - including the ability to deliberately think about something else instead. You can lessen its impact until it goes away, but the initial feeling still existed.
You can't always choose how you feel about something right now. But you can often choose whether to encourage, discourage, or change that feeling.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: You can't always choose how you feel about something right now. But you can often choose whether to encourage, discourage, or change that feeling.
I thought that was what I said. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The familial, attached, entrenched love that AvidReader wrote about is something that can be achieved with the right combination of time, commitment, and lack of "This person drives me crazy and I want them to go away and never come back!"
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Maybe this woman's answer was an excuse for something she couldn't quite put her finger on, something about someone else or if it was recent, maybe God/she will change his mind after they've been apart for a bit. I just hope this wasn't the first time she's expected God to answer.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
It makes sense for a religious person to consult God on big decisions like this. What doesn't make sense is telling the other person that God told you not to marry them. I mean seriously. How are they supposed to take that?
If you truly believe in the answer you received through prayer, then the right thing to do, in my mind, is to represent the decision as your own (because it IS, with or without God's influence), and not use God as a scapegoat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The only possible response: "Oh, honey, God's just jealous. He'll get over it."
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Vyrus: I would agree with rivka that we do have control to some degree over who we do and do not love.
If you wouldn't mind, could you tell me how you would differentiate what you call real love, from friendship, physical attraction, and the "silly stuff."
What would you say are the main differences in how a person feels that denotes "real" love vs. whatever other type there might be?
Avidreader, I do find many of your points valid and will be restating or paraphrasing some of them to a certain extent.
I'll begin by defining, in my opinion, the different terms used here. Physical attraction is an urge for physical, emotional, or sexual closeness with someone, either brought on by biological factors, or culturally condition norms. Biological factors here meaning=how we are biologically inclined to be attracted to certain features-face symmetry, good musculature, etc. And culturally conditioned meaning our predispositions to certain "types"-taller women, curvier women, men of color, men with facial hair-whatever personal preferences you may have developed throughout the course of your life.
Friendship is a conscious choice acted out by a want for non-sexual companionship with someone whose company you enjoy, whose traits you admire. The need for friendship, for social acceptance, is one ingrained in our DNA, and can therefore be very strong in some. Friends can be loved deeply, sometimes just as deeply or more deeply than family.
The "silly stuff" is the unrealistic media portrayal of a virtually unattainable, overly-sappy and dramatic love that lacks buildup, often relying on such matters as "fate", etc., and seemingly has no problems, and which doesn't have to be worked for.
Real love is a need, a yearning, a strong desire to be with someone, caring about them, wishing to protect them and see them happy. Sometimes this happens almost instinctively, like the love of a parent for a child, siblings, etc. People who you truly love, whether romantically, or through familial or other relationships, can often hurt you in ways no one else could because there is so much dedication and awareness of that other person that to lose them in any way can even damaging to your Self.
As for scifibum and rivka, love absolutely has to be worked for. The strongest relationships rarely ever happen overnight and they require strong dedication, patience, tolerance and a willingness from both parties to succeed.
So, I wasn't saying, although I may have phrased it poorly, that you couldn't improve love, work towards it, etc. Indeed, perhaps if more people realized this, truly recognized it, more marriages would last?
However, I do not think you can have a conscious decision to feel feelings for someone. You can dedicate yourself to them, allow feelings to culture and develop over time, but you cannot force your brain, your heart, your soul even, to love someone deeply and truly.
Nor can you force yourself to stop caring about someone, as that also takes time, patience, etc., with perseverance to work through the pain, problems, longing.
Neither of these things could happen overnight. If they could, there would be no spurned lovers, no heartbreak. Then again, love would largely lose its meaning, would cease to be as beautiful and all-encompassing as it is now for its complicated, and, perhaps even mysterious nature.
Is what I'm saying coming across coherently?
