Good Partners
From the Shout Box - 8/23/17 (aka today)
— Buxtebuddha
Only good women are worthy of getting involved with.
— ArguingWAristotleTiff
What is your idea of a "good woman" or a "good man"?
— Bitter Crank
Are they hard to find?
Have you found one? Then what happened?
— Buxtebuddha
Only good women are worthy of getting involved with.
— ArguingWAristotleTiff
What is your idea of a "good woman" or a "good man"?
— Bitter Crank
Are they hard to find?
Have you found one? Then what happened?
Comments (68)
What is a reasonably good woman like? What is a reasonably good man like?
She found me, if you know what I mean, O:)
I don't. Elaborate, in excruciating detail.
I'm not sure about your angle with this question. I've met several "good women" throughout my life. I have not, however, (at least I don't think...) met the "good woman" with whom I will, presumably, spend the rest of my life with. Are you asking what that lady would be like?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Uh, the only thing that comes to my mind when reading this is my mom leading my little sperm through her darkness. Hmm, poetic.
The angle: many men look for a spouse that is like their mother, and many women look for a spouse who is like their father. They usually have a difficult time finding a spouse who makes the grade.
But there are a hell of a lot of incompatible people out there.
That said, I think there's some sense in searching for good women, in the plural sense. One woman may be intellectually gifted - we can engage her mind. Another may be sexually attractive - we can engage her vagina. Another may be an artist - we can engage her creativity and so on. Much like our shopping behavior. No single shop/outlet satisfies our every needs. We need to visit different places to get all what we need.:P
Expecting perfection, or even expecting a lot better, is usually a recipe for disappointment when looking for a companion/lover/mate/spouse/weekend fuck.
That explains why I've been looking for a dead person to be my wife. (Sure, a little dark).
I have a real question. If you found the perfect woman, what exactly would happen next.
Ooh, I know, I know! You'd discover your own imperfections. Fortunately, there are not many perfect women.
Well let's see... intelligent, independent, compassionate, chaste, not-selfish (I will not say obedient because if I use that word people will misinterpret my statements once again and say it's sexist), courageous, loyal, doesn't give in to peer pressure (this last one is very very important), doesn't get easily bored.
It's very similar to what a good man would be in my opinion.
Why? I don't think it's bullshit thinking about what's good and bad...
Yes, very very difficult :D especially if we insist that they meet all those characteristics. It's very hard to find a suitable marriage partner, whether male or female, in today's world (which explains why our divorce rates are 50%+)
In absence of her suitability as a partner, what might be meant by a 'good woman'?
Truly though, I learned a lot about what I shouldn't look for in a woman after spending several years in a mostly negative relationship. I also learned a lot about what I should be doing to allow my partner to be a good woman.
I've definitely found a keeper this time round - compassionate, supportive, loving, sexually responsive, hard-working, easy-going, frugal, and a great mother. The only thing she sometimes lacks is communicating in a timely manner.
I would say most of these qualities would make a 'good woman' (or person), whether in a relationship or not.
It's completely untrue to think that people that stay together have a better relationship than people that split. There are many influences that could lead to divorce. How normative it is, what your parents' relationships were like, and other influences, but the idea that people that have worse relationships split, and people that have good ones stay together seems completely wrong.
So, what makes a good partner? Above all dedication, and commitment one would think. As without those, it doesn't matter how awesome they are if they're going to take off after the first fight, or when someone younger, better looking, smarter or whatever becomes available...
So, I would say that the good person is the one you can trust, and is comitted to the relationship.
But, as you said, there are plenty of abusive partners who are trustworthy and committed, but they're not good people.
I was in a relationship that I ended where I was trustworthy and I was committed to the idea of trying to make it work, but, in the end, there were issues related to basic incompatibility, not the least of which was that she was not a terribly good person.
The point being that two really good people may not stay together simply because not everyone is meant to be with everyone else. Sometimes the failure of the relationship arises from two people pairing up who never should have, or, just as common, two people who simply don't grow in the same directions over the course of many years and that results in ending the relationship.
It is possible that ending a relationship is better than persevering just for the sake of proving your commitment if that relationship isn't offering many positive effects. I wouldn't call someone particularly good simply because he can suffer through a worn out relationship better than the next guy.
Well, my idea at least, if you're in a relationship to get something out of it (the positive effects), then I don't think you really love the other person. You're just being a utilitarian - maybe an enlightened utilitarian - and seeking your own benefit first, and secondly mutual benefit. To me, this cannot be love, because love implies self-sacrifice.
