FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Did you over plan the emotional and relationship part of your life...
Did you over plan the emotional and relationship part of your life...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think you should plan things as much as you can, you have to be really sure about what you really want, its much better to think things through properly rather than regret what you have done." Whether it's something you have done or, something you haven't done... regret is a terrible thing to live with. | |||
"I don’t think you can plan everything, life has a way of throwing curve balls at you. I’m certainly not where I thought I’d be now. X " Makes life interesting and as long as you are happy in the now and ready for the next installment. | |||
"I just avoided it all together." That works for some! | |||
"I don’t regret getting married but maybe I should’ve had more fun before settling down. I married my childhood sweetheart. We were together 20 years. Only one of our three children was planned but I love them all dearly. I wouldn’t be here now enjoying life in my 50’s if I hadn’t lived the life I had. I may still be married and would never have found out how exciting a single life can be. " Enjoying it is what really matters | |||
| |||
"Only to feel you missed the boat? Do you wish you had gone with the flow as far as love, marriage and children are concerned? Or, can you really say... I don't want to get married until I'm... I'm not going to have children until I'm... Or, we will have children in a few years when we can afford it! For me, life isn't like that! Is it possible to manage and plan these things or, have you tried and regretted it?" Ive never had a girlfriend to even go with the flow with in the 1st place.....  | |||
"I just avoided it all together. That works for some!" 'Works' might be a strong word | |||
| |||
"I don’t think you can plan everything, life has a way of throwing curve balls at you. I’m certainly not where I thought I’d be now. X Makes life interesting and as long as you are happy in the now and ready for the next installment." I’m exploring my options, just going with the flow x | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think you should plan things as much as you can, you have to be really sure about what you really want, its much better to think things through properly rather than regret what you have done." I can't disagree more. Enjoy the now. Overthinking kills every single moment. Live Love Learn Live. | |||
"I think you should plan things as much as you can, you have to be really sure about what you really want, its much better to think things through properly rather than regret what you have done. Whether it's something you have done or, something you haven't done... regret is a terrible thing to live with." Regret requires living in the past....... Enjoy the NOW | |||
| |||
"I’ve seen people attempting to control it and crash and burn heavily " I have a few friends that have planned how their relationship and family life will be and, it's panned out for them. Lots that have tried and now wish they had had children or had children earlier. Or have now realised that the person they lost because they weren't prepared to bend their rigid plans, was actually the love of their life. | |||
| |||
"I'm a winger. I deal with whatever is right in front of me on a daily basis. I found that whenever I plan anything, something comes along to bugger it up. You can't plan emotions and relationships start with a small seed that uses variables to grow. " It's sensible to plan a career or a holiday or a picnic but even with the best planning skills in the world, those things won't always go the way we expect... what chance has planning love and families! | |||
"I just avoided it all together." Similar here. | |||
| |||
| |||
 xxxx Suzi | |||
"We have just progressed and faced each hurdle thrown at us. Yes it's been very rocky at times, but I guess a very deep seated love has got us through. Have we ever regretted being married ?? NO. Have we planned to live out marriage and life together in a certain order ?? NO. We are just happy doing what we are doing, have done so for 36 years and hope to continue doing so for another 36 years at least. xxxx Suzi"Sounds like a good plan, flexible ones are by far the best! I planned not to get married and, not to have children! A plan that I'm glad went tits up, I got married and had children, mostly, life is good and happy! | |||
"Only to feel you missed the boat? Do you wish you had gone with the flow as far as love, marriage and children are concerned? Or, can you really say... I don't want to get married until I'm... I'm not going to have children until I'm... Or, we will have children in a few years when we can afford it! For me, life isn't like that! Is it possible to manage and plan these things or, have you tried and regretted it?" Sadly i met someone and over thought it and in the end it destroyed it | |||
"Only to feel you missed the boat? Do you wish you had gone with the flow as far as love, marriage and children are concerned? Or, can you really say... I don't want to get married until I'm... I'm not going to have children until I'm... Or, we will have children in a few years when we can afford it! For me, life isn't like that! Is it possible to manage and plan these things or, have you tried and regretted it? Sadly i met someone and over thought it and in the end it destroyed it" Hope you get a second chance and get to put what you've learnt into practice  | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think I underplayed mine lol 38 and never even been asked to marry someone. I think I'm a lost cause. No one seems to want me. " Is Thia husband's a thing... they should be! | |||
