‘Satisfaction and happiness are not as clear cut as we think they are,’ University of Texas, Austin psychology researcher Daniel Conroy-Beam said in a recent press release.
‘We do not need ideal partners for relationship bliss. Instead, satisfaction appears to come, in part, from getting the best partner available to us.’
Some idiotic pop psychology book I read once suggested that most of the world’s religions got it right and the way to happiness was to reject demanding too much and being happy with what we have.
I remain unconvinced. If only because we are so good at rationalising. We have made our choice and so it must be a good choice.
SMFS,
The religions of the world would like you to reject material goods (things they don’t sell) and focus on spiritual goods (things they do sell). That’s what every business does.
SMFS,
“Some idiotic pop psychology book I read once suggested that most of the world’s religions got it right and the way to happiness was to reject demanding too much and being happy with what we have.”
But that is what makes marriages basically work. OK, women should run away from men that beat them up, but your wife doesn’t cook well? Your husband looks at porn? Chances are that the alternative has other problems.
I kinda hated myself when I got married for not finding “the one” and then I realised that there’s no such thing. I met women I’d lusted after later and realised their flaws – one of them has no level of commitment to relationships, another is basically crazy.
Come in girlfriend no. 37. My time is up.
(* assuming 100 possibles; heroic assumption in my case.)
Isn’t there some statistical theory that you should not marry the first person you date, but then marry the first person you date after that one that exceeds that first date.
@jgh, would depend what your first date is like. Mine was attractive but was more frigid than a bucket of liquid nitrogen. In fact, she made Mary Whitehouse look like a raving sex maniac. So you might want to go up a few notches from there for your baseline.
I think the issue more surrounds the notion of an “ideal partner.” Given that we are all individuals (nobody required to declare that they are not), how would such a person differ from the best person within our circle of acquaintances? I believe that there are multiple potential partners out there for any individual, if not, the odds on any one of us meeting a suitable long tern mate would be huge. It was a truly improbable chain of events that led to this Surrey boy meeting the future MrsBud in a Yorkshire mining village. After 35 years, I think we have grown into each other’s ideal partner, it helps that we love cricket and rugby equally. And when she wants to watch zombies, I go and take a long bath with a beer and a good book.
The Curajus Site should decide who we marry, it would save all the hassle as they are bound to get it right and in our best interests. Think of the advantage, no need for expensive and disruptive divorces, no divorce lawyers or marriage councillors, no wife/husband beating and the untold happiness mean we would all be in a position to pay more tax without complaining.
Isn’t there some statistical theory that you should not marry the first person you date, but then marry the first person you date after that one that exceeds that first date.
It’s been much studied, in fact.
Not necessarily the first, because the number of people you are likely to date in your lifetime comes into it. I believe you should take the best one after a third (iirc) of those that you think you could date.
If you are not going to date much, then yes the second good one. If you are more attractive/wealthy, then after at least half dozen or so.
Then again picking early avoids issues of leaving the decision too late to a) change your mind and still have time to pick again, and b) have children at a decent age.
Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien. – François-Marie Arouet ‘Voltaire’ (1694-1778)
Still a pretty good maxim for many areas of life.
“The Curajus Site should decide who we marry, it would save all the hassle as they are bound to get it right and in our best interests. Think of the advantage, no need for expensive and disruptive divorces, no divorce lawyers or marriage councillors, no wife/husband beating and the untold happiness mean we would all be in a position to pay more tax without complaining.”
Sounds a lot like Islam to me…
Chester, it’s the best one after 1/e of the candidates, hence bif’s reference to 37.
I kinda hated myself when I got married for not finding “the one” and then I realised that there’s no such thing. I met women I’d lusted after later and realised their flaws – one of them has no level of commitment to relationships, another is basically crazy.
I have a saying which I am fond of: give me ten minutes with a single woman over 30 and I’ll tell you why they’re single. The reasons vary, but one that is extremely common is that they are not prepared to compromise on anything: they have to win any argument 100%, conceding absolutely nothing, and find it much easier to quit and “find somebody else” than put in any sort of effort to find a middle ground.
I’m eternally grateful that I married the one woman I got involved with who was prepared to put in the effort and compromises to make a relationship work. She told me the other day – after almost 10 years of marriage – that one or two of the things she didn’t like about me at the beginning she now sees as being strengths which have kept us together. A lot of women, in my experience anyway, run away and sulk at the first sign things aren’t to their complete satisfaction. That’s why internet dating over 30 serves up so many hopeless cases, most of them don’t need to find a partner they need to sort out the issues which have left them single in the first place.
Thanks, TN. That is wisdom.
I think I can sum up the over 30s women problem in 3 letters: ego.
Gamecock,
Indeed.