[ January 23, 2009, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: Vyrus ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
For my part, I find the fact that this woman felt that the lack of "divine inspiration" or whatever it was that she was looking for, was enough for her to see an end to the relationship, shows that the relationship was due to end. I very rarely believe that people who split up shouldn't split up- I think 98% of breakups are a good idea.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't remember the exact numbers, but scientists recently completed a long term study on couples and found that something like 10% of all couples maintain the same chemical reactions when they see each other (I think butterflies in the stomach is the best way to describe it) decades into their relationship. For the other 90% of us, those feelings fade after a couple of years, and we're left with hard work on our own parts to carry the load that used to be done by our brain chemistry.
I've been in relationships where the glow faded after awhile and the real work began. And I've been in long term relationships where that butterfly feeling never really went away. Sometimes you work harder than others, sometimes it's really easy, it just fits.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have extremely high expectations for mating. Luckily mating has lived up to my expectations. *leers*
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vyrus: However, I do not think you can have a conscious decision to feel feelings for someone. You can dedicate yourself to them, allow feelings to culture and develop over time, but you cannot force your brain, your heart, your soul even, to love someone deeply and truly.
Nor can you force yourself to stop caring about someone, as that also takes time, patience, etc., with perseverance to work through the pain, problems, longing.
Neither of these things could happen overnight.
This makes more sense to me. When you said that you can't decide to love someone or not to love someone, it sounds like what you meant is that you can't do so instantly - which I agree with.
You can, I think we agree, decide to devote yourself strongly to someone to deepen love for them, or decide to remove yourself from someone you know to be bad for you, even if you have feelings for them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have extremely high expectations for mating. Luckily mating has lived up to my expectations. *leers*
I have complicated expectations for mating, which I don't think are particularly high, but regardless, they seem to be difficult to meet. I don't need someone extremely attractive, but I obviously won't settle for someone I'm not attracted to. I want someone smart, kind of geeky (or very geeky), likes to read, would prefer to stay in and hang out instead of going out to the bar (this one seems to be the hardest to find around here), and has a good sense of humor.
No one I've met thus far that meets that description is single and lives within a 20 mile radius. But I think that lowering more than one of those requirements or removing them would make it difficult for me to get along with a woman over the long haul. It's far less about having a list of things that must be met for her to be my dream girl, and far more about these being the qualities that I think are important for a long lasting relationship if and when the glow of something new wears off. Sometimes high expectations really are more practical than vain.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Actually, if you were to drastically raise one of those parameters, it's likely that there would be plenty of girls on Hatrack that would meet the description. Unfortunately, said parameter is the 20 mile radius.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
'If nothing lasts forever then what makes love the exception?'
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I did raise that parameter, once, and it was rather excellent, except that particular parameter ended up being a stumbling block that could not be overcome.
In other words, long distance relationships, depending on the circumstances, are just too hard. Once I'm out of school, a year from now, I'd probably be more than willing to consider dramatically raising that parameter, but as moving is out of the question for me right now, it's just a recipe for heartache.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
Obviously, long distance relationships are very hard to keep up, especially those who have little other obligations [school, work] that are relatively inflexible, and low monetary funds for traveling.
I don't consider my expectations too high--just like you, I know what works and what doesn't.
There's has to be a level of attraction, no matter how actually "attractive" the person may be.
I like some level of compatibility-ie., has to has to be openminded, intelligent, funny, and unconventional in their dress and acts, but not overly so.
I know this sounds far too high, but I mainly want someone to fit this description-someone that understands me and laughs at my silly jokes.
Anyone ever feel this way?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I have complicated expectations for mating, which I don't think are particularly high, but regardless, they seem to be difficult to meet. I don't need someone extremely attractive, but I obviously won't settle for someone I'm not attracted to. I want someone smart, kind of geeky (or very geeky), likes to read, would prefer to stay in and hang out instead of going out to the bar (this one seems to be the hardest to find around here), and has a good sense of humor.
No one I've met thus far that meets that description is single and lives within a 20 mile radius. But I think that lowering more than one of those requirements or removing them would make it difficult for me to get along with a woman over the long haul. It's far less about having a list of things that must be met for her to be my dream girl, and far more about these being the qualities that I think are important for a long lasting relationship if and when the glow of something new wears off. Sometimes high expectations really are more practical than vain.
