Choose someone who loves you more than you love them?

[Star Gazer]

There was an episode of Sex and the City where Carrie attends a wedding of an old friend. When the bride greets Carrie, she says something to the effect of, "It's always better to marry someone who loves you more than you love them."

 

Recently, a friend was giving me advice about my own situation. She suggested I find a rebound, and specifically said the following words: "You know what you should do? Pick the guy that loves you and you're totally not into him, because you will learn to love him and he'll treat you like a princess for the rest of your life. THAT's the kind of guy you should be with anyway."

 

Good idea, or not? Applicable only to women, or men as well? Discuss.

[sunshinegirl]

Ick. That's an incredibly selfish attitude.

 

How crappy to be the guy who one day realizes that he loves his wife much, much more than she has ever loved him.

[blind_otter]

My mother always told me - never marry a man you are in love with. Marry a man who is a good companion, a hard worker, a good father, a good provider, one who is faithful and honorable...all that crap.

 

I guess it worked well for her. She was married 30+ years before my Dad died.

 

Didn't work for me though.

[sunshinegirl]

My mother always told me - never marry a man you are in love with. Marry a man who is a good companion, a hard worker, a good father, a good provider, one who is faithful and honorable...all that crap.

 

Are those things mutually exclusive?

[tanbark813]

I've thought about this sort of thing in the past. I think if you pick someone who's more into you than you are into them it can definitely work. Most of the time it's at least slightly unbalanced anyway. That being said, to intentionally seek out someone who is going to be more into you than you are into them indicates fear of getting hurt and trying to minimize that. The more you love someone, the more pain they can cause should they leave. To look for someone who will be more into you than vice versa is going the safe route.

 

I don't think that it would work long-term if person A loves person B and person B is "totally not into" person A. Sooner or later person A will pick up on that and/or become resentful and then the downward spiral begins. There can be some imbalance but it can't be 100%/0% or even 90%/10%.

 

I also think that it generally applies to men and women--that is, both men and women can be successful with this strategy--but I think it would probably work a little better for women. Just from general observation it seems like the degree to which a woman is into a man is based 60% on how he treats her and 40% on how they feel about him independent of how he behaves whereas men are the opposite. How a man feels about a woman is 60% how he feels about her independent of interaction and 40% on how she treats him. It seems like, in general, women are primarily concerned with how much a man is into her and men are primarily concerned with how much he's into the woman.

 

(That last sentence sounds like I made a typo but I didn't. I just couldn't think of a clean way of phrasing it. )

[Star Gazer]

It seems like, in general, women are primarily concerned with how much a man is into her and men are primarily concerned with how much he's into the woman.

 

(That last sentence sounds like I made a typo but I didn't. I just couldn't think of a clean way of phrasing it. )

 

Actually, that makes a ton of sense, and I tend to agree...

[Mustang Sally]

I do not think it is wise to try to start a relationship with someone that you think might love you more than you love them. I've dated guys like this in the past. It never went well. I may even be married to one now (though it didn't start out that way). Anyway, my point is...I think anyone with any kind of conscience or desire for a truly healthy relationship is eventually going to have problems with (significantly) lopsided relationships.

 

FWIW, I don't see you as the type of person to thrive in a relationship like that. I see you as someone that wants to be in a mutually satisfying relationship with someone that you know is going to "have your back" (as another friend told me recently ) when you need him to, and even when you don't.

 

And that is what I'd hold out for, if I were you, Star. I do believe that you'll find him. Maybe even when you least expect it?

 

Happy thoughts, and I wish you the best.

[Star Gazer]

Thanks, MS.

 

I really do wonder about this though.

 

Most of the women I know who are in unhappy relationships are aware of an imbalance - they either consciously or subconsciously know that they care more for their BF/H than the other way around.

 

On the other hand, the men I know who are in happy relationships willingly admit that they probably adore their GF/W more so than vice versa. They seem to be okay with this.