"I think I underplayed mine lol 38 and never even been asked to marry someone. I think I'm a lost cause. No one seems to want me. Is Thia husband's a thing... they should be! " Lol I might start looking. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Only to feel you missed the boat? Do you wish you had gone with the flow as far as love, marriage and children are concerned? Or, can you really say... I don't want to get married until I'm... I'm not going to have children until I'm... Or, we will have children in a few years when we can afford it! For me, life isn't like that! Is it possible to manage and plan these things or, have you tried and regretted it? Sadly i met someone and over thought it and in the end it destroyed it Hope you get a second chance and get to put what you've learnt into practice "No i dont go back then I learnt he wasfull of shit so close shave | |||
| |||
"I’ve seen people attempting to control it and crash and burn heavily I have a few friends that have planned how their relationship and family life will be and, it's panned out for them. Lots that have tried and now wish they had had children or had children earlier. Or have now realised that the person they lost because they weren't prepared to bend their rigid plans, was actually the love of their life." I've seen many people who wanted to have children 'naturally' (i.e. not looking at obvulation dates) and having sex when the mood takes them. Yeah they took years to get pregnant and regretted it. | |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. " I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time. " Emotions are strange. We can’t always distinguish between love and lust. Some of us don’t want hurt and try to remain detached. Doesn’t always work and hearts still get broken. " | |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. Emotions are strange. We can’t always distinguish between love and lust. Some of us don’t want hurt and try to remain detached. Doesn’t always work and hearts still get broken. " Agreed | |||
| |||
| |||
"I just avoided it all together." Wise | |||
| |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time." I'd go a step further. I think women do largely control who they fall for... inadvertently. I've been mulling this over lately and I think there's a drive in women to fixate strongly on the characters in their life. Rather than explore the world of opportunities around them and pull a new person into their life, it strikes me that many women quickly get as obsessed about all the characters in their life as people do about soap operas. Perhaps a core part of this for a single woman is the thought "which person in my life am I destined to go out with?" If any of that is true then women may select men from a very small pool of people and then fixate on them rather than engaging in any hunter gathering mode. It's quite a deliberate and effective biological strategy which is out of their hands if they're unaware of it and which whatever guys have the good luck to just land in her life luck out on. Warning! All the above may be bullshit made up by me | |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time. I'd go a step further. I think women do largely control who they fall for... inadvertently. I've been mulling this over lately and I think there's a drive in women to fixate strongly on the characters in their life. Rather than explore the world of opportunities around them and pull a new person into their life, it strikes me that many women quickly get as obsessed about all the characters in their life as people do about soap operas. Perhaps a core part of this for a single woman is the thought "which person in my life am I destined to go out with?" If any of that is true then women may select men from a very small pool of people and then fixate on them rather than engaging in any hunter gathering mode. It's quite a deliberate and effective biological strategy which is out of their hands if they're unaware of it and which whatever guys have the good luck to just land in her life luck out on. Warning! All the above may be bullshit made up by me "Interesting theory! I will give some thought to. Wondering what the rest of the panel think | |||
| |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time. I'd go a step further. I think women do largely control who they fall for... inadvertently. I've been mulling this over lately and I think there's a drive in women to fixate strongly on the characters in their life. Rather than explore the world of opportunities around them and pull a new person into their life, it strikes me that many women quickly get as obsessed about all the characters in their life as people do about soap operas. Perhaps a core part of this for a single woman is the thought "which person in my life am I destined to go out with?" If any of that is true then women may select men from a very small pool of people and then fixate on them rather than engaging in any hunter gathering mode. It's quite a deliberate and effective biological strategy which is out of their hands if they're unaware of it and which whatever guys have the good luck to just land in her life luck out on. Warning! All the above may be bullshit made up by me
Interesting theory! I will give some thought to. Wondering what the rest of the panel think "I don't know really. I know how men generally pick their partners but not sure about women. I do personally know an alarming number of women who say they don't want to be single, but stubbornly refuse to do anything remotely pro-active to change that (join an online dating website / join a new social circle). At best they want to be introduced to someone, by someone they know. Which is an incredibly small talent pool. | |||
"I had some core plans which were flexible then worked damn hard to make them happen once a decision had been made and a timetable put on them. Worked until recently. Now I’ve been drifting for a couple of years and it’s time to make things happen again. " Does love work like that? Can you "make things happen" like that when you put your mind to it? Do you end up with right sort of love and relationship? | |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time. I'd go a step further. I think women do largely control who they fall for... inadvertently. I've been mulling this over lately and I think there's a drive in women to fixate strongly on the characters in their life. Rather than explore the world of opportunities around them and pull a new person into their life, it strikes me that many women quickly get as obsessed about all the characters in their life as people do about soap operas. Perhaps a core part of this for a single woman is the thought "which person in my life am I destined to go out with?" If any of that is true then women may select men from a very small pool of people and then fixate on them rather than engaging in any hunter gathering mode. It's quite a deliberate and effective biological strategy which is out of their hands if they're unaware of it and which whatever guys have the good luck to just land in her life luck out on. Warning! All the above may be bullshit made up by me