Sounds like you're describing my husband -- gender, marital status, and distance aside. The trouble with finding people that would prefer to stay inside is the obvious -- they aren't hanging out anywhere for you to meet! I met my husband in college...we parted and ended up together a few years later. In between those times, I had a very difficult time finding the kind of person I wanted. I dabbled in on-line dating but probably not seriously enough to make it work.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Yeah, I think that's a big part of the problem, Christine -- it's hard for us homebodies to meet each other. The internet is an exception, but then you run into geographical problems. Oh well.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Well, one thing I've discovered since leaving the dating scene is that on-line dating can work if you use services that allow you to hook up with people in your local area. It's just like an in-person dating service used to be except you can do it from your own home now. If I were single, I would sign up with one of the on-line dating services and look for people in my area with similar interests and expectations. I know a lot of people find this scary but I don't think it's any riskier than meeting a stranger at a bar...maybe less so. You chat on-line a bit, then meet someplace public for your first couple of dates, then decide from there.
I think at the time I was too nervous to try it, but I'm not really sure what I was afraid of. The stigma of meeting someone on-line? Maybe. It does have a bad reputation. But let's face it -- meeting people is tough for the most outgoing people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think in a couple years if I'm still single I'm going to give the online dating scene a serious look. I don't really have a lot of time or money right now, and won't for awhile, so trying that hard doesn't make sense, but, in a few years circumstances will be different, and I don't have any problem with online dating. I know there's a negative stigma attached to it, but, after spending so much time in an online community, and after several of my friends have met people through various online facilities, I personally don't see the problem with it.
I've already had to go through the whole "Oh I met her online" thing once from someone I dated, and after being a little hesitant at first, it really became no big deal at all after awhile. People might get weirded out if you say that you're dating someone who lives far away that you met on the internet if you've never actually met in person, like when you're in 8th grade and you swear you have a girlfriend who lives in Canada. But if you're just far apart but get the chance to see each other once in awhile, how you met matters less and less as time goes on, no matter who you run into who questions it.
I think the bad reputation is starting to turn the other way.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The fact that both I and my wife are homebodies has been difficult for us. Each of us wish that the other one were more extroverted. Of course, if the other one was, we very well might wish that they weren't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That'd be a careful balance to strike depending on how much of a homebody you are. I wouldn't want to date someone that wanted to go out way more than I did, otherwise I'd be uncomfortable, and if I forced her to stay home, I'd feel I was making her uncomfortable.
I'd guess you'd want one person to be just extroverted enough to coax the other person out but not so much that there's a strain put on the relationship.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The fact that both I and my wife are homebodies has been difficult for us. Each of us wish that the other one were more extroverted. Of course, if the other one was, we very well might wish that they weren't.
My husband and I love the fact that neither of us ever wants to leave the house.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think in a couple years if I'm still single I'm going to give the online dating scene a serious look. I don't really have a lot of time or money right now, and won't for awhile, so trying that hard doesn't make sense, but, in a few years circumstances will be different, and I don't have any problem with online dating. I know there's a negative stigma attached to it, but, after spending so much time in an online community, and after several of my friends have met people through various online facilities, I personally don't see the problem with it.
I've already had to go through the whole "Oh I met her online" thing once from someone I dated, and after being a little hesitant at first, it really became no big deal at all after awhile. People might get weirded out if you say that you're dating someone who lives far away that you met on the internet if you've never actually met in person, like when you're in 8th grade and you swear you have a girlfriend who lives in Canada. But if you're just far apart but get the chance to see each other once in awhile, how you met matters less and less as time goes on, no matter who you run into who questions it.
I think the bad reputation is starting to turn the other way.
People still tell me I was "brave" to marry a man I met online. And, well, meet a man I met online.
I tell them I would have missed out if I hadn't been willing to have a long-distance relationship with a guy I met online. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The fact that both I and my wife are homebodies has been difficult for us. Each of us wish that the other one were more extroverted. Of course, if the other one was, we very well might wish that they weren't.
