FreeMe Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 Just curious what folks think about this: Would you rather marry someone you are in love with but who is more detached in the relationship causing you to be the one always more committed, to give more, to put the other first more, etc. OR Would you rather marry someone you love, but are not IN LOVE with, but who adores you and with whom you could see yourself living a full, contented life. Just missing that passion. Of course, ideally most of us would want both, but if you can only choose one or the other, which would it be?
Arabess Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 If it isn't the first option......I probably wouldn't even notice the guy! I'm a sucker for an ASSCLOWN!!!
moimeme Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 Interesting. I've been thinking of posting a similar subject line but slightly different idea. Someone once said that a woman should find someone who adores her - and let him. I don't think I could pick either. I've got a thing about dignity; it seems that it would not be respectful to someone's dignity to allow them to care for you when you can't return that because everyone deserves to be loved. I might manage in the situation where I'd do more of the caring, but only if it wasn't because he was still pining for someone he lost or hoping for someone he's yet to meet.
Author FreeMe Posted March 24, 2004 Author Posted March 24, 2004 Arabess, LOL - I know what you mean! But at my age the ability of the A$$CLOWNS to hold my attention is getting less and less! Moi - understand. I felt the same way. I had a great friend who was so in love with me and my family adored him, but I just didn't think it would be fair to be with him and not be in love with him. I thought he would be getting cheated. Now I'm wondering if I was right, hence, the question.
Arabess Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 WIthout the passion.....I'd feel like a 'legal hooker'....just accepting the paycheck and secuirty. I couldn't live with myself. Maybe if we had children it would be different. But I couldn't ever feel that I was for sale.
HokeyReligions Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by FreeMe Just curious what folks think about this: Would you rather marry someone you are in love with but who is more detached in the relationship causing you to be the one always more committed, to give more, to put the other first more, etc. OR Would you rather marry someone you love, but are not IN LOVE with, but who adores you and with whom you could see yourself living a full, contented life. Just missing that passion. Of course, ideally most of us would want both, but if you can only choose one or the other, which would it be? Interesting. When I was first dating and married my husband I thought we were on an equal footing. I found out quickly that your first scenario applied to me. I adored him and I did all the work to keep the marriage together. I did everything for him and gave more then he did. 20+ years later the whole relationship had shifted. I am no longer in love with him but he now adores me. He feels about me now the way I wanted him to feel about me then. I am the one with no passion. I do love him and care about him and we have stayed together because we are comfortable, too lethargic to change, and we depend on each other financially. I have accepted that for the last 8 years or so, but now we are divorcing but maintaining the same residence. We are comfortable together as friends. If I were entering into another relationship and HAD to choose - I would choose the second scenario. Weird huh?
Author FreeMe Posted March 24, 2004 Author Posted March 24, 2004 Role reversal - that is a shame. That usually happens to me after I break up with someone. I have a few ex-boyfriends who suddenly decided that I am the love of their lives. Too bad they didn't think so while they still had me.
carla Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 Well......I've been in the first situation untill I got fed up and then threaten divorce. Then when he realised I was serious and I was at the point of no return, it turned into something simular to the second situation. Point being neither one of those cases would work in my opinon.
Tony T Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 There has to be mutual passion or it's not going to be fulfilling. On the other hand, if each party is getting exactly what they want out of the relationship, it could be good...at least for a while. I would not marry someone unless I felt a general parity in the emotion department. I would have to feel a serious mutuality of emotions and other investments in the relationship or it just wouldn't happen.
yes Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 i think i'd choose to be with someone i adore over someone who adores me. i'd think i'm an idiot, but i'd still do it. one of my biggest fears is ending up with someone who makes me feel nice and secure and content, but not passionate abt us and our life - i.e. companionate love w/ no romantic ingredient -> no thanks. -yes
Author FreeMe Posted March 24, 2004 Author Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by carla Well......I've been in the first situation untill I got fed up and then threaten divorce. Then when he realised I was serious and I was at the point of no return, it turned into something simular to the second situation. Point being neither one of those cases would work in my opinon. I can see where both people would be unfulfilled. Originally posted by Tony There has to be mutual passion or it's not going to be fulfilling. On the other hand, if each party is getting exactly what they want out of the relationship, it could be good...at least for a while. This makes sense too though - it's about expectations. If the expectations of each coincided with the actions of the other, it could work.