Interesting theory! I will give some thought to. Wondering what the rest of the panel think
I don't know really. I know how men generally pick their partners but not sure about women. I do personally know an alarming number of women who say they don't want to be single, but stubbornly refuse to do anything remotely pro-active to change that (join an online dating website / join a new social circle). At best they want to be introduced to someone, by someone they know. Which is an incredibly small talent pool. "Even with that said, the gene pool has got to be the biggest it has ever been what with education, travel and work opportunities the way they are these days. | |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time. I'd go a step further. I think women do largely control who they fall for... inadvertently. I've been mulling this over lately and I think there's a drive in women to fixate strongly on the characters in their life. Rather than explore the world of opportunities around them and pull a new person into their life, it strikes me that many women quickly get as obsessed about all the characters in their life as people do about soap operas. Perhaps a core part of this for a single woman is the thought "which person in my life am I destined to go out with?" If any of that is true then women may select men from a very small pool of people and then fixate on them rather than engaging in any hunter gathering mode. It's quite a deliberate and effective biological strategy which is out of their hands if they're unaware of it and which whatever guys have the good luck to just land in her life luck out on. Warning! All the above may be bullshit made up by me
Interesting theory! I will give some thought to. Wondering what the rest of the panel think
I don't know really. I know how men generally pick their partners but not sure about women. I do personally know an alarming number of women who say they don't want to be single, but stubbornly refuse to do anything remotely pro-active to change that (join an online dating website / join a new social circle). At best they want to be introduced to someone, by someone they know. Which is an incredibly small talent pool.
Even with that said, the gene pool has got to be the biggest it has ever been what with education, travel and work opportunities the way they are these days."Its the biggest, certainly not the best it's ever been. | |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time. I'd go a step further. I think women do largely control who they fall for... inadvertently. I've been mulling this over lately and I think there's a drive in women to fixate strongly on the characters in their life. Rather than explore the world of opportunities around them and pull a new person into their life, it strikes me that many women quickly get as obsessed about all the characters in their life as people do about soap operas. Perhaps a core part of this for a single woman is the thought "which person in my life am I destined to go out with?" If any of that is true then women may select men from a very small pool of people and then fixate on them rather than engaging in any hunter gathering mode. It's quite a deliberate and effective biological strategy which is out of their hands if they're unaware of it and which whatever guys have the good luck to just land in her life luck out on. Warning! All the above may be bullshit made up by me
Interesting theory! I will give some thought to. Wondering what the rest of the panel think
I don't know really. I know how men generally pick their partners but not sure about women. I do personally know an alarming number of women who say they don't want to be single, but stubbornly refuse to do anything remotely pro-active to change that (join an online dating website / join a new social circle). At best they want to be introduced to someone, by someone they know. Which is an incredibly small talent pool.
Even with that said, the gene pool has got to be the biggest it has ever been what with education, travel and work opportunities the way they are these days.
Its the biggest, certainly not the best it's ever been. "When was it better? | |||
| |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time. I'd go a step further. I think women do largely control who they fall for... inadvertently. I've been mulling this over lately and I think there's a drive in women to fixate strongly on the characters in their life. Rather than explore the world of opportunities around them and pull a new person into their life, it strikes me that many women quickly get as obsessed about all the characters in their life as people do about soap operas. Perhaps a core part of this for a single woman is the thought "which person in my life am I destined to go out with?" If any of that is true then women may select men from a very small pool of people and then fixate on them rather than engaging in any hunter gathering mode. It's quite a deliberate and effective biological strategy which is out of their hands if they're unaware of it and which whatever guys have the good luck to just land in her life luck out on. Warning! All the above may be bullshit made up by me
Interesting theory! I will give some thought to. Wondering what the rest of the panel think
I don't know really. I know how men generally pick their partners but not sure about women. I do personally know an alarming number of women who say they don't want to be single, but stubbornly refuse to do anything remotely pro-active to change that (join an online dating website / join a new social circle). At best they want to be introduced to someone, by someone they know. Which is an incredibly small talent pool.
