A Whole New Can of Worms (Warning: read first post first.)

[Pieman]

I'm not saying that someone is best in all categories; I'm saying that there will be someone who meets your personal criteria better than anyone else.

[SpriteMeister]

It's all too subjective to have a definitive "best", and I certainly don't want to spend my time sifting through seven billion people to find that 100% when I've already got someone that I'm happy with.

Plus, what's best for me today is not necessarily what'll be best for me in ten years, which won't be the same in 30 years, etc. And there's certainly no reliable way to judge how good someone will be throughout a lifetime besides spending a lifetime with them. And I don't know about you guys, but I'm only gonna get one, maybe two lifetimes in before I'm a goner, and I'd rather spend them with someone I know will make me happy.

[juneloveslotr]

While all points made thus far are valid, there is some scientific backing to love that lasts a lifetime. Studies have been done on new couples as opposed to couples who have been together for ten, twenty, thirty plus years and found something very interesting. The older couples displayed the same neural activity when seeing a picture of their loved one as the new couples, the Caudate Nucleus. Further more, tests were done on North American Prairie Voles, one of the few mammals that most of the species mate for life, and found that the male voles that did mate for life had a much higher level of Vasopressin in the brain then the male voles that had many partners. While the notion that a perfect partner may be flawed, the concept of a life partner is scientifically sound. And as a little anecdotal evidence: Pel is not perfect, not by a long shot, no one is. What I can tell you from the deepest part of my conciseness, that he is perfect for me. While there are things that annoy and irritate me about my husband, I know that if I where to change those things, that would change who he is and maybe the way I love him. While it all sounds sappy, it is honest.

[the Scarf]

Well, yes. The concept of "loving someone in spite of their flaws" is silly. When you love someone, you love them BECAUSE of their flaws, even if their flaws can be annoying sometimes.

Anyways, my original point still stands. There is more than one person for any given other person out there. I'm not trying to undermine those who go with the first one that works for a long time (after all it works, right?) and I'm not trying to say that everyone should keep activly looking if they're happy. What I AM saying is that if things didn't work out with someone who you were convinced was "the one" you should not despair and be all like "BUT THEY WERE THE ONE I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WITH" because that's just stupid.

[Pieman]

I certainly don't want to spend my time sifting through seven billion people to find that 100% when I've already got someone that I'm happy with.

I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying that statistically, there will be someone better for you than anyone else, be it who you're with or not. I actually agree with what you're saying there.

It's all too subjective to have a definitive "best"

But all the subjectivity comes under its own criteria.

[juneloveslotr]

What I AM saying is that if things didn't work out with someone who you were convinced was "the one" you should not despair and be all like "BUT THEY WERE THE ONE I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WITH" because that's just stupid.

And my point is that they still could be "the one", that sometimes you just have to really work at it. No relationship is easy after you get past infatuation, sometimes it's impossible for some amount of reasons that you honestly can't be together. But Americans on the whole are giving up at the first sign of trouble rather then working it out with one another. We've stopped believing in fairytale love, but still expect it to work out that way, when we should believe in it enough to work to make it work that way or until it falls apart completely. The exception or course is abuse, but that goes without saying I think.

[Pieman]

...unless you're into that sort of thing...

[Torg]

In that case it's not abuse, just use.

[Pieman]

It's an unusual way of using someone; hence 'abuse'.

[the Scarf]

Sort of. If you're into abuse and you find somebody who is abusive but you never actually have a discussion where you tell them that you WANT to be abused, then you have not actually given your consent and you're using them just as much or even more than they're using you. It is unhealthy to work that way, and in an abusive situation, it could get very dangerous.

And my point is that they still could be "the one", that sometimes you just have to really work at it. No relationship is easy after you get past infatuation, sometimes it's impossible for some amount of reasons that you honestly can't be together. But Americans on the whole are giving up at the first sign of trouble rather then working it out with one another. We've stopped believing in fairytale love, but still expect it to work out that way, when we should believe in it enough to work to make it work that way or until it falls apart completely. The exception or course is abuse, but that goes without saying I think.