Preferring to stay at home rather than go out to bars and parties is not the same thing as being an introvert. They often go hand in hand and I certainly am an introvert, but my husband isn't. It's more like when he meets someone, he'd just as soon have them over for an afternoon rather than go out on the town. This also works out to be cheaper.
As far as the on-line scene goes....I do know someone who met a girl in Canada and didn't meet for a long time. She ended up moving down here and they got married, though so even that can work out.
I don't recommend it, though. I would think the online dating services which let you hook up with locals would be better.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
scifibum: Alot of what you say I agree with. I personally am of the opinion that generally it is better to be married to a good person and make it work then to wait around excessively for the perfect or near perfect partner.
But like you said you are an outsider, you don't know everything that's going on. There can certainly be things about either person that you do not know about. We can't exactly analyze the woman's spiritual experience either. For all we know she has cold feet and used prayer as a convenient out when the pressure was on. Maybe there really is something about her or your brother that God knows will be important in the future.
Maybe you should give your brother some cash and have him take out a life insurance policy. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Preferring to stay at home rather than go out to bars and parties is not the same thing as being an introvert. They often go hand in hand and I certainly am an introvert, but my husband isn't. It's more like when he meets someone, he'd just as soon have them over for an afternoon rather than go out on the town. This also works out to be cheaper.
I think your husband and I would get along. I don't think any of my friends would describe me as an introvert. In social settings I'm generally close to the center of what's going on. Not that I'm the center of attention, but I'm not a wallflower either (except at parties where I don't know anyone). So long as there are people around that I know, I'm very much in the thick of things, I just don't like going out to do that, I'd rather people came over to my house. Plus I hate wasting the money at bars.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:It's far less about having a list of things that must be met for her to be my dream girl, and far more about these being the qualities that I think are important for a long lasting relationship if and when the glow of something new wears off.
I used to feel the same way, and had a pretty solid list of desired traits. Then I met my SO (soon to be fiance) and all of that started changing. She's a Republican Hannah Montana fan who gets her knews from Perez Hilton. She likes clubs, I like pubs. Complete opposite of me, but I know now that if I had let those preconcieved traits rule her out I would have missed out on something amazing. Don't rule anyone out.
I think both mushy romantic attraction and a will to be with someone regardless of flaws are necessary for lasting love. People change throughout their lives. If a relationship is based on personal characteristics, they may change. But Who A Person Really Is rarely changes.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Great legs and a National Honor Society pin were the initial attractions. It must have worked, we are going over 40 this year. EDIT: to add the rest of the Story.
[ January 26, 2009, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Artemisia Tridentata ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:It's far less about having a list of things that must be met for her to be my dream girl, and far more about these being the qualities that I think are important for a long lasting relationship if and when the glow of something new wears off.
I used to feel the same way, and had a pretty solid list of desired traits. Then I met my SO (soon to be fiance) and all of that started changing. She's a Republican Hannah Montana fan who gets her knews from Perez Hilton. She likes clubs, I like pubs. Complete opposite of me, but I know now that if I had let those preconcieved traits rule her out I would have missed out on something amazing. Don't rule anyone out.
I think both mushy romantic attraction and a will to be with someone regardless of flaws are necessary for lasting love. People change throughout their lives. If a relationship is based on personal characteristics, they may change. But Who A Person Really Is rarely changes.
I don't think I'd ever automatically black list someone just based on a set of qualifications. I guess it would depend though. If I'm reading a list of ten women who have different qualities, I'm going to first pick the ones who fit into my criteria. But if I randomly meet someone somewhere and we hit it off, I'm not going to subject her to a list and eliminate her from contention because she doesn't pass in some way. Chemistry is chemistry, I'm just playing the odds.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Actually, if you were to drastically raise one of those parameters, it's likely that there would be plenty of girls on Hatrack that would meet the description. Unfortunately, said parameter is the 20 mile radius.
Since I'm open to long distance relationships, I kind of figured (once I was over my divorce enough to be thinking about dating again) that my next serious relationship would be with somebody from the forums. I wasn't actively trying to make that happen; I just assumed that it would probably be how things would end up unfolding. I have more in common wth the people in the inter-related forums than I typically have with people I've met outside of them, so it just seemed like a natural thing. It didn't end up happening that way, though.