Even with that said, the gene pool has got to be the biggest it has ever been what with education, travel and work opportunities the way they are these days.
Its the biggest, certainly not the best it's ever been.
When was it better?"According to one study, if we stopped normalising IQ scores back to 100 then the average Victorian would have been 14 points higher than the average today | |||
| |||
"No, I've always gone with the flow even if it has ended in disaster! Even the worst experiences provide useful lessons" Life is a learning experience... some never learn though. | |||
"You can’t control who you fall for. I don't see how it's possible to "fall for" someone without investing a significant amount of time with them. Nobody would claim "you don't choose who you spend time with". You distinguish love and lust below. Maybe you can get an urge of lust towards someone, but love requires time. I'd go a step further. I think women do largely control who they fall for... inadvertently. I've been mulling this over lately and I think there's a drive in women to fixate strongly on the characters in their life. Rather than explore the world of opportunities around them and pull a new person into their life, it strikes me that many women quickly get as obsessed about all the characters in their life as people do about soap operas. Perhaps a core part of this for a single woman is the thought "which person in my life am I destined to go out with?" If any of that is true then women may select men from a very small pool of people and then fixate on them rather than engaging in any hunter gathering mode. It's quite a deliberate and effective biological strategy which is out of their hands if they're unaware of it and which whatever guys have the good luck to just land in her life luck out on. Warning! All the above may be bullshit made up by me
Interesting theory! I will give some thought to. Wondering what the rest of the panel think
I don't know really. I know how men generally pick their partners but not sure about women. I do personally know an alarming number of women who say they don't want to be single, but stubbornly refuse to do anything remotely pro-active to change that (join an online dating website / join a new social circle). At best they want to be introduced to someone, by someone they know. Which is an incredibly small talent pool.
Even with that said, the gene pool has got to be the biggest it has ever been what with education, travel and work opportunities the way they are these days.
Its the biggest, certainly not the best it's ever been.
When was it better?
According to one study, if we stopped normalising IQ scores back to 100 then the average Victorian would have been 14 points higher than the average today "But people moved around less! The minors son would probably work down the same pit as his father and grandfather, have a limited education and, a choice of partner would have been limited to girls from his own or surrounding villages. Nowadays a minors son might be clever enough to go to university in a far off city, take a gap year and travel the world and settle anywhere for work, or move around with work. All these things, plus social mobility between classes has given our generations a far larger gene pool to swim in. I wouldn't argue about the difference in average IQ (as it would be a good discussion on its own) but, as it's an average, it's the same for everyone swimming in the pool. Qualifications and suitability for a life partner wouldn't necessarily be measured by finding a partner with a vastly superior intellect. As individuals we interact with considerably more people in our lifetime than our Victorian ancestors. | |||
"No, I've always gone with the flow even if it has ended in disaster! Even the worst experiences provide useful lessons Life is a learning experience... some never learn though." The same experiences will be repeated until the lesson is learned! | |||
" According to one study, if we stopped normalising IQ scores back to 100 then the average Victorian would have been 14 points higher than the average today But people moved around less! The minors son would probably work down the same pit as his father and grandfather, have a limited education and, a choice of partner would have been limited to girls from his own or surrounding villages. Nowadays a minors son might be clever enough to go to university in a far off city, take a gap year and travel the world and settle anywhere for work, or move around with work. All these things, plus social mobility between classes has given our generations a far larger gene pool to swim in. I wouldn't argue about the difference in average IQ (as it would be a good discussion on its own) but, as it's an average, it's the same for everyone swimming in the pool. Qualifications and suitability for a life partner wouldn't necessarily be measured by finding a partner with a vastly superior intellect. As individuals we interact with considerably more people in our lifetime than our Victorian ancestors." You make some interesting points
I partially agree with what you said but i also think social class is a boundary that is rarely crossed by "love". It's more of an invisible barrier, than race as an example. But i think there are a lot more barriers on the mixing of the gene pool than you imply. | |||
" According to one study, if we stopped normalising IQ scores back to 100 then the average Victorian would have been 14 points higher than the average today But people moved around less! The minors son would probably work down the same pit as his father and grandfather, have a limited education and, a choice of partner would have been limited to girls from his own or surrounding villages. Nowadays a minors son might be clever enough to go to university in a far off city, take a gap year and travel the world and settle anywhere for work, or move around with work. All these things, plus social mobility between classes has given our generations a far larger gene pool to swim in. I wouldn't argue about the difference in average IQ (as it would be a good discussion on its own) but, as it's an average, it's the same for everyone swimming in the pool. Qualifications and suitability for a life partner wouldn't necessarily be measured by finding a partner with a vastly superior intellect. As individuals we interact with considerably more people in our lifetime than our Victorian ancestors. You make some interesting points
