Topic: Would you settle
msharmony's photo
Tue 02/23/10 06:31 AM
I think people used to stay married because casual sex had more stigma to it and marriage was highly ENCOURAGED and communities supported the institution. Now , I think its more of every person for themself and an age where instant gratification is more encouraged than hard work or commitment. I think it also has plenty to do with the dismantling of traditional 'roles'. There was a purpose to marrying a man, when one could expect and the community would insist upon a provider. There was a purpose to marrying a woman, when one could expect and the community would insist upon a nurturer. The husband and wife complemented each other but now, like I said, everyone pretty much does it all for themself and doesnt feel a need or desire for anyone else to do it if it impedes their 'fun'.

RKISIT's photo
Tue 02/23/10 06:33 AM

I have a friend that believes 100% in the institution of marriage and has been married several times. The last time she got married (about 2 years ago) she admits there was no bells and whistles but she felt they were compatible. So far things have gone fairly well, I think anyway. Would you settle for someone that you were just compatible with? What are your thoughts on this ?
married several times and probably wants to get married again,maybe her beliefs is her reasons for so many divorces...and if i am compatible with someone isn't that the main reason you date them?

no photo
Tue 02/23/10 06:47 AM

I have a friend that believes 100% in the institution of marriage and has been married several times. The last time she got married (about 2 years ago) she admits there was no bells and whistles but she felt they were compatible. So far things have gone fairly well, I think anyway. Would you settle for someone that you were just compatible with? What are your thoughts on this ?


If I ever run across anyone who is remotely compatible, I'll have to deal with it then. I wouldn't get married again, regardless.


RKISIT's photo
Tue 02/23/10 06:50 AM


I have a friend that believes 100% in the institution of marriage and has been married several times. The last time she got married (about 2 years ago) she admits there was no bells and whistles but she felt they were compatible. So far things have gone fairly well, I think anyway. Would you settle for someone that you were just compatible with? What are your thoughts on this ?


If I ever run across anyone who is remotely compatible, I'll have to deal with it then. I wouldn't get married again, regardless.


remember compatibility is only 897,000 miles awaylaugh drinker

no photo
Tue 02/23/10 06:53 AM



I have a friend that believes 100% in the institution of marriage and has been married several times. The last time she got married (about 2 years ago) she admits there was no bells and whistles but she felt they were compatible. So far things have gone fairly well, I think anyway. Would you settle for someone that you were just compatible with? What are your thoughts on this ?


If I ever run across anyone who is remotely compatible, I'll have to deal with it then. I wouldn't get married again, regardless.


remember compatibility is only 897,000 miles awaylaugh drinker


No, that's just where the Cone Of Invisibility ends! I have no idea what's outside of that!


AGoodGuy1026's photo
Tue 02/23/10 06:55 AM

I think people used to stay married because casual sex had more stigma to it and marriage was highly ENCOURAGED and communities supported the institution. Now , I think its more of every person for themself and an age where instant gratification is more encouraged than hard work or commitment. I think it also has plenty to do with the dismantling of traditional 'roles'. There was a purpose to marrying a man, when one could expect and the community would insist upon a provider. There was a purpose to marrying a woman, when one could expect and the community would insist upon a nurturer. The husband and wife complemented each other but now, like I said, everyone pretty much does it all for themself and doesnt feel a need or desire for anyone else to do it if it impedes their 'fun'.


I respect this perspective, but I do hope dearly it is not correct...

$.02 drinker

RKISIT's photo
Tue 02/23/10 07:01 AM
Edited by RKISIT on Tue 02/23/10 07:02 AM




I have a friend that believes 100% in the institution of marriage and has been married several times. The last time she got married (about 2 years ago) she admits there was no bells and whistles but she felt they were compatible. So far things have gone fairly well, I think anyway. Would you settle for someone that you were just compatible with? What are your thoughts on this ?


If I ever run across anyone who is remotely compatible, I'll have to deal with it then. I wouldn't get married again, regardless.


remember compatibility is only 897,000 miles awaylaugh drinker


No, that's just where the Cone Of Invisibility ends! I have no idea what's outside of that!


so your theory of "the Cone of Invisibility" ends at approximately 897,000 miles and beyond that is unknown,do you have maybe a possible theory of whats beyond this cone?:smile:

msharmony's photo
Tue 02/23/10 07:08 AM


I think people used to stay married because casual sex had more stigma to it and marriage was highly ENCOURAGED and communities supported the institution. Now , I think its more of every person for themself and an age where instant gratification is more encouraged than hard work or commitment. I think it also has plenty to do with the dismantling of traditional 'roles'. There was a purpose to marrying a man, when one could expect and the community would insist upon a provider. There was a purpose to marrying a woman, when one could expect and the community would insist upon a nurturer. The husband and wife complemented each other but now, like I said, everyone pretty much does it all for themself and doesnt feel a need or desire for anyone else to do it if it impedes their 'fun'.