I am amused, though, that the person that I'm now in a (fantastic) relationship with, who I met by way of a free dating site (OKCupid), has lurked here in the past (though mostly she just came here to read Card's essays).
A snippet of conversation from our first date: Me: Actually, I spend quite a bit of time in online forums. Her: Oh? which ones? Me: Well, there's Hatrack... Her: (interrupting) Oh! You hang out in Mormon Land!" Me: No, I don't even lurk at Nauvoo. Her: (laughing) Fair enough.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:It's far less about having a list of things that must be met for her to be my dream girl, and far more about these being the qualities that I think are important for a long lasting relationship if and when the glow of something new wears off.
I used to feel the same way, and had a pretty solid list of desired traits. Then I met my SO (soon to be fiance) and all of that started changing. She's a Republican Hannah Montana fan who gets her knews from Perez Hilton. She likes clubs, I like pubs. Complete opposite of me, but I know now that if I had let those preconcieved traits rule her out I would have missed out on something amazing. Don't rule anyone out.
I think both mushy romantic attraction and a will to be with someone regardless of flaws are necessary for lasting love. People change throughout their lives. If a relationship is based on personal characteristics, they may change. But Who A Person Really Is rarely changes.
I don't think I'd ever automatically black list someone just based on a set of qualifications. I guess it would depend though. If I'm reading a list of ten women who have different qualities, I'm going to first pick the ones who fit into my criteria. But if I randomly meet someone somewhere and we hit it off, I'm not going to subject her to a list and eliminate her from contention because she doesn't pass in some way. Chemistry is chemistry, I'm just playing the odds.
We don't shop for relationships, we negotiate them.
In a negotiation, you find that some things are absolutely important to you and that others aren't as important as you thought...that you can live with someone who's a Republican as long as you don't talk politics, or as long as you can be polite about it, or as long as they don't quote Fox news to you.
On the other hand, you may find that other things just have to be. I, for one, could never be with someone who smokes. It stinks. And smells are very important to attraction.
I came into my marriage with a few preferences and a few demands. The process of dating several people before this relationship helped me to refine which were which.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I, for one, could never be with someone who smokes."
This is a pretty common requirement in my experience. I always wonder, do they mean they will not entertain the idea of forming a close physical relationship with a smoker, or do they mean that any existing close physical relationships will end if the other person takes up smoking?
While I would highly prefer for my wife not to take up smoking, and it might have prevented us getting together in the first place, I would not leave her if she did start smoking. I think staying together is more important than whether either of us smokes.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I imagine there's some of both, scifibum. I am not interested in dating a smoker, but I think if my hypothetical husband started smoking, I wouldn't divorce him. However, it might interfere with the physical part of the relationship -- if he always smelled like cigarette smoke, it would be a turn-off.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "I, for one, could never be with someone who smokes."
This is a pretty common requirement in my experience. I always wonder, do they mean they will not entertain the idea of forming a close physical relationship with a smoker, or do they mean that any existing close physical relationships will end if the other person takes up smoking?
While I would highly prefer for my wife not to take up smoking, and it might have prevented us getting together in the first place, I would not leave her if she did start smoking. I think staying together is more important than whether either of us smokes.
It is a little of both. I would never have entered into a relationship with my husband had he been a smoker. Now that we are together, I would consider his taking up smoking to be extremely disrespectful. Were he to bring that into our relationship, it would probably mean that we were in a state of such turbulence that he no longer cared how I felt. So it wouldn't be the smoking itself that would end the relationship, but the relationship would be in serious trouble if it got to that point.
Quite frankly, this is too hypothetical to really talk about. I just don't see an intelligent 32-year-old picking up smoking when it had never occurred to him to do it before, even if our relationship were in trouble.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:if he always smelled like cigarette smoke, it would be a turn-off.
Or you'd get used to it.
Every time I've gone to Vegas the whole place has stunk like a giant ashtray, but I've found that within a few hours I start to notice it less and if I'm there for more than a day or two it just kind of disappears into the background.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Quite frankly, this is too hypothetical to really talk about. I just don't see an intelligent 32-year-old picking up smoking when it had never occurred to him to do it before, even if our relationship were in trouble."
