[LMB] "Settling" OT:

[Azalais Aranxta]

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, quietann wrote:

> On 12/14/06, Marna Nightingale <marna at marna.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Kalina Varbanova wrote:
> >
> > > the aftermath of a finished relationship has led me to the
> > > conclusion that I have to have extremely high
> > > expectations/requirements, or else I just... compromise
> > > myself into insensibility. I _deserve_ the best, because I
> > > give the best, right?
> >
> > And also, really, if the best isn't available, there are books to be
> > read, yes?
> >
> > So it's not like you HAVE to settle.
>
> It depends on how comfortable you are with being alone.  Not everyone wants
> that, and sometimes compromising helps one get one's main desire.
>
> I compromised a bit when choosing my husband.

Please understand:  nothing that follows is meant as a comment
about you directly.  Everything I've heard about *your*
relationship sounds fine, and I've liked you ever since you and I
and ono_sendai on WJ2 had that discussion about the mikvah that
p*ssed all those people off.

But for every woman I've met who's made herself happy by
compromising a little more, I've met ten who could stand to be
told that being alone is not the worst thing that could happen to
them.

> He's a wonderful, wonderful person, but there are little things
> about him that bug me.  Most of them are pretty trivial and it
> was worth compromising.

Well, he sounds like a human being, and certainly nobody is
perfect, but this also doesn't sound like the sort of thing I am
recommending people not do, which is to go into a relationship
with someone who has traits they know they do not want to deal
with on the grounds that they think they're no great shakes
themselves and this is probably the best they can do.

(I never want anyone to go into a relationship with ME thinking
"This is probably the best I can do," either.  Can you imagine?
YUCK.  But then I wouldn't date anyone who thought he was no
great shakes, so.)

> And he's *not* the person who turned me on the most sexually;
> in general I found that I had to put that one by the wayside if
> I didn't want my heart broken and my psyche stabbed with sharp
> knives.

Heh.  I'm not laughing at you, believe me.  Someone gave me that
advice once, but unlike you, it was phenomenally bad for me, and
worse for the men who didn't turn me as much as I needed them to.
I think there are people who can make that tradeoff, and people
who are better off not inflicting themselves on anyone who can't
keep their attention.

> I am also watching a friend do the "why won't anyone date me?"
> thing when there are several things about her that would be
> turnoffs for a lot of men if not most of them.  She vaguely
> acknowledges these things, but expects men to just ignore them.

I would advise her to use them as selling points, rather than
ignore or expect others to ignore them.  They may be turnoffs for
a lot of if not most men, but there are also probably men out
there who are looking for them specifically, and if they are
unlikely to change (obviously, if one is seriously considering
weight loss for real health reasons, one should not date a Fat
Admirer), that might be the best way to go.

> One *does* have to be realistic.

There's more than one way to be realistic.  Acknowledging who one
actually is and what one actually has to offer is important, but
deciding that because one isn't what most people in a given
society consider the most desirable isn't a good reason to go
with people you know will annoy, bore or irritate you constantly,
unless you are the sort of person who can't stand the ringing
silence of empty rooms for even a second--and even then, there's
IRC.

~malfoy :)

****************************************************************
Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy)
ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness

"I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it
think we all bow down." --Christopher Morley