Author FreeMe Posted March 24, 2004 Author Posted March 24, 2004 Originally posted by yes i think i'd choose to be with someone i adore over someone who adores me. i'd think i'm an idiot, but i'd still do it. one of my biggest fears is ending up with someone who makes me feel nice and secure and content, but not passionate abt us and our life - i.e. companionate love w/ no romantic ingredient -> no thanks. -yes I wonder how long your passion would last though, if you often felt rebuffed by, or dissatisfied with the detachment of, your partner.
yes Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 his detachment would likely fuel it, as long as he liked me somewhat (just not adored me), so i imagine it'd last for a long while - i wouldn't be a happy camper, but i'd be damn well passionate abt him. -yes
brashgal Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 I could have a long-term relationship with someone who adored me and I liked him less but marriage will only happen if both of us are crazy about one another. Otherwise I prefer to be alone. Spent too many years in a marriage of the first scenario.
dolphinsunshyn Posted March 24, 2004 Posted March 24, 2004 I wouldn't be happy either way. I would rather be alone than just "comfortable" with someone. Life is too short to be unhappy. As far as taking care of certain "needs"......I always have BOB (battery operated boyfriend), Ben & Jerry's, and porn! LOL
kamajerchin Posted March 25, 2004 Posted March 25, 2004 If it is only about passion, that fire can goout quickly. You know they say the hotter the fire the quicker it burns out. I think that we all want to be treated with respect and caring, this may not be as passionate but it certainly stays the course.
Author FreeMe Posted March 25, 2004 Author Posted March 25, 2004 Originally posted by kamajerchin If it is only about passion, that fire can goout quickly. You know they say the hotter the fire the quicker it burns out. I think that we all want to be treated with respect and caring, this may not be as passionate but it certainly stays the course. That's true, that's why I have been thinking more about this. With my current boyfriend there was lots of passion and butterflies-in-stomach but that's faded. I am in love with him but I'm disappointed in the way the relationship has been going. Most people are saying they'd rather just be alone than unhappy. I agree with that. I was very happy alone.
Arabess Posted March 25, 2004 Posted March 25, 2004 Me TOO..... Free! (That almost looked like a wierd sentence meaning the opposite...LOL!)
Girlie Posted March 25, 2004 Posted March 25, 2004 I always end up being the one who's more committed, so regardless of what I'd want, that's probably what I'd get. If I had to choose between the two, it would definitely feel nice to be adored.
Sundaymorning Posted March 25, 2004 Posted March 25, 2004 Oh wait hold on what is an ASSCLOWN? lol what on earth? If I had to, I would choose #2. But that would totally suck. It would lead to me taking him for granted, and that isnt cool.
zarathustra Posted March 25, 2004 Posted March 25, 2004 Tis better to love passionately than not at all. I don't need a roommate.
Author FreeMe Posted March 25, 2004 Author Posted March 25, 2004 Arabess, dolphin, brash -- Being alone is so much less complicated than being with someone! Sunday -- HEHEHE, an ASSCLOWN is best explained by Arabess. She's seems to be quite an authority on the subject! girlie -- I agree - it would be nice to be adored. I WAS adored in this relationship but not anymore apparently. I didn't think it was just that initial phase of the relationship. I thought I had actually finally found someone who adored me. Silly me! Zara - I know what you mean but I'm starting to feel like I have a "roommate" now and this was the person who was madly in love with me, as I was with him. The person who told me "you have the power to crush me - and I don't even mind". I know I have the power to annoy him now, but I'm sure I have that power over a lot of people - LOL. That's no fun! But seriously, it's not that I want the power, but it was nice to know that someone was so in love with me that the thought of losing me made him feel that way.
Recommended Posts