I've wondered, lately, whether I could use nicotine to help me get through periods of low energy and difficulty with concentration. I haven't taken up smoking, but it has occurred to me.
You're right that it's an unlikely scenario, of course.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "I, for one, could never be with someone who smokes."
This is a pretty common requirement in my experience. I always wonder, do they mean they will not entertain the idea of forming a close physical relationship with a smoker, or do they mean that any existing close physical relationships will end if the other person takes up smoking?
While I would highly prefer for my wife not to take up smoking, and it might have prevented us getting together in the first place, I would not leave her if she did start smoking. I think staying together is more important than whether either of us smokes.
Given how badly I react to cigarette smoke (allergies), I would probably divorce a spouse who started smoking -- simply in self-defense.
And we had a whole thread about this, neh?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I do wonder whether people in that thread equated smoking with "smoking in my immediate presence and blowing smoke all over me and those I hold dear" or if simply the residual smell of smoking is so offensive (and...allergenic) as to destroy the relationship all by itself. Lots of focus on allergies and health risks, so I kind of get the impression it was the former.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Most smokers are completely unaware of the degree to which they REEK for hours after a cigarette (or two).
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I do wonder whether people in that thread equated smoking with "smoking in my immediate presence and blowing smoke all over me and those I hold dear" or if simply the residual smell of smoking is so offensive (and...allergenic) as to destroy the relationship all by itself. Lots of focus on allergies and health risks, so I kind of get the impression it was the former.
Not at all. Cigarette smoke stays in clothes, hair, and skin forever and continues to be a problem to people who are close to the smoker -- ie spouse and kids. It continues to smell, continues to be a problem for those who have allergies, and continues to be a health risk.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've never heard that smoke residue in hair, skin and clothes is a health risk. I understand why it might be reasoned to be risky (if breathing it is bad, absorbing smoke deposits through skin contact might also be presumed to be bad), but has anyone demonstrated a risk scientifically? Quick google search didn't look as though anyone had. (There's a recent study in Pediatrics that examined attitudes toward this so-called 'third-hand smoke' which features prominently in search results but seems irrelevant to the question I'm asking.)
Just curious. I'd be a little surprised if smoke residue in clothing and furnishings turned out to be significantly risky. (Of course, I think the danger of secondhand smoke has been blown drastically out of proportion, and I don't filter my tap water either. )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Considering the known risk of airborne particulates in general, I don't think it's much of a stretch.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
SIDS risks increase if either parent smoke, regardless of whether or not they do so in the presence of the child.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
People who smoke reek of nicotine all the time. They're almost completely unaware of how much. Their hair smells like it, their clothes, etc. It stains their teeth. Their mouth tastes like a dirty ashtray. It's really vile. I wouldn't want a relationship with anyone who smoked, and if they started smoking after we were married, say, it would severely strain our relationship if not break it. The decision to smoke really puts one out of bounds for dating almost anyone who doesn't smoke.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"reek of nicotine"
I don't think the primary stench is of nicotine. I haven't heard that nicotine patches or gum have a reeking odor, anyway.
"Their mouth tastes like a dirty ashtray."
As I doubt you've both tasted a smoker's mouth and licked a dirty ashtray, I'm going to guess you're just speculating on this point.
I don't think the smell of tobacco smoke is unusually vile. I'd put it on a par with garlic and onions. I like the smell when it's fresh and in the air - at least in certain blends. I dislike it as a body perfume, but I can tolerate being around people who have smoked as well as I can stand being near someone who's been working in the kitchen of an Italian restaurant (and ate the food on their break). It can be unpleasant but I wouldn't call it vile.
I'm not sure why the odor of tobacco smoke results in such vehemence. Is it really that bad, or does disapproval of the activity get tied up in the perception of the side effects?
It'd hard to imagine it would ever have gained popularity if it was as bad as people make it out to be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
For some of us, at least, it really is that bad.
