Which type would you like to settle down with?

[Saul]

Was having this discussion with my friend today. We talked about a guy who has a perfect wife, great family but maybe doesn't connect with his wife as he might do with other people. But we thought if he had ended up with more his type of woman the relationship would fail because he couldn't get on with or trust a more wild person.

So what's the person you wanna spend your life with?
It's great to have that perfect match. But what if your match was unmatchable with itself?

Would you go for the person you always get on with, easy to talk to, the life of the party, that crazy nut.
The one that will surprise you. That will try anything with you. That always laughs with you and has fun with you.
But you might have to worry about if you can trust a crazy person. They have a bit of a History that you don't like. Could such a relationship last long down the road.

Or would you be more secure in going for the fairy tale partner, the one you know would never let you down because of their moral standards, the one you wanna show off to your friends and family and not have to worry about what might come out of their mouth.
But then you can't express your true self fully for worry of scaring them off or upsetting them. You might have less in common but you respect them and you know that you'll probably have a long stable future with them.

Which is important to you guys?

 

[An Officer]

I'll take both.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Kind of a silly poll considering the first option is unrealistic, impossible, and temporary at best.

 

[Saul]

Kind of a silly poll considering the first option is unrealistic, impossible, and temporary at best.

Maybe for you. But we can't say the same for everyone, Rob.

 

[auntiehill]

The poll doesn't apply to me. Someone I really connected with would have to be stable, good, committed to the relationship AND be someone I had a lot in common with. But he would NOT be "wild" because I'm not, either.

Great looks has never been on my wish list, since I'm not good looking, either. I like the way hubby looks because I like HIM. Maybe I'm unusual that way, because I find attractive the people I love, rather than loving the people that I find attractive.

The person I DID settle down with, my hubby, is a good person, ethically, and stable and committed. I have lots of fun with him BECAUSE we have lots in common; so he is both some of choice 1 and some of choice 2.

 

[Gaith]

How does:

Fairy tale, great looks, good, pure person, stable, committed.

Match up with

But you might have to worry about if you can trust a crazy person.



Is Woman 1 stable or not?!

 

[Scout101]

ideally, a mixture of the two, right?

Back when i was dating, i'd tend to yo-yo between the two, now that I can sit back and reflect on it. I'd pick the nice, sweet girl, but get a bit bored eventually, and go too far the other way, with someone wild and crazy, fun to be around, but exhausting and/or nuts. Would then tend towards someone a little more sane and grounded, and back and forth I'd go.

Eventually found someone with a good mixture of fun and sane

 

[thestrangequark]

Was having this discussion with my friend today. We talked about a guy who has a perfect wife, great family but maybe doesn't connect with his wife as he might do with other people. But we thought if he had ended up with more his type of woman the relationship would fail because he couldn't get on with or trust a more wild person.

So what's the person you wanna spend your life with?
It's great to have that perfect match. But what if your match was unmatchable with itself?

Would you go for the person you always get on with, easy to talk to, the life of the party, that crazy nut.
The one that will surprise you. That will try anything with you. That always laughs with you and has fun with you.
But you might have to worry about if you can trust a crazy person. They have a bit of a History that you don't like. Could such a relationship last long down the road.

Or would you be more secure in going for the fairy tale partner, the one you know would never let you down because of their moral standards, the one you wanna show off to your friends and family and not have to worry about what might come out of their mouth.
But then you can't express your true self fully for worry of scaring them off or upsetting them. You might have less in common but you respect them and you know that you'll probably have a long stable future with them.

Which is important to you guys?

As a crazy person I resent the implication that I am untrustworthy and have low moral standards.

 

[Franklin]

I think I'd probably go ahead and have a wild affair with the "fun" one for as long as the ride lasted, so that in my comparatively safe and boring fairy tale life I'll have some good memories to look back on. Best of both worlds, eh?

 

[Deranged Nasat]

It's been suggested to me in the past that I have unrealistic expectations of my future relationships; specifically, of having in mind a hypothetical model of a wife who can't really exist, and of being both too picky with actual partners and degrading to myself because I feel I can't live up to her presumed standard. That is, I won't be able to offer this hypothetical woman anything approaching what she brings to me.