I personally would argue that it's better to avoid romantic relationships of the utilitarian kind, since it will inevitably lead to either you or your partner feeling like you have been just a tool to the other.
I don't think that I believe in that. It isn't that I don't think that some people are better suited for each other than others, or that some people are just better humans than others. It's that I don't think that that has a much to do with commitment as people tend to think that it does. That people that stay together are in general, more suited to one and other, or better people, or have better smoother relationships. I don't think that that has much to do with it at all.
After all, everyone has flaws, and most of us have at least one or two glaring flaws that are hard to ignore. But... our good mates overlook them, ignore them, or forgive them. And we in turn forgive their foibles, flaws, and fiascos.
There is, however, a limit. A "mean drunk" alcoholic can be just too exhausting to put up with. A chronic gambler may be as exhausting as an alcoholic. Violence (hitting, striking, kicking, etc.) and frequent abusive speech ("you stupid, ugly slut"; "you worthless piece of scum" and so on) shouldn't be tolerated for long.
It is possible, you are right. However, if you ended up in a romantic relationship with them, presumably you did get along with them at some point I would think, and so you weren't incompatible. So from where the incompatibility? I have to say that I've seen a lot of couples fighting but these incompatibilities arise with time, which means that in my opinion they are more superficial. For example, there were "incompatibilities" in my relationship with my first girlfriend that arose, but there was nothing that could not be surmounted.
I think incompatibilities - provided that there exists (or once existed) a background of compatibility which accounts for the commitment in the first place - arise out of selfishness or inability to love the other.
I cannot possibly be incompatible with a woman at the time I commit to the relationship, for then I wouldn't commit would I? First I make sure that - in my case - she's the kind of person who likes intelligent conversation, doesn't get easily bored, is independently minded, takes sexual morality seriously, is a spiritual person and so on so forth. If she doesn't meet this criteria why would I enter into a relationship with her in the first place? Even if I loved her, I would try to prove my love to her as a friend, and subtly through self-sacrifice convince her of the right values, and only then would I commit to her and enter into a romantic relationship. She must understand who I am as a character, and that it is good to be like this. Just like in war, there is lots of groundwork there, it's not so easy.
If I love my wife for example, and she feels my job is incompatible with our relationship, what shall I sacrifice? Her, or my job? I think the answer is very clear, my job, if I love her. And the sacrifice of my job will carry a lot of weight in proving who I am to her. Self-sacrifice is essential for love.
Now it is possible to get to be in a relationship with a selfish and abusive person. But I have not met such cold-hearted people (who nevertheless are compatible enough at first) who cannot be mellowed and broken down with the application of the right strategies. For example, if your wife offends you time and time again, but you bear the offence, does that not show greatness of character? What if you show her mercy multiple times? Does that not show magnanimity? For how long will she ignore it? There may be people who will keep on abusing - but I'm just saying I haven't personally met people who cannot be won over - or at least made to feel very guilty and regret what they've done - by the application of the right strategies. In fact, it may be possible to turn such a person from someone who hates you at the time, into someone who deeply loves you once they realise who you really are.
It shows magnanimity of character - which typically impresses all but the most cold-hearted people, but there are limits to it as you say. Nietzsche said a great man can tolerate even his parasites - he has sufficient strength for it. But all this must be skillfully used to change the other person so that in the future there is no more need for forgiveness.
490. That should get you a ways through a few years of your relationship. She of course will have to forgive you 490 times. (Or did he mean 70 squared? 4900 seems a little high to me. If you were to live 60 more years, you might have to forgive her (and she you) every 4.4 days, max.
For which of you, your bride or her groom, will there be more difficulty forgiving 490 times?
Perhaps you could share just what those strategies are that can turn someone who hates your guts into somebody who realizes who you really are, and then in love falls deeply with you.
It sounds a bit far fetched to me. I passed it by a jury of 12 sentimental drag queens and they delivered a unanimous verdict (with very little drama) that it was highly unlikely you could do any such thing. They know a really bitchy queen, however, they would like you to demonstrate your methods on.
If she had those qualities, how could you ever be sure she did not take you in out of pity?
ouch
Like in what way? I'm fortunate enough to have a wonderful mother, but dare I say many, perhaps most, children don't have wonderful mothers or respect them to the moon and back.