I respect this perspective, but I do hope dearly it is not correct...

$.02 drinker



i also must add that the emphasis has been taken off of emotional compatibility and our culture has begun to focus on something called 'sexual chemistry'. People are chosing partners many times because of an obsession with the sexual part of the relationship instead of things which are more 'substantial' like friendship, compatibility, emotional and intellectual chemistry,,,etc,,,

AGoodGuy1026's photo
Tue 02/23/10 07:31 AM



I think people used to stay married because casual sex had more stigma to it and marriage was highly ENCOURAGED and communities supported the institution. Now , I think its more of every person for themself and an age where instant gratification is more encouraged than hard work or commitment. I think it also has plenty to do with the dismantling of traditional 'roles'. There was a purpose to marrying a man, when one could expect and the community would insist upon a provider. There was a purpose to marrying a woman, when one could expect and the community would insist upon a nurturer. The husband and wife complemented each other but now, like I said, everyone pretty much does it all for themself and doesnt feel a need or desire for anyone else to do it if it impedes their 'fun'.


I respect this perspective, but I do hope dearly it is not correct...

$.02 drinker



i also must add that the emphasis has been taken off of emotional compatibility and our culture has begun to focus on something called 'sexual chemistry'. People are chosing partners many times because of an obsession with the sexual part of the relationship instead of things which are more 'substantial' like friendship, compatibility, emotional and intellectual chemistry,,,etc,,,


very insightful observation...

$.02 drinker

TheShadow's photo
Tue 02/23/10 07:42 AM
Why would I make myself unhappy and put someone else through the emotions.

no photo
Tue 02/23/10 08:29 AM

so your theory of "the Cone of Invisibility" ends at approximately 897,000 miles and beyond that is unknown,do you have maybe a possible theory of whats beyond this cone?:smile:


My suspicion is that all of the compatible women who would like me are there, but that's based on nothing but guesswork and some random voodoo procedures.


Goofball73's photo
Tue 02/23/10 08:38 AM
At this point in my life, their is no way I am gonna settle for "just anyone". I would rather concentrate on work, career, and spending time with family and friends than to just settle for a woman that "could" be right for me. I am not opposed to her finding me. I just don't believe that she exists anymore. I could be wrong, and if I am proven wrong, then so be it. I will be extremely happy if that happens. But I am also happy with myself. So much so that settling for just any girl is out of the question.

RKISIT's photo
Tue 02/23/10 08:45 AM
Edited by RKISIT on Tue 02/23/10 08:50 AM


so your theory of "the Cone of Invisibility" ends at approximately 897,000 miles and beyond that is unknown,do you have maybe a possible theory of whats beyond this cone?:smile:


My suspicion is that all of the compatible women who would like me are there, but that's based on nothing but guesswork and some random voodoo procedures.


well you now probably have the attention of some physicist,astronomers,and a few witch doctors on this extraordinary suspicion, please keep i and others informed if these suspicions have become verifiablelaugh drinker

misswright's photo
Tue 02/23/10 08:48 AM
Interesting question.

Call me selfish, but I want what I want. I'm not settling for anything less...bigsmile

And what I want is to find someone compatible...so this is a trick question!grumble

Would I marry someone that was "just compatible"? Maybe I'm confused but doesn't the word compatible imply two people who share similar viewpoints, wants, and goals in life?

Hell yeah, I'd marry someone like that! If you're truly compatible, I'd think that would give ya the bells and whistles syndrome you speak of, though I've never actually experienced that particular phenomenon. Well, short of that one time the ex caught me with a right hook and I saw stars for a sec, but I don't think that counts.

But I digress... to answer the question...No. Yes. Maybe? laugh

I don't know! I haven't found anyone compatible and I think I'm more apt to empty the ocean with a teaspoon before I do, so I'll cross that bridge when I get there, most likely with a walker and oxygen tank attached at this rate. ohwell

no photo
Tue 02/23/10 11:36 AM

uhmmm.... if she believed 100% in the instituation of marriage, she would still be married to her first husband....


Exactly! :thumbsup:


People are chosing partners many times because of an obsession with the sexual part of the relationship instead of things which are more 'substantial' like friendship, compatibility, emotional and intellectual chemistry,,,etc,,,


Well said! smile2 I also think that some of these dating sites (eharmony/chemistry.com come to mind) feed into exactly what you're saying. It's good business for them to let people become involved in short term relationships. Relationships based in friendship, value system, intellectual chemistry, etc... tend to last a lifetime. There's no repeat business in it for these places if that happens...