In keeping with your question, it's interesting to consider how we relate to safety and adventure in relationships, because I believe on some level most of us want a mix; the thrill and excitement of an intimate relationship alongside the trust and support. Maybe it's an instinctive holdout from the days when mating involved getting close to a potentially dangerous animal; I don't know. But it always seems to factor some way into our choices. In my case, it's particularly interesting because I've never been very sexually driven - mating is a spiritual act much, much more than a physically pleasurable one (though I'm sure that's an added bonus). To me, an intimate relationship has to be solid, built on total trust, loyalty and stability. It's a sacred bond and something I hold in highest esteem. So in that sense I'm situated on the extreme arm of the "stable and safe, secure and trustful" side of the question. However, it's interesting too how attracted I am to women who also live a bit dangerously - not in that sense, but the "model" wife I spoke of, in her general character and role in life, seems to introduce that other side of things - at least in potential - back into our life together, if not into the relationship between us. If that makes sense.

In my own way, I seem to want the best of both worlds too, even though I'm weighted towards one extreme. I find that intriguing.

 

[captcalhoun]

i want to find someone who shares at least 50% of my interests and will tolerate the other 50% and who i find at least resonably attractive if not stunningly gorgeous and who finds me the same and in whom i can tolerate the 50% of their interests i don't share.

is that unreasonable?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Kind of a silly poll considering the first option is unrealistic, impossible, and temporary at best.

Maybe for you. But we can't say the same for everyone, Rob.

Actually, I can.

First off, "fairy tales" are bullshit. If you think a relationship is like a fairy tale for any appreciable length of time, you're wrong. It may seem like one at first but that doesn't last. "Great looks" also don't last forever. Being a "pure person" is really subjective and an exceedingly difficult thing to achieve over a lifetime. Everybody makes mistakes and screws up. "Stable," sure. "Committed," sure. Those are qualities you might be able to find for the long haul.

The second option is much more realistic and isn't based on "Hollywood" ideas of what relationships should be like.

 

[Mistral]

i want to find someone who shares at least 50% of my interests and will tolerate the other 50% and who i find at least resonably attractive if not stunningly gorgeous and who finds me the same and in whom i can tolerate the 50% of their interests i don't share.

is that unreasonable?

Sounds like you have a healthy approach to the concept of marriage, as all marriages that work involve compromise.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

i want to find someone who shares at least 50% of my interests and will tolerate the other 50% and who i find at least resonably attractive if not stunningly gorgeous and who finds me the same and in whom i can tolerate the 50% of their interests i don't share.

is that unreasonable?

It sounds very sensible to me.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Neither - the last thing I want to do is settle down with anyone. My marriage ended 26 years ago, and though I have had a handful of boyfriends since then I have never been really interested in having a serious relationship.

 

[Kestra]

I take what I can get.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'll go for Option 2: Someone I really connect with, who is wild, fun and has lots in common with me.

Of course, my idea of "wild and fun" revolves around the Arts & Sciences, so we're talking about a babe who reads Foundation during the week and Dangerous Visions on weekends.

 

[Candlelight]

Is Woman 1 stable or not?!

Maybe that's what then 'committed' part is about.

 

[Saul]

Thanks for the answers. I agree 50/50 is a good match but I think a little difficult.

How does:

Fairy tale, great looks, good, pure person, stable, committed.

Match up with

But you might have to worry about if you can trust a crazy person.



Is Woman 1 stable or not?!

Woman 1 is stable.
The Crazy person refers to woman 2.

As a crazy person I resent the implication that I am untrustworthy and have low moral standards.

sorry.

Kind of a silly poll considering the first option is unrealistic, impossible, and temporary at best.

Maybe for you. But we can't say the same for everyone, Rob.

Actually, I can.

First off, "fairy tales" are bullshit. If you think a relationship is like a fairy tale for any appreciable length of time, you're wrong.

You're taking the word fairy tale too literally and running with it.

But interestingly enough more people have gone for ”Fairy tale" so far.

 

[Cicero]

The poll doesn't apply to me. Someone I really connected with would have to be stable, good, committed to the relationship AND be someone I had a lot in common with. But he would NOT be "wild" because I'm not, either.

I feel the same way.