I partially agree with what you said but i also think social class is a boundary that is rarely crossed by "love". It's more of an invisible barrier, than race as an example. But i think there are a lot more barriers on the mixing of the gene pool than you imply. "There are definitely lots of barriers to navigate. Race and religion would probably trump most. I think there is a slow erosion of race barriers. Religious barriers may never be broken down but, you can go around them, it just takes one half to declare that they were wrong, they've been worshipping the wrong god or, the right God in the wrong way and then their love can flourish. If you come across enough people during your life, you may find someone that doesn't throw up these kind of complications for one to consider. I personally would regard the race issue as just plain narrow mindedness. I do have a problem with religious compatibility though! Being non religious I would swim away from anyone with strong religious beliefs thus narrowing my own gene pool. At the same time it puts me on a par with anyone from one religion that would purposefully not entertain the idea of having a relationship with someone from another religion. My chances of finding compatibility are still vastly improved today. | |||
"But people moved around less! The minors son would probably work down the same pit as his father and grandfather, have a limited education and, a choice of partner would have been limited to girls from his own or surrounding villages. Nowadays a minors son might be clever enough to go to university in a far off city, take a gap year and travel the world and settle anywhere for work, or move around with work. All these things, plus social mobility between classes has given our generations a far larger gene pool to swim in. I wouldn't argue about the difference in average IQ (as it would be a good discussion on its own) but, as it's an average, it's the same for everyone swimming in the pool. Qualifications and suitability for a life partner wouldn't necessarily be measured by finding a partner with a vastly superior intellect. As individuals we interact with considerably more people in our lifetime than our Victorian ancestors. You make some interesting points
I partially agree with what you said but i also think social class is a boundary that is rarely crossed by "love". It's more of an invisible barrier, than race as an example. But i think there are a lot more barriers on the mixing of the gene pool than you imply. "This is one of those wonderful examples of when scientific arguments go mad. The argument is that, as men are more mobile, getting access to better education, travelling and relocating to other places, than ever before... and, by the same argument, because more men are gathering in large towns and cities... women have access to wider choice and so a bigger gene pool. The inference is that women have never had it so good; that they can choose a much better level of man. Yet in reality these same processes of modernisation have led to the break up of social fabric, vast alienating metropolises, people who endlessly move from town to town, people with no roots to a place nor any emotional investment in others. As such, you could equally argue that the quality of man has seriously diminished for women; that men today lack the emotional tools to truly invest in another person, are too easily lured into moving on to another person, and are too much in a state of personal confusion and perpetual migration that they offer very little in terms of relationship building quality. So the argument that women have access to a greater gene pool collapses down to literally that... women have access to more men, a truism none of us needed a scientist to tell us. This access to more men may not, however translate into access to better men  | |||
| |||
"My chances of finding compatibility are still vastly improved today." Again a false assumption. Back when the only thing you did with your life was club furry animals and cook them the chances of you finding someone compatible with you were extremely high. Today try finding someone who has an interest in doing trompe loile crochet whilst skydiving into vats of organic blueberry cider whilst reciting the unpublished limericks of Anne Widdecombe in klingon... we're far too segmented into weird eccentric tribes with utterly bizarre unique personal interests. Fab is just one such example of a bizarre subculture that the Internet has helped find itself | |||
| |||
"But people moved around less! The minors son would probably work down the same pit as his father and grandfather, have a limited education and, a choice of partner would have been limited to girls from his own or surrounding villages. Nowadays a minors son might be clever enough to go to university in a far off city, take a gap year and travel the world and settle anywhere for work, or move around with work. All these things, plus social mobility between classes has given our generations a far larger gene pool to swim in. I wouldn't argue about the difference in average IQ (as it would be a good discussion on its own) but, as it's an average, it's the same for everyone swimming in the pool. Qualifications and suitability for a life partner wouldn't necessarily be measured by finding a partner with a vastly superior intellect. As individuals we interact with considerably more people in our lifetime than our Victorian ancestors. You make some interesting points
I partially agree with what you said but i also think social class is a boundary that is rarely crossed by "love". It's more of an invisible barrier, than race as an example. But i think there are a lot more barriers on the mixing of the gene pool than you imply.