CatsLoveMe's photo
Tue 02/23/10 02:04 PM
Compatible? Do you mean getting along with? Or being exactly like you? A guy likes sports and cars, and you like gossip and shopping. Not compatible? A guy likes video games and poker, you like cooking and craft-making. Not compatible? When are people going to realize that your perfect mate probably won't have any similar interests to yours. That's what makes the whole relationship so unique. You have everything to share with them and they have everything to share with you. Embrace it, draw wisdom from it, and both of you will grow stronger from it.

EquusDancer's photo
Tue 02/23/10 02:11 PM

Compatible? Do you mean getting along with? Or being exactly like you? A guy likes sports and cars, and you like gossip and shopping. Not compatible? A guy likes video games and poker, you like cooking and craft-making. Not compatible? When are people going to realize that your perfect mate probably won't have any similar interests to yours. That's what makes the whole relationship so unique. You have everything to share with them and they have everything to share with you. Embrace it, draw wisdom from it, and both of you will grow stronger from it.


I would say that not ALL interests are the same, but some certainly need to be. After all, if I met a guy who didn't like traveling, then what fun is him sitting home while I go take a vacation out of country. The interest in traveling should be there, even if it's not as extreme. I certainly wouldn't stop doing my interests if he didn't like them.

Of course, some differnt interests are good, certainly. I'm not as up on politics, but enjoy talking about and learning from somone who genuinely seems to care. Of course, it it went beyond interest to obsession, that might be another problem.

Dragoness's photo
Tue 02/23/10 02:18 PM

I have a friend that believes 100% in the institution of marriage and has been married several times. The last time she got married (about 2 years ago) she admits there was no bells and whistles but she felt they were compatible. So far things have gone fairly well, I think anyway. Would you settle for someone that you were just compatible with? What are your thoughts on this ?


I believe that if I could meet someone that we got along really well, had good communication and mutual respect, I would consider bypassing fireworks and swooning for this comfortableness.

Physical attractedness will still have to be there too but I don't need the totally out of control attraction. Been there and done that.

CatsLoveMe's photo
Tue 02/23/10 02:21 PM


Compatible? Do you mean getting along with? Or being exactly like you? A guy likes sports and cars, and you like gossip and shopping. Not compatible? A guy likes video games and poker, you like cooking and craft-making. Not compatible? When are people going to realize that your perfect mate probably won't have any similar interests to yours. That's what makes the whole relationship so unique. You have everything to share with them and they have everything to share with you. Embrace it, draw wisdom from it, and both of you will grow stronger from it.


I would say that not ALL interests are the same, but some certainly need to be. After all, if I met a guy who didn't like traveling, then what fun is him sitting home while I go take a vacation out of country. The interest in traveling should be there, even if it's not as extreme. I certainly wouldn't stop doing my interests if he didn't like them.

Of course, some differnt interests are good, certainly. I'm not as up on politics, but enjoy talking about and learning from somone who genuinely seems to care. Of course, it it went beyond interest to obsession, that might be another problem.



So you've sort of opened a door here. A man you're dating is very interested in sports but you are not. This man takes you to a sporting event and you see the action and the drama live, but you don't see what all the excitement is about. Isn't it better to learn a little about what makes him happy than to put your foot down and say that his interests bore me, more important? We should be extending olive branches, not putting up fences.

EquusDancer's photo
Tue 02/23/10 02:29 PM



Compatible? Do you mean getting along with? Or being exactly like you? A guy likes sports and cars, and you like gossip and shopping. Not compatible? A guy likes video games and poker, you like cooking and craft-making. Not compatible? When are people going to realize that your perfect mate probably won't have any similar interests to yours. That's what makes the whole relationship so unique. You have everything to share with them and they have everything to share with you. Embrace it, draw wisdom from it, and both of you will grow stronger from it.


I would say that not ALL interests are the same, but some certainly need to be. After all, if I met a guy who didn't like traveling, then what fun is him sitting home while I go take a vacation out of country. The interest in traveling should be there, even if it's not as extreme. I certainly wouldn't stop doing my interests if he didn't like them.

Of course, some differnt interests are good, certainly. I'm not as up on politics, but enjoy talking about and learning from somone who genuinely seems to care. Of course, it it went beyond interest to obsession, that might be another problem.



So you've sort of opened a door here. A man you're dating is very interested in sports but you are not. This man takes you to a sporting event and you see the action and the drama live, but you don't see what all the excitement is about. Isn't it better to learn a little about what makes him happy than to put your foot down and say that his interests bore me, more important? We should be extending olive branches, not putting up fences.


Certainly. And I have done so, depsite the fact that sports doesn't interest me. But most of the sports guys I've met tend to go into the fanatical obsessive aspect of it, even if they were hiding it before.

My motto tends to be "I'm willing to try anything once, but if it doesn't interest me, then I'm not going to fake it."

If you are living in two areas of the house, because neither of your interests are enjoyed by the other person, it may be time to rethink the relationship.