The New "Am I the Only One" Thread

Been there, seen that. From experience, I think the people who move in with each other and think they love each other at first sight have...issues at home...and they need to deal with them somehow, and they think marriage and moving out is the only way to escape them

That's the thing: I think this "love at first sight" happens not in a permanent relationship way, more of a thing where they think that they have this permanent relationship but don't.

I know, and I HATE that, I really do. It could be just me though, the way I feel about it, I don't want to be one of people who's always "browsing" around, date someone, break up, date someone else, break up, date some more, break up some more, etc, I'd just as soon find someone, know that someone is "the one", and that be the only relationship I have. I HAVE found someone like that, I know in my heart, but unfortunately, that someone is a little blind by her own misjudgements, kind of similar to what Sarge has said, but I also know my trying to help would actually only complicate the situations for everyone involved, so it's more of one of those "waiting games" (which I actually hate as well).

True enough, true enough. I guess now the world's coming to an end again, Sarge just said something profound.

Someone give me a bible, I don't think the Apocalypse is supposed to work this way...

Nah.

It'll happen when the Kardashians win an Acadamy Award.

But is me saying something profound shortening the time it takes for that to happen?

Different things work for different people. You are supposed to meet as many people as you can to find a connection with them. That goes for something as simple as friendships. When something as complicated as finding a life long partner, you risk having a very unhappy relationship unless you do find that "one". And like I said, the societal pressures that force people to get married. Marriage isn't for everyone, yet we have to treat those who are not marriage material as complete societal deviants or complete losers. I HATE that. you ever hear horror stories of someone jumping on someone they're completely incompatible with just to say they're married? That's going to be one unhappy marriage.

Well friendships and marriages are two different things, though there is an old saying that TRUE love starts out as friendship, and there are those (like Princess Diana, I think) who say you should always marry your (best) friend, because when the newness has worn off and everything, you're always going to have that friend by your side.

And you're right, marriage isn't for everyone, but those who aren't marriage material, it's best that they just stay single to maintain their independence, and not become someone who's "adventurous", to put it another way.

-------------
Disagree with marrying your best friend...unless you can deal with incompatibilities which may arise as time goes on. My first ex WAS my best buddy...and we never, ever should have married. Just one or two issues -- and I'm talking deep, core issues, not whether they remember to put down the toilet seat -- out of whack can screw everything else up. This is why living together BEFORE you decide to commit to a marriage IS a good idea...a trial run with no strings, to see if you really love this person when you have to be around them 24-7. People let down their guard at home, with a little time and familiarity, and THAT is the best way for two folk to judge one another: is this person up close the same person you thought you loved?

Quite often, the answer is NO. Hence the divorce rate among people who never should have married to begin with. It's less a matter of "taking the relationship seriously" as it is knowing your own needs, AND your partner, very very well before you even take that step.
-------------

I really disagree with you there. If you have to "see" if you really love this person by testing it out, then you shouldn't be thinking about getting married to start out with. It's the same thing with anything else, you shouldn't have to see if you love your children by testing them out a while, or you shouldn't be a parent. You shouldn't have to see if you love your pet by taking him home for a while, or you shouldn't be a pet owner. It's the same thing: if people have to see whether or not they want to marry someone, then they're probably not a good candidate for marriage at that point, as suddenly instead of trusting their heart in knowing, they have to use other things to know. And the heart is the only one that seems to be right, 100% of the time.

(Sorry if I offended anyone or anything by that...just saying my thoughts)

That's right. To say, "Living together BEFORE you decide to commit to a marriage IS a good idea...a trial run with no strings, to see if you really love this person when you have to be around them 24-7," is another prime example of the corruption of today's decaying society, above all else, it also says that you don't trust this person enough to marry them, and like Hubert said, you shouldn't have to "test" or have a "trial run" to see if you love someone. Plus, saying "a trial run with no strings attached" is also basically saying you don't even really want this other person so much as you just wat "IT", and "IT" is NOT what a healthy relationship is all about; yes, it is a lovely thing to be shared between a man and his wife, or a woman and her husband, but there's more between two loving people than just that.

If you need a so called "test" or "trial run", that's basically what the whole dating period is for: to get to know each other, get acquainted, learn about each other, share good times, share bad times, etc, etc, etc, and you can do all of that WITHOUT living together, or doing IT. If both feel it's meant to happen, then that's what the engagement period is for: to prepare yourselves to make your union official, which leads to the marriage, which makes it official and legal.