This is one of those wonderful examples of when scientific arguments go mad. The argument is that, as men are more mobile, getting access to better education, travelling and relocating to other places, than ever before... and, by the same argument, because more men are gathering in large towns and cities... women have access to wider choice and so a bigger gene pool. The inference is that women have never had it so good; that they can choose a much better level of man.
Yet in reality these same processes of modernisation have led to the break up of social fabric, vast alienating metropolises, people who endlessly move from town to town, people with no roots to a place nor any emotional investment in others. As such, you could equally argue that the quality of man has seriously diminished for women; that men today lack the emotional tools to truly invest in another person, are too easily lured into moving on to another person, and are too much in a state of personal confusion and perpetual migration that they offer very little in terms of relationship building quality.
So the argument that women have access to a greater gene pool collapses down to literally that... women have access to more men, a truism none of us needed a scientist to tell us. This access to more men may not, however translate into access to better men "I didn't intend to infer that it was more of an advantage to either male or female over the other, just a large pool in general for anyone that goes swimming. What is a "better man" or woman for that matter? I don't think our ancestors were any more successful in finding compatibility with another person as a life partner than we are today. I think they were more prepared to put up with their mistakes and accept their lot than people are today, due to laws, religion, society. There was great social and parental pressure for people to marry and then stay married. Divorce rates are high today but, how can they be compared with times when laws and social attitudes were different? This in itself would suggest that people made better choices and, those one had to choose from were better. I think if we're possible to do a survey of Victorians, a lot more would have liked a divorce if it were possible. A lot would admit to having made mistakes due to the narrow gene pool and social pressure. Maybe the breakdown of social fabric as people know it will eventually cause people to re assess their perceived barriers to comparability and the gene pool will widen. I think the word "choice" is interesting and, going back to the the original post, most people don't choose who they fall in love with. However, you do hear people choosing to set dates years in the future as to when they would want to have a serious relationship, or when they would be ready to have children. What if love comes along and tries to interfere with those carefully made plans. I am sure that there are plenty of people that have changed their plans to accommodate but equally so, people that have stuck to the plan and missed the opportunity of companionship and family when it came along. There's a difference between there not being enough suitable fish in the pool and swimming past the suitable ones thinking they will still be there when you are ready to set your master plan for your life into motion. | |||
"I think the word "choice" is interesting and, going back to the the original post, most people don't choose who they fall in love with. However, you do hear people choosing to set dates years in the future as to when they would want to have a serious relationship, or when they would be ready to have children." I've come across this too and I'm baffled by it. I mean I'm a prime candidate. I got together with my ex when I was 20 and only had one women up until we split. So you could imagine that I want to fuck around for, let's say, 5 years or 20 women or something... but that's just nuts. If I found love tomorrow I'd roll with it | |||
"My chances of finding compatibility are still vastly improved today. Again a false assumption. Back when the only thing you did with your life was club furry animals and cook them the chances of you finding someone compatible with you were extremely high. Today try finding someone who has an interest in doing trompe loile crochet whilst skydiving into vats of organic blueberry cider whilst reciting the unpublished limericks of Anne Widdecombe in klingon... we're far too segmented into weird eccentric tribes with utterly bizarre unique personal interests. Fab is just one such example of a bizarre subculture that the Internet has helped find itself " That does sound like a very kinky niche fetish... good luck to anyone looking for someone else into that
I guess life was a little simpler when after a long day clubbing seals you just wanted to come home to someone fertile that could do a good deal stew.
I think we've always been a world of weird eccentric tribes where a majority have been inward looking.
