Digitales said:
I am not talking about idealism and semantics.
But you were talking about idealism before and you are indeed arguing about semantics now. So I'm a little confused why you're saying this.
Digitales said:
I am speaking about going back on things you know that you need in a prospective partner.
And, no offense, but I don't think you really made that entirely clear.
"Needs" and "ideals" are different things, and you only really used the word "need" once before now. In all the other cases you were talking about 'ideals'. Perhaps you were using them as synonyms, but like I said you didn't make that clear before and if this is what you're arguing now then that is merely just semantics.
Digitales said:
I have already expressed that I am not talk about trivialities.
And I did, too. So how is this relevant?
Digitales said:
You didn't read through what I posed in entirety did you?
Rather than making accusations perhaps reread your own posts and try to identify where you actually clarified what you meant with anything but a one-off example.
To clarify, if you had been the one to read my posts in their entirety, I made it clear I wasn't talking about abandoning all standards entirely. I wasn't talking about accepting a "dishonest person" when you need honesty, which is the only example you ever gave.
What I am talking about is more something like accepting someone whom you do not initially feel physically attracted to, accepting someone who does not fit any of your fantasy-qualities, or generally just accepting someone who you have a lot in common with, like a friend.
Tell me something. What do you see as the difference between someone marrying the person they "love" and someone marrying a friend?
Does it honestly matter in the larger scope of things that there isn't some sort of huge connection between the friends like their is for the people who "love" each other?
Does it matter if they aren't lusting after each other, if they aren't happy with every little thing they do, or if they generally don't want to spend every waking moment with the other person?
I really don't think so. I think, if anything, the two people who aren't much more than friends, but decided to simply make that a more permanent relationship, probably actually have the stronger bond than the two people who think they are "in love".
"Love" doesn't always last, but acceptance, respect, honesty, and appreciation do. And real love, the kind that does last, grows out of these kind of things.
I just think that as a society we depend too much on our ideals, and I don't mean 'ideals' as in fantasizing about some unrealistic strawberry-blond shy virgin princess or whatever people might imagine. I mean simple ideals like what they believe they need to have physical attraction, what sort of history someone has, what they might have done, who they used to be, even personality traits which might not be immediately appealing but are not in themselves detrimental to the relationship.
I'm talking about something like marrying someone who was once divorced, has 2 kids, older than you, is introverted, and might be a little overweight when all your entire life you'd imagined marrying someone younger, no kids, someone equally experienced, someone outgoing, and someone physically attractive and a healthy size. And maybe even between two people who don't have all that deep of a 'love' sort of connection, but people who simply admire, respect, accept, and trust each other enough to form a lasting, enduring relationship.
And that's just one example. There are untold numbers of variations in which two people would otherwise simply just not be together but otherwise do have this sort of relationship.
I would say that, by all definitions of the word, is "settling" no matter what other semantics we attempt to use. And I highly doubt you can say all those things are "trivial" either. So I honestly don't see anything wrong with "settling", because so many people, and I used to be like this by the way, simply have these ridiculous expectations of what life is "supposed to" be, and then they are faced with the harsh reality that life is almost nothing as they expected it to be. And then they sometimes make bad decisions based on those expectations, or pass many good opportunities simply because they were expecting more or something different.
And just look at our society. They might see someone "normal" with someone most people think is "ugly" or someone with a disability and wonder how these people are together. People will scoff and laugh at these sort of relationships all the time.
But you know what? Those people laughing or judging and these people who just don't get it are the ones with the real problem, and I think we all know this. And their problem stems from their false ideals. Their unreasonable expectations. Their ignorance of the way the world really works.
And I think if you'll read everything I'm saying you'd know I'm not disagreeing with you about anything fundamental. Most of what you're saying is definitely true. But I think you're just going too far with judging the option of "settling". Rarely are things in reality actually so extreme that we can simply cut some options out entirely and judge everyone who takes those paths to be fools. All I'm really saying is we should consider everything carefully.
In the end I think we do agree. So long as you understand your own needs and choose someone suited for you, and don't take anything less than what you actually need, then you'll be fine. I just wanted to point out that it really is okay to just settle for what you need and not necessarily always try to get everything you want. Sometimes we pay the price for that sort of greed. And it's easy enough for people to agree when it comes to money, jobs, homes, and etc., but when it comes to "love" and marriage people very often seem to do a 180 and reject this concept entirely. And I'm not really sure why other than society has simply idealized it too much for too long.
Anyway, I hope you see my point now.