Well, no they're not "the one." They're "the one that you have chosen." To me, the second one carries more weight, and should mean more in society, but at this point America has a very "cynical teenager" view on love, which is exactly as you described it. The vast majority of us don't believe in the fairy tale "One true love and they lived happily ever after" stuff, but still expect it to work out that way.

This tends to manifest itself in people as serial monogamy (where a person goes from one relationship to another, breaking up with a person as soon as things stop working out so nicely) or as the complete unwillingness to let go of a relationship long after they should have. Neither is desirable.

[juneloveslotr]

I really don't like people calling serial monogamy monogamy. It's exclusive, yes, but it diminishes the concept of monogamy. Not that the concept has a lot of merit, but at least be honest with yourselves people. If you only have sex for love, then A: you wouldn't have sex until after the three year mark after you know it's more then infatuation B: they would only ever "make love" rather the screw or have animal sex or play or have sex to release tension and C: would become celibate if that relationship fell through for one reason or another until "A" was met as a criteria.

[the Scarf]

Yeah, serial monogamy is not really monogamous, but as far as terminology goes it makes sense?

I have a rule that I intend to follow, which is that I will not get engaged with someone unless I've been dating them for at least five years. I know this isn't a rule that everyone is going to follow, or even should follow, but it is my safeguard to myself. I made Duncan promise that he wouldn't try to propose to me or anything until we had been dating for five years.

[juneloveslotr]

Rule of thumb is "when you're ready".

[Pieman]

The main problem there is that you don't always know when you are ready.

[juneloveslotr]

that is certainly true. I thought I was ready until Pel told me he was ready. By the he was back with the condom, I was shaking with fear.

[the Scarf]

I thought I was not going to be ready until I had been with Duncan for longer, but that turned out to be wrong.

[juneloveslotr]

Well, you'll have to tell me what that means next time I ketch you on Gmail.

[Mophtran]

So I like this guy. Not sure he feels the same way.

I mean at first there was a lot of physical attraction between us, but now I'm getting those damn butterflies. It's like I'm going about this backwards.

Feel I need to clarify. We've not done the whole shebang, but there has been a little play here and there. That's not why we first met up, though.

[Mystery Fish]

>Go to friend's 18th
>Girl there who is 14. knows almost nobody. Introduced to her right at the start.
>Get her to dance, she has a good time, she comes up to dance with me.
>She has a good time, I have a good time. Sitting together, talking whenever not up dancing.
>I don't ask her number. Also she's 14. 4 years younger than me.

Shit son, I think I ducked up there. Why can't I pull girls my own age, and why, when it seems I pull, do I chicken out and not ask number. Feels bad man

[Ziggy Stardust]

On the plus side, Fishie, you made some 14 yr-old's night. She is probably very happy you were interested in her, we are like that.
I dunno about not gettin' girls your own age. In a few more years that'll be a lot more acceptable, if it's a pattern that continues.
@Moph: maybe you should talk about your feeeeeelings.

[Mystery Fish]

I think I'm happy just being friends with her, which is probably just as well, bit too much of an age gap there at this age. She's a nice girl

TOTAL
Girlfriends scored: 0
Friends made: 1

Everything went better than expected.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Friendship is magic. :3

[Pieman]

And you are all my very best friends!

Also Kentan, closer than I've gotten.

[Mophtran]

@Moph: maybe you should talk about your feeeeeelings.

I'm nervoooouuuuuuus!

But I'll see him sometime next week, early if I can help it. I do look forward to at least getting off my chest as I've been stressing out over it. I dunno. Thinking about it, I think he does like me too.

[Ziggy Stardust]

D'aww. Best of luck, Moph! (Luck=makeouts)

[Axe Shredder]

@Moph: Good luck dude!

Sharing random thing: I just realized something, in my life I've only had two girlfriends that were my age or younger.

Everyone else has been at least a year older.

Odd, non?

[Pieman]

That's more than I have.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, Manson's a playah. You can't fault him for that.
And some men are destined for the older ladies, that is just how it happens. I think one of my favorite authors likes older men because in all her little romance stories, the unlikely heroine with some major character flaw falls in love with some older man. The obviousness of this varies from story to story, but she likes tall guys, this much is obvious. Luckily her writing is so good I can afford her some formulas.