The world has become a smaller more accessible place for everyone making it easier than it ever has been to connect with like minded people. I appreciate that hundreds of years ago the chances that the people geographically closer were more likely to have compatible but, modern technology has made it easier to travel now compatibility may not be as close to home. | |||
"I think the word "choice" is interesting and, going back to the the original post, most people don't choose who they fall in love with. However, you do hear people choosing to set dates years in the future as to when they would want to have a serious relationship, or when they would be ready to have children. I've come across this too and I'm baffled by it. I mean I'm a prime candidate. I got together with my ex when I was 20 and only had one women up until we split. So you could imagine that I want to fuck around for, let's say, 5 years or 20 women or something... but that's just nuts. If I found love tomorrow I'd roll with it "I think for me, that would be the way to roll | |||
"The world has become a smaller more accessible place for everyone making it easier than it ever has been to connect with like minded people. I appreciate that hundreds of years ago the chances that the people geographically closer were more likely to have compatible but, modern technology has made it easier to travel now compatibility may not be as close to home." I think compatibility may be something of a red herring. Willingness to invest in another person and build a rewarding relationship. That might trump compatibility in forging successful relationships. If so, I'd say you can graph increased choice with decreased willingness to invest in whoever is around you at this point and increased willingness to seek an off the shelf solution that may not exist amongst the other choices on offer. That certainly seems to be what's happening with online dating and also divorces. People are beginning to shop much more. In the past I suspect people fell in love by investing in each other more... not by shopping around for compatibility. I'm not advocating the past. I'm just saying, like your op highlights, at some point you need to stop and invest in what you have, not keep moving on or waiting for some mythical future scenario... and that increased choice, at least for singles, is contributing to the problem as much as it's offering a solution | |||
| |||
"The world has become a smaller more accessible place for everyone making it easier than it ever has been to connect with like minded people. I appreciate that hundreds of years ago the chances that the people geographically closer were more likely to have compatible but, modern technology has made it easier to travel now compatibility may not be as close to home. I think compatibility may be something of a red herring. Willingness to invest in another person and build a rewarding relationship. That might trump compatibility in forging successful relationships. If so, I'd say you can graph increased choice with decreased willingness to invest in whoever is around you at this point and increased willingness to seek an off the shelf solution that may not exist amongst the other choices on offer. That certainly seems to be what's happening with online dating and also divorces. People are beginning to shop much more. In the past I suspect people fell in love by investing in each other more... not by shopping around for compatibility. I'm not advocating the past. I'm just saying, like your op highlights, at some point you need to stop and invest in what you have, not keep moving on or waiting for some mythical future scenario... and that increased choice, at least for singles, is contributing to the problem as much as it's offering a solution "Yeah, it's more common perhaps especially with online dating to see a difference of opinion or a hobby as an incomparability and excuse not to, maybe in the vain hope that the next person along will have opinions and hobbies more aligned. The truth is, there isn't a perfect match like that. A perfect match is more about tolerance, respect and support and encouragement of the differences. Being with someone that has different opinions and hobbies keeps things interesting. There is always things to discuss and new experiences to enjoy. Both people have to be willing to embrace the difference though and that's not easy to find but, that is where the investment is. | |||
| |||
"I have literally no control over my life so to be honest i'd rathee plan." Sounds pointless until you regain control | |||
"I have literally no control over my life so to be honest i'd rathee plan." Are you in prison? | |||
"Only to feel you missed the boat? Do you wish you had gone with the flow as far as love, marriage and children are concerned? Or, can you really say... I don't want to get married until I'm... I'm not going to have children until I'm... Or, we will have children in a few years when we can afford it! For me, life isn't like that! Is it possible to manage and plan these things or, have you tried and regretted it?" I’m just going with the flow  | |||
"I have literally no control over my life so to be honest i'd rathee plan. Are you in prison? " Well let's just say the plan involves digging a hole with a spoon | |||
"Those who plan everything I think miss out on a lot of the 'real' fun stuff. It's akin to overlooking the simple free things in life in exchange for things that cost and often ruin you. I've found my happiest most memorable and ultimately most satisfying were the things life through at me and I went with it." Totally disagree. I think planning enables you to be in a position to take advantage of, and therefore enjoy, a higher type of pleasure (e.g. satisfaction from earned rewards). People who take every moment at it comes, have to lower their expectations of life so far down, that maybe they can satifiy themselves in the smallest things, but that's nothing to be proud of. | |||
"I have literally no control over my life so to be honest i'd rathee plan. Are you in prison? Well let's just say the plan involves digging a hole with a spoon "That's why he can't accommodate but can travel! | |||
