Loving Kind

A question comes to mind.

Would you enter into a relationship with less than an equal of your moral standing, ambition and inteligence...?????

I actually did, lol

and I'd do it again. Yeah healthy relationships are probably best found with "equals" but even though the relationship I was in for the most part was anxiety ridden and kinda self destructive on both parts. It still had some pretty awesome moments, and to this day I love those moments.

it depends on what type of relationship we're talking about as well, like is it a "fling" or "true love" ( can't say that word without thinking of princess bride lol)

The Old Doris wrote: Would you enter into a relationship with less than an equal of your moral standing, ambition and inteligence...?????

Let me ask her and get back to you :lol:

I have done. Total unmitigated disasters.

on a related note.... this is in the humour thread, are we meant to be sharing the now humorous tales of our ill advised, badly thought out relationships? :silly: :lol:




Wuv... twue wuv....

.

I have lots in the area of "romance"

Sammy, you remember my post in the flirting thread?

lol

The Old Doris wrote: A question comes to mind.

Would you enter into a relationship with less than an equal of your moral standing, ambition and inteligence...?????

To break it down

Less than equal of moral standing: Depends on how far less. My husband and I both have our drawbacks and strengths in different areas. He also doesn't believe in religions (although I'm poking him in his interest in Buddhism occasionally lol) But he has always been supportive in my quest for religion and I've switched it on him ..three times now? But on the big ticket items, such as the value of human life, I'd say we were matched.

Ambition: I can't say I have a lot of ambition....Actually I think I do I just have issues with believing in myself. But that aside, my husband had a severe lack of ambition when we first started dating and for the first four years of our marriage. It was a frustration for the both of us. He was frustrated that he wasn't contributing financially, and I was frustrated that I didn't have the money to reach my "out of debt' goal as quickly as I'd have liked. Now, he's working on his childhood dream of becoming a commercial pilot! (and now I have even less money to go to debt but that's ok)

Intelligence: Eh...that's a hard one. I think my husband is more intelligent than I am but I'm far from stupid. Honestly it's common sense that would be my problem.

Ultimately people can be taught if they want to be. I think I heard somewhere that "all women are crazy, you just have to find the crazy you can work with". I think that goes for both sides though Find the one you can work with and go with it! No one will be equal to you in all areas. The more of the difference, the more of the frustration. I think the question comes down to "Is it worth it?"

To add in a funny, while I was deployed my own mother asked me if there was anyone who had caught my eye out there.

"I'm married!"
"I know! But if I was away from <step-dad> I'd be lonely."
"Well, sure! There's two I'd be interested in if I WASN'T MARRIED! It's not like I'd DO anything!"
"Oh I know!"
"Besides, who else could I find to put up with me?"
and then my lovely mother said: "Yeah, no kidding! <my husband> is too good for you!"
LOL Thanks Mom...

I do indeed Sidvkili, oohhh deary me...you poor lad...

Actually, anyone with whom I can fall in Love is in many ways far superior to me in those areas, or at least has the potential to be, beginning as an equal or otherwise ...

I feel as well that one would best be very careful of making judgements about someone's morals (what is a moral "standing" ?), ambition and intelligence. These characteristics are far from static ; they change moment by moment and over time generally. But there is a huge difference between entering into a relationship and falling in Love.

Secondly, whereas entering into a relationship is a conscious choice, if one feels Love for someone, it really doesn't matter how moral, ambitious or intelligent that person is. As it turns out, we often don't choose to fall in Love -- we discover, often rather bitterly, that we have done. That leaves only the choices of fleeing from it (due to moral, ambition or intelligent considerations) or pursuing the relationship. Yet, it is not one-sided -- the other makes "considerations" as well ...

A foolish figure therewith is that should one refuse a relationship based on some sort of standard, it does not necessarily mean that the sentiment will abate. No - we still have to feel the separation, whether the relationship was or wasn't. Sometimes even, when one truly loves someone, the refusal of the relationship may be the most honourable expression of that Love.

So, I really do not have an answer to the question. When I love someone, I love most completely, whether it be in the context of a relationship or not.

The question that is begging to be answered here is, how do you define relationship? Most assume that you meant a romantic relationship but the word relationship means many more things than that. I have friends with a variety of different moral standpoints, ambitions and levels of intelligence.

Morals are different based on perspective. What may seem moral to one person could be abominable to another. These are hard to quantify as "more" or "less" moral. But generally I associate with people who have similar morals. My morals are, generally, stronger than the ones of the others around me, that isn't to say that they are better, I mean simply that I am more committed to them. I generally only enter into relationships with others who are similarly committed to their morals.

Ambition is the easiest of the three, as I could not have a relationship with someone who has no ambition. In the place of ambition, however, I think that I would use the word passion. It seems to fit better for what I like it to mean. Someone without any passions is someone whom I would not like to be with.

Intelligence, like morals, is hard to quantify. There are various forms of intelligence and they show themselves at different times. For me to have a relationship with someone they need to be able to keep me mentally stimulated. That is all. I do not know what that means for their level of intelligence really.

On a side note I would like to address all of those who said they would only be with someone who had the same level or a greater level of these traits. Doesn't that create a problem in itself? If you will be with someone of higher moral standing, higher ambition and higher intelligence that means that you expect that person to be willing to be with someone who lacks in these three areas compared to themselves. Personally I believe that there is far too much that goes on when you enter into a relationship for it to be limited to three categories. All things are based on perspective and are reliant on outside factors.

May the Force be with you,
Rai

Raikoutenshi wrote: On a side note I would like to address all of those who said they would only be with someone who had the same level or a greater level of these traits. Doesn't that create a problem in itself? If you will be with someone of higher moral standing, higher ambition and higher intelligence that means that you expect that person to be willing to be with someone who lacks in these three areas compared to themselves. Personally I believe that there is far too much that goes on when you enter into a relationship for it to be limited to three categories. All things are based on perspective and are reliant on outside factors.

Very good point Rai! Something I ask people regularly (and im somewhat unpopular for it) Are you someone that you would consider dating? You cant expect someone else to settle for what you yourself would not.

But in terms of saying No. the question was about equal moral standing, ambition and inteligence. I strongly believe that there needs to be, if not equal then definitly similar levels between partners. Opposites may attract, but opposing value systems do not make for good long term foundations.