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.
The “I’m not happy” was just the opposite for me. I settled down with someone exciting and attractive, who never grew up and didn’t quit partying. There’s a time and place for everything, people change, not always through selfishness, but sometimes selflessness.
You found him attractive, that's very good. But you were looking for the stability he couldn't deliver. Hence, "not happy". Honest mistake and nobody's fault, but still.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
You found him attractive, that's very good. But you were looking for the stability he couldn't deliver. Hence, "not happy". Honest mistake and nobody's fault, but still.
Which is it then? Lack of stability makes someone unhappy? Or too much stability and not enough party makes someone unhappy?
You're saying both, which renders your point pretty invalid.
Which is it then? Lack of stability makes someone unhappy? Or too much stability and not enough party makes someone unhappy?
You're saying both, which renders your point pretty invalid.
Why not both? Each scenario consists of failing to get what you're looking for: excitement and stability. But excitement doesn't build a comfortable life, and stability doesn't trigger emotional arousal. The sad part is, it's very hard to find both in one man.
Which is it then? Lack of stability makes someone unhappy? Or too much stability and not enough party makes someone unhappy?
You're saying both, which renders your point pretty invalid.
People marry for different reasons, and sometimes it is a reaction to something else, and therefore, they marry for the wrong reasons, although they aren't aware of it at the time. Perhaps my experience will illustrate; it is very similar to the children's story, "The Three Bears":
1. I married my first husband when I was 18 to get out of my parents' house and because I thought no one else would want me. (I had very low self-esteem.) He was 21, and he married me because he thought I was the best he could get, too. Of course, we did convince ourselves we were in love, but in hindsight, NO, we weren't. My husband proved to be very unstable in employment. He would quit a job if he was bored, so the longest job he had was for about six months. He was also exceedingly introverted. (I'm introverted, too, but compared to him, I was an extrovert.) I craved stability and a little more excitement. We divorced four years later.
2. My second husband was Mr. Party Animal and inherited a small family business that went back about 20 years, I think. He was the exact opposite of my first husband, but unfortunately, Mr. Party Animal had a roving eye. We divorced after six years.
3. My current husband is "just right". He has been in the same field for over 35 years. He is loving, faithful, and very affectionate; and we are very compatible; and we have now been married for 31 years, after living together for three years.
Last edited by katharsis; 12-18-2018 at 10:34 AM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by MillennialUrbanist
Why not both? Each scenario consists of failing to get what you're looking for: excitement and stability. But excitement doesn't build a comfortable life, and stability doesn't trigger emotional arousal. The sad part is, it's very hard to find both in one man.
If you're saying its both, you're pretty much saying a woman actually doesn't know what they want. If they think they want stability, they won't be happy once they get it and they'll crave excitement. If they want excitement and get it, they'll crave stability. Effectively, you're being dismissive of women and saying they actually don't know what they want and aren't ever going to be happy.
That's pretty crappy, and inaccurate. I see no shortage of couples that healthily balance both stability and support, and have a fun exciting life at the same time and there isn't really any shortage of healthy and stable people out there that lead fun, fulfilling lives.
[quote=timberline742;53916674]If you're saying its both, you're pretty much saying a woman actually doesn't know what they want. If they think they want stability, they won't be happy once they get it and they'll crave excitement. If they want excitement and get it, they'll crave stability. Effectively, you're being dismissive of women and saying they actually don't know what they want and aren't ever going to be happy.
[/quot]
I think this is only the case if excitement and stability are mutually exclusive.
Quote:
That's pretty crappy, and inaccurate. I see no shortage of couples that healthily balance both stability and support, and have a fun exciting life at the same time and there isn't really any shortage of healthy and stable people out there that lead fun, fulfilling lives.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,951,955 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodynew
Which I think is what you are saying?
Yeah, I'm saying stability and fun are hardly mutually exclusive. In addition, finding men and women that are capable of and have plenty of both in their life is hardly an uncommon occurrence.
Yeah, I'm saying stability and fun are hardly mutually exclusive. In addition, finding men and women that are capable of and have plenty of both in their life is hardly an uncommon occurrence.
And a good relationship isn't some kind of bait-and-switch where you're tricked into committing to something (and someone) you don't want.
Not going to happen. Yes this is who I am. Yes, I suck at making someone feel needed. If you are dependent on me bringing you happiness, you will be disappointed. Yes I have kids. And they will be more important than you. Yes I have pets. They are also towards the top of my priority list. No I do not cook. I have not starved at any point in the last forty years, so no it is not a problem.
Just tell this part to anyone that you are thinking of dating. I would gurantee that once a potential SO finds out that he will be less important to you than your pets, he will not stick around for long.
So are you even interested in dating? It sounds like you potential romantic partner would be such a low priority to you that it would not make sense for him to stick around...
Last edited by DefiantNJ; 12-18-2018 at 10:16 AM..
And a good relationship isn't some kind of bait-and-switch where you're tricked into committing to something (and someone) you don't want.
Oh ****. I've been doing it wrong.
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.
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.