 

It seems there's a slight advantage to this sort of mindset. Isn't there always at least a slight imbalance? I mean, if we were able to quantify or measure love, would we find that there's always a slight disparity? If so, why not choose the side that provides us with greater safety?

 

Personally, I've been in a few relationships - short lived - where it was obvious that the dude was way more into me than I was to him, and it was a huge turnoff. However, the relationships where I remain sucked in, unable to leave, and just soooo attached to are those where it's obvious to me that I care more than they do. I don't know why this is.

 

I guess I'm weighing slight boredom versus constant anxiety.

[Crestfallen_KH]

I realize this evidence is anecdotal, but my mom always used to say this to me.

 

She married a man who loved her just a little bit more than she loved him. They will celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary next year.

 

I loved a man just a little bit more than he loved me. We lasted 8 years before he left me for another woman.

[sb129]

 

I guess I'm weighing slight boredom versus constant anxiety.

 

Constant anxiety wears you down in the end....I would prefer slight boredom.

[Kamille]

This thread is very thought provoking. I realize that I love being adored. I love being adored by a man who turns me on and whom I respect.

 

So I don't think you have to chose between boredom or constant anxiety. Go for gold and enjoy it.

[sb129]

This thread is very thought provoking. I realize that I love being adored. I love being adored by a man who turns me on and whom I respect.

 

So I don't think you have to chose between boredom or constant anxiety. Go for gold and enjoy it.

 

Word... You shouldn't have to settle at all SG. If I HAD to choose, I would prefer slight boredom, BUT, knowing that its possible to strike a happy medium, I would rather be single than unhappy/anxious/very bored.

 

Am i making sense? Just took some nighttime cold and flu meds.... sleeeeepy.

[jerbear]

Woman want the attention, the man wants a purpose. Man's purpose is to "give" the woman attention.

 

Once the man figures out the attention is not wanted or not worth it. The woman loses the attention, hence the woman needs (if she wanted the attention) to give him a "bone."

 

Another thing woman wants the chase, man chases, she needs to let him "catch" up once in awhile. To let him know she is interested and wanted.

[Kamille]

Word... You shouldn't have to settle at all SG. If I HAD to choose, I would prefer slight boredom, BUT, knowing that its possible to strike a happy medium, I would rather be single than unhappy/anxious/very bored.

 

Am i making sense? Just took some nighttime cold and flu meds.... sleeeeepy.

 

You are making sense sleepy head.

 

Rather be single then with someone who doesn't add to my life.

[jerbear]

Rather be single then with someone who doesn't add to my life.

 

That is the truth!

[Mustang Sally]

Most of the women I know who are in unhappy relationships are aware of an imbalance - they either consciously or subconsciously know that they care more for their BF/H than the other way around.

Interesting.

 

On the other hand, the men I know who are in happy relationships willingly admit that they probably adore their GF/W more so than vice versa. They seem to be okay with this.

It would be interesting to talk with some of these wives and see whether they also agree that the BF/H is the one more in to them, and if so, whether they like it or not. I suppose that preferring (vs. not) that sort of thing is as individual as just about anything else, as far as choosing mates and making relationships work, eh?

 

It seems there's a slight advantage to this sort of mindset.

Yes, I guess I can see your point here. But for me, it would feel smothering. I never could respect any of those guys that I ended up in this type of scenario with. Maybe I'm just not a romantic... Or something...

 

Isn't there always at least a slight imbalance? I mean, if we were able to quantify or measure love, would we find that there's always a slight disparity?

Ok.

Maybe... if you look at is from a day-to-day kind of scorekeeping standpoint. For instance. If my H does several loads of laundry for me, cooks the family dinner, cleans the bathroom, fills my car up with gas, etc. while I've been late at work every night of the week because of impending deadlines and I'm irritated at him because all I can think about is "why did he not clean up the kitchen after he let four kids help him make spaghetti and red jello?" (NOTE: This scenario is completely fabricated and does not reflect the actual activities of anyone at Mustang Sally's house, either living or dead)...does that mean he is loving me more than I love him at the moment?

