Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think there is a huge difference between having realistic standards and settling.
Settling, to me, means having a relationship with someone who just doesn't feel 'right' to you, or who doesn't have basic characteristics that you need in order to be content in a relationship. It means committing to being at least a bit unhappy, all the time.
Thanks for the clarification, I do agree with you.
What if what you want isn't realistic? Isn't it smart to revise your standards if they aren't realistic in the first place?
^^^This.
To me, settling implies taking whatever you can get, whether you want it or not, because you don't perceive another option.
IMO, "lowering" your standards is more a reflection on you rather than the person you're interested in. If no one ever measures up to your standards, odds are yours are too high, rather than everyone else not being good enough.
A lot of people talk about lowering your standards, or settling for someone who isn't really what you want.
But is that even really possible? For you?
I don't think I could sustain a relationship for three months, let alone 30 years, with someone I didn't really want to be with. The whole thing would be like fingernails on a blackboard to me. Is this just because I am a bit of an introvert?
There has to be room for some compromise in any relationship. There are some things I can work with and others where I won't budge. I say if you are willing to be alone for however long it takes to get what you want, have at it. Some people are just plain unrealistic but, again, they have to be willing to live with their choices. But I can't see being with someone I didn't really want to be with. I don't know why anyone would go that route. That's settling, big time.
I don't really even have standards, I have a few deal breakers and most everything else is negotiable.
So settling for me would be having someone who violates those deal breakers and I have to live with that, which means I am not physically attracted to that person, and I have to find a way to be around her while sh's smoking, which I don't see either working for me, so I probably am unable to settle in this regard.
I can't compromise on the big three, or at least the first two of the big three: child-free, atheist/agnostic/secular, and thrifty attitude towards money (or at least my money). Everything else, including physical appearance, is up for compromise.
Unlike most others here, I'd rather have a partner who strongly deviates from my theoretical desires, than no partner at all. But I'm a bit older, surrounded by married people whose concerns revolve around their own families; and I have very few living relatives (and none within a day's drive). For me a partner is less about sex or romance than about simple companionship.
Look wise yes I can settle. Morals wise, nope and I would rather die alone with 100 cats (which then technically wouldn't be dying alone if I have cats).
Nope.
I'm perfectly happy and content being alone and will only choose to be with someone if they add to my life and make it better.
Right now, I don't see that happening so I'm planning on being alone for the foreseeable future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.