Isn't this why someone would love another? We need love because we are all flawed and I don't think love is a "toleration." I wouldn't describe a mutual growing between two persons in a loving relationship as a mutual toleration of flaws. Potaytoh, potahtoh maybe...
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think many people's limit on flaws is reeeeeeeeeaaaaally shallow and counterproductive to fostering intense and prolonged intimacy when people can't get past silly hurdles in a relationship.
They have difficulty because they idealize their parent, and no live person is going to match that ideal.
Okay, no problem.
Quoting Hanover
Sorry about that!
Quoting Hanover
That depends. Do you start dating a stranger? I wouldn't. First I would be very good friends with that person, spend a lot of time with them, etc. I should at least have some sort of idea who they are by the time I go out with them, wouldn't you say so? So in this case dating would be a process wherein I learn MORE about the other person and am more intimate with them, but whether or not they're the right match would already have been determined with a good degree of certainty beforehand.
Quoting Hanover
Well sure, and some people do.
It depends from case to case. I can't specify "generally" what such strategies would be since they're always formed and applied in particular circumstances. Suffice to say that it involves making the other person want to change themselves rather than feeling they have to change because you tell them so.
Ahh but is it a problem if she took me in out of pity? After all, out of all men in the world, she took pity on me and on no other! That is great! :D
Some people are horrible. We don't tend to form relationships with others because they're good or bad though, but because your neighbors, work together, roomed together, are family, met through similar interests, and share constitutions, political and religious affiliations. That short of thing. What continues a relationships is maintenance and commitment, in my view. Though, I'm not super great at it, and am a loner.
Look up the statistics for first love marriages, and highschool sweethearts. People with the most endearing, long lasting marriages in fact often did marry the first one, and lived happily ever after.
I really do hold that what is significant, or important is the promise, the commitment. If it were about suitability of any kind, you would have to believe that you're the most suitable, otherwise someone more suitable could come along, and things would be reasonably, and acceptably over. It isn't though, because of the commitment, and not the suitability.
This seems a bit tautological though. As a couple increases its level of commitment, the likelihood of divorce decreases, where "commitment" is defined as "refusal to divorce."
It may be. I just think that it's important to point out that the quality of the relationship, or the suitability may have absolutely nothing to do with its sustainability.
How many people actually do this, though? I don't even idealize my mother, so it's hard to imagine there being swaths of infatuated kiddos...
Oh really? >:)
No, I made it up.
I don't have a number, but it is likely a small minority who do this. It's a fraught practice that tends not to lead to success. Most people just don't look for a mate who resembles their idealized parent.
On the other hand, one's parents are the model of spouses that one knows the most about. So, the kind of parent one has are likely to influence one's spousal choices (and one's own spousal behavior) to some extent.
Naturally. Other people make up their statistics, why shouldn't you? >:)
This is very true.
[quote="Wosret;100156"though, I'm not super great at it, and am a loner.[/quote]
I'm something of a loner too. Plus, I don't have a great understanding of how to deal with other people in the most effective manner, at least most of the time. Sometimes I think I'm a loner because people are avoiding me.
I'm a loner because I avoid them. I don't answer my phone, I rarely return texts. Only if they actually have a question, or substantial thing to tell me, otherwise I tend to just ignore it. I'm not very good at small talk, or just talking as a means of maintaining the relationship. I'm obviously some kind of retard.
Funny thing, is I figured that if I looked it up. conscientiousness would be the greatest trait indicator of successful longterm relationships, and it turned out that it, and agreeableness are. Neuroticism is the one most linked to relationship failure and dissatisfaction. Openness doesn't seem very important. When it comes to the traits, I'm like 98% openness, and like 58% neurotic. So even though I'll try anything, I'll find it all largely unsatisfying, lol.
>:O LOL, good one!
I actually made up that I made it up. I heard someone quote it though, and don't know where it's from exactly.
Yeah, I thought so, I didn't mean to suggest you made it up the first time around though (I know very little & vaguely about Jung, so I just wouldn't know).
I was intending to say "oh really?" in the sense of "do you really think I'd want to have sex with her if I had seen her?". I meant that in a mischevious and playful kind of way though.
I'ma tell Freud's mom on you.
Oh so you're going to do what Reince Priebus did to Anthony Scaramucci for 6 months before he could get in the White House? >:O
I don't really know who those guys are, and I don't care to either.
Does the American news not spill over the border? :P
Is it on Game of Thrones, or Rick and Morty? If not then it doesn't exist to me.
If you can live with that,who am I to say anything about it.