 

I mean, how do you objectively quantitate love from person to person anyway?

 

I guess I would hope for an overall balance of positive feelings/actions/support/commitment/sacrifice between two people. Does that mean it is NEVER lopsided? No. Not a chance. But if the overall INVESTMENT is significantly lopsided between the couple...I just don't see how it could work out long term. I would think the "giver," if you will, might get tired of constantly giving and not receiving same back, and eventually build up resentment. I would think the "receiver" would eventually lose respect (or at the very least, a degree of interest) in that type of inequitable situation. But hey - I may definitely be off base here.

 

If so, why not choose the side that provides us with greater safety?

Again.

I can see the point you are making.

But I firmly believe - for me, anyway - that the greatest reward comes from a relationship where I am really willing to go the complete distance for another person, and do - despite the risk of getting hurt of let down - only to discover and witness that that person is also willing (unsolicited) to do the same for me.

The best payoff (reciprocity) comes from the greatest outlay (risk). You know?

 

Personally, I've been in a few relationships - short lived - where it was obvious that the dude was way more into me than I was to him, and it was a huge turnoff.

I'm with you, girl.

However, the relationships where I remain sucked in, unable to leave, and just soooo attached to are those where it's obvious to me that I care more than they do. I don't know why this is.

I wonder if maybe you have a need to prove your worthiness to these people (that don't deserve you) because you know you are worth it? And thus it seems that if you can just get the opportunity to show them how great you really are (and I'm not doubting for a nanosecond what a great catch you are - seriously) they would sensibly recognize this and then problem solved? Are you a competitive person by nature? Do you place the responsibility for your own self worth on how other's perceive you?

 

I guess I'm weighing slight boredom versus constant anxiety.

I understand. But I really just think you have not met anyone who is at the right point in their life to rise to meet you on common, sustainable ground yet. Again - JMO based on what I've read of your situation.

[jerbear]

I guess I would hope for an overall balance of positive feelings/actions/support/commitment/sacrifice between two people. Does that mean it is NEVER lopsided? No. Not a chance. But if the overall INVESTMENT is significantly lopsided between the couple...I just don't see how it could work out long term. I would think the "giver," if you will, might get tired of constantly giving and not receiving same back, and eventually build up resentment. I would think the "receiver" would eventually lose respect (or at the very least, a degree of interest) in that type of inequitable situation. But hey - I may definitely be off base here.

 

Not completely off base. As the giver I did resent and feel used by the receiver. The receiver did lose some interest and respect for me till I walked away and abandoned her. I did it without remorse and didn't care.

 

She then knew how I felt but by then it was to late. Not easy to repair that type of relationship.

[EYECANDY000]

I disagree with this method. Because in most relationships there is always a situation where one person has stronger feelings than the other. I think this method of loving someone who loves you more is a sure backfire. Because you will be stuck with someone who would do basically anything to please you, and you wouldnt feel the same. That person would bore you to death, aggravate you to the fullest, and just become a complete nuisance. Who wants to be with someone when you have to force yourself to love them! Id rather remain single!

[Star Gazer]

Rather be single then with someone who doesn't add to my life.

 

That's not really the point though, is it? Someone can certainly add to your life while at the same time loving you more than you love them...

[latefragment]

I heard a discussion of this very subject on NPR on Wednesday, which I found shocking (that it was on NPR in the first place).

 

basically this woman they interviewed asserts that if you want to "get married and have kids" and by extension find some kind of "middle happiness" then you should just go with a decent, nice guy, and forget about feeling passionate butterflies and if you end up in love, great, but if not, then at least you will learn to grow into love, etc.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry

 

she says that the passionate butterflies are actually a detrimental start to a relationship because in those passionate love affairs, it's usually rocky sailing.

