What Would You Rather Have With Your SO...

[rainbowsandroses]

Hi guys...

The below was said by 'Gerry" from 'The Golden Bachelor' from my previous thread.

>>"Right now, I'm dying inside. I'm in love with both of them, and in each case I've told them 'I love you.' With each of them I can see a life together," Gerry explained. "Life with Leslie would be a very exciting life. She's adventurous. She looks out for me and I look out for her. But Theresa and I have this bond. We know what the other person is feeling. We know what they've been through."

Cheesy I know and it's from a reality TV show but nevertheless, it got me thinking towards my next person and relationship. What's more important?

1) Someone interesting, fun, exciting, stimulating where life would never be boring and we each have each other's backs?  

OR ..

2) Someone with whom we share an emotional bond, can feel each other's thoughts and emotions where relating is easy and effortless but sometimes a bit hum-drum?

I suppose it would be nice to have both but if you had to choose?  What would I choose?  What would you choose? 

Or should we choose?  Is it necessary to KNOW what we want, or the type of relationship we want before we go looking for it?

i never did.  I never even thought about it.  I met a man, we felt an energy/chemistry together and we'd take it from there.  

Go with the flow, one day at a time...

Not so sure about that anymore though, doesn't seem to be working for me.

Although I've had great relationships but obviously they didn't go the distance. 

Any thoughts?

Thanks! 😀

 

 

 

[Seraphim]

The bond is more important than excitement. 

[Sindy_0311]

Stop watching this crap 😂

[Seraphim]

My husband and I have settled into a very quiet equilibrium of every day life with occasional excitement which isn’t too exciting, ie holidays. Swinging chandelier excitement isn’t necessary however a strong bond and goals and morals in common are . 

[Capricorn3]

18 minutes ago, Seraphim said:

My husband and I have settled into a very quiet equilibrium of every day life with occasional excitement which isn’t too exciting, ie holidays. Swinging chandelier excitement isn’t necessary however a strong bond and goals and morals in common are . 

^ This. Totally agree. You sound like my double.😊

[rainbowsandroses]

26 minutes ago, Sindy_0311 said:

Stop watching this crap 😂

Lol, I'm actually not watching, I read it on line, it popped up on my screen earlier. 

And yeah I know it's cheesy but it got me wondering.

You're single Sindy, have you ever thought about it? 

[Sindy_0311]

11 minutes ago, rainbowsandroses said:

You're single Sindy, have you ever thought about it? 

I would choose bonding, of course 😊

[rainbowsandroses]

25 minutes ago, Sindy_0311 said:

I would choose bonding, of course 😊

Why do you say "of course"?  Not everyone wants that for various reasons.  

To be totally honest, I've been through so much BS, I'm not sure I'm even capable of bonding anymore and may be better off single or going with no. 1.

I'd like to find no. 2 again though, if possible.

 

[boltnrun]

I can't "bond" with someone who wants to sit at home all the time.  Unless it's football Sundays, then we're staying home 😜

My ex husband didn't want us to have any friends and he only wanted to go places when it was just the