I remember when it became illegal to smoke on airline flights. I was so happy I cried. Smoke doesn't respect the boundary between the smoking and non-smoking section -- especially if you're in the next row over. I spent more than one flight as a kid completely sick to my stomach because of cigarette smoke.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I went to Vegas AFTER they passed the clean air laws. Whenever I went by a "designated smoking area" (which are not really that separate from the other areas) or a casino (which despite being completely open to the rest of the hotel, allow smoking) I had to use my inhaler and got a headache. I couldn't even eat at a table next to someone who'd been playing the slots, the smell of smoke was so bad.
Yeah, smoking would end any relationship I was in with a person, pretty fast.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I definitely wouldn't start a relationship with someone who smoked. I do not like how someone smells who smokes. I especially do not like a smoker's breath. It is one of my least favorite smells. And smoking brings plenty of baggage with it--the health issues, the guilt complex that's almost visible in every new cloud of smoke, and the eventual pains of quitting.
However, if my wife started smoking I wouldn't leave her. Of course not. I would try hard to help her stop. I would work with her and I would love her. But I wouldn't leave her. In terms of how much I value our relationship and how committed I am to her, smoking is a minor problem. I would hope she would continue to work with me through my shortcomings as well.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I dislike it any time I can smell somebody before I smell them. And when the smell is a bad smell, that's even worse.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
How do you feel about when you can see someone before you see them?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not as bad as when you hear someone before you hear them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
smoking noticeably has an effect on other byproducts besides saliva, too.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You're talking about ear wax, aren't you?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: How do you feel about when you can see someone before you see them?
I curse my typo's.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For some of us, at least, it really is that bad.
I remember when it became illegal to smoke on airline flights. I was so happy I cried.... I spent more than one flight as a kid completely sick to my stomach because of cigarette smoke.
What rivka said.
I remember going to the bathroom in the back of a plane once - the smoking section was in the back - and when I came out the drink cart was in the aisle, completely blocking it. I was trapped back there and had to wait for them to serve every passenger before I could get back to my seat. I got so sick to my stomach and headachey from the smell, that a nice passenger got up and let me sit in their seat and put my head down while I waited.
That said, I have known a couple people who smoked that it really didn't bother me. One was a co-worker who sat right next to me, and we knew she smoked, but you could never tell. I don't know what brand it was, but you couldn't even smell it when she came back in right after a smoke break. The other was a boy I dated in HS - and I don't know why, what was different about him, but on him it smelled good.
Mmm. Memories....
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I always wonder, do they mean they will not entertain the idea of forming a close physical relationship with a smoker, or do they mean that any existing close physical relationships will end if the other person takes up smoking?
The relationship would end, without question or exception. I think this is true for a lot of us.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For some of us, at least, it really is that bad.
I remember when it became illegal to smoke on airline flights. I was so happy I cried. Smoke doesn't respect the boundary between the smoking and non-smoking section -- especially if you're in the next row over. I spent more than one flight as a kid completely sick to my stomach because of cigarette smoke.
Sounds like you have an allergy?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:I always wonder, do they mean they will not entertain the idea of forming a close physical relationship with a smoker, or do they mean that any existing close physical relationships will end if the other person takes up smoking?
The relationship would end, without question or exception. I think this is true for a lot of us.
Look, I don't care what you'd do personally, but this is one of those areas where people make ridiculous statements about what they'd do. Perhaps you would do that, but I think a lot of us would entertain questions first. I'd love to see a breakdown of how people answer the questions: "what if your (whatever) took up racism" instead of smoking, and see where the chips would fall in that situation.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For some of us, at least, it really is that bad.
I remember when it became illegal to smoke on airline flights. I was so happy I cried. Smoke doesn't respect the boundary between the smoking and non-smoking section -- especially if you're in the next row over. I spent more than one flight as a kid completely sick to my stomach because of cigarette smoke.
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: You're talking about ear wax, aren't you?
Heh. yeah. And more directly to the point of mating expectations, it has an effect on vaginal secretions in a way which severely impacts the oral portion of sex play / activity.
To the extent that it is a lot of guys' primary concern when they find out that their date smokes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)