------------
You guys...LOVE is chemical. The HEART is a muscle. There's nothing mystical about it. We are prompted by our hormones first, and our need for companionship second, to seek out others to partner with. This does not mean you should "trust your heart" in those first few throes of giggly abashed infatuation! Believing that such feelings will actually last past the first few months is what gets most couples in trouble in the first place, and our sappy society of rom-com and Nora Roberts and Nicholas Sparks only adds to the general misleading chemical-addled state of what is generally termed "romance."

I have thought I found "the one" EVERY TIME I had that wonderful, ecstatic, wrapped-up-in-joy feeling about someone else -- and you know what? That is the worst possible basis for choosing a lifelong mate!!

Observations of those few couples who DO manage to maintain a close relationship for years has convinced me that it is more a matter of ultimate compatibility than passion or hormones or feeling good in the other's company...so YES. One should try out a relationship. That's not mistrust; that's freaking rationality.

Kids can be molded. So can pets. It doesn't matter what they are when you first encounter them; they can be, to some extent, shaped. This is not cruel; this is fact. Owners train pets. Parents train kids. One cannot train an already-grown individual. So your argument about there being any sort of comparison is fallacious.

Sorry if this sounds cold. I'd rather be rational, and someday find someone who IS a match, truly, than to run from one failure to another basing my love life around a silly chemical rush.
-------------

I think you misunderstood me when I said, "trust your heart." I'm not talking about a silly chemical rush. I'm not even talking about chemical rushes at all. When I say "trust your heart," I mean that people need to trust their instincts, trust that inner part of your brain that knows what's "right," almost your conscience to some extent.

And then someone could bring up the argument that they trusted that, and it ended up failing them. My response to this: I think that they truly didn't have that knowing, and they only thought that they did, because I think that happens a lot, that because we never previously experienced it, we sometimes misinterpret and think that we knew that this person was "the one," even though we truly didn't know.

And I agree that it's the matter of ultimate compatibility. I've always agreed that. My point is that if you have to test it out, it probably isn't ultimate compatibility. That's probably why many couples who test it out end up not getting married...not because they realized they don't get along, but that they really were never ultimately compatible to start out with.

If there's one thing I've learned in life is to never trust my instincts, because it seems like my instincts are almost always wrong about everything... no matter what foresight I have, no matter what premonition I have, no matter what I predict will happen, the results always turn out the exact opposite of what my instincts said would happen... this is probably why I would be great friends with George Costanza, we could relate to each other.

But then you also have to take into consideration, were what you thought were your instincts really your instincts? Or did you only think that they were or hope that they were?

I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between instincts and thoughts or hopes, and I'm pretty sure it's my instincts.

I know this is not germane to the conversation, but that was one of the best episodes of Seinfeld. I loved how with every good decision George ended up making, something consequently went wrong with Elaine. Everything was perfectly linked together in that one.

Yes, and all the while, things always had a way of evening out for Jerry, haw.

I don't see why not. That's the best way to find out someone's not right for you before getting everyone involved. I'd rather people realize they're terrible for each other before they get married than after years of dire unhappiness. or worse... find out the relationship is abusive. There is nothing worse than an abusive marriage, I don't care what anyone says. I know someone who was in a VERY abusive relationship and it took her years to finally grow a pair and divorce... BUT the crazy and frightening ex-husband keeps stalking her through phone calls. She's still dreadfully unhappy. I'd hate to see ANYONE, even an enemy in that situation.

You can find out a lot about someone in a couple years. One way you can just leave, the other you have to make the painful decision to either stay together and work it out, or divorce and split up everything... kids, friends... even places and things. Slapping the label of moral to anything never turns out good.

But that's the basis of my point. We have to stop putting so much into marriage. It's like if you don't get married at a certain age, you're either a loser or a societal deviant. And marriage isn't even a one way ticket out of boinking other women. Never really has been, they just were more quiet about it in the old days.

Still, I get what you're saying. It's just not black and white. People can live together without being Hugh Heffner and Samantha from Sex and the City.

Am I the only one who hated Elaine's straight hairstyle during the first half of the final season of Seinfeld?