 

here's the link to the article she wrote. It's already been very hotly debated. I don't know what the answer is myself. I think it is, to an extent, giving up on the hope of feeling passionate butterflies... in favor of "choosing" to fall in love with someone you know is good for you and will treat you well.

 

2 friends I know married guys who were absolutely the kind of guys who would wait on them hand and foot. It was even a joke at the wedding that "she wears the pants" and everyone knew and acknolwedged it. Not that the women were bossy or demanding, but that was just the dynamic. Many people have often told me to go with the one who likes you more than you like them, or the ones who would treat you well.

 

I don't think that it is a turnoff to me when a guy treats me well (It's a HUGE turn-on when a guy treats me well). Somehow, or other, though, things just don't work out for me, and I'm left holding the bag, still with my feelings there.

 

Don't know what to say about this issue. change our way of thinking so that we will give guys that we don't necessarily feel attracted to a chance? I have tried to "make" myself have feelings of physical attraction to specific guys who would be good for me, but I try to imagine kissing them and it trips me up (contrast that to me with my tongue hanging out drooling, swiveling my head when eye candy passes by, while I'm WITH THE GUY that I'm trying to feel attracted to! (LOL). And I'm not THAT picky about looks, i just like to feel attracted to a guy...). Sorry for the rambling thoughts.

Edited February 15, 2008 by latefragment

[sunshinegirl]

Not completely off base. As the giver I did resent and feel used by the receiver. The receiver did lose some interest and respect for me till I walked away and abandoned her. I did it without remorse and didn't care.

 

She then knew how I felt but by then it was to late. Not easy to repair that type of relationship.

 

Interesting. In my boyfriend's previous marriage, he was the giver and his ex was the receiver. Did he love her more than she loved him? I don't know, though if his level of 'giving' in the relationship was any indication, probably so.

 

She was never happy or grateful for all that he did for her... and she wound up having an affair. He traces some of it to some very fundamental self-esteem problems that she never worked out.

[Kamille]

That's not really the point though, is it? Someone can certainly add to your life while at the same time loving you more than you love them...

 

Agreed. But I think Mustang Sally is onto something when she says love is hard to quantify. I was thinking about current situation with bf. As you know, it started out off balanced: he was into me more then I was into him. But now I think we've reached a balance. I don't think I would have stayed if I didn't think that was possible. I think that is so because I do respect him.

[Star Gazer]

Let me be clear here, people.

 

I'm not suggesting we should choose someone we're not attracted to, someone we wouldn't be into ever, etc., simply that - of the guys there are to choose from who have the qualities we're looking for and we do find attractive, etc. - that we select the one that we feel is more into us than we are into them.

 

Don't know if that makes sense, and I have no excuse (not taking cold meds or about to fall asleep ).

[sunshinegirl]

2 friends I know married guys who were absolutely the kind of guys who would wait on them hand and foot. It was even a joke at the wedding that "she wears the pants" and everyone knew and acknolwedged it. Not that the women were bossy or demanding, but that was just the dynamic. Many people have often told me to go with the one who likes you more than you like them, or the ones who would treat you well.

 

This can also create a very unhealthy dynamic of the woman taking advantage of the man. He becomes the proverbial "whipped" & otherwise spineless guy who will do anything, anything, anything, for his woman.

 

Though maybe I'm painting this with an extreme brush...

[Star Gazer]

Agreed. But I think Mustang Sally is onto something when she says love is hard to quantify. I was thinking about current situation with bf. As you know, it started out off balanced: he was into me more then I was into him. But now I think we've reached a balance. I don't think I would have stayed if I didn't think that was possible. I think that is so because I do respect him.

 

You say love is hard to quantify (which it is), but yet you acknowledge knowing (intuitively, I must assume) that he was more into you than you were into him. How large that disparity was, only you can know.

 

I don't think anyone can argue that there is always going to be a slight imbalance. So when given the choice - him loving you slightly more than you love him, or you loving him more... it seems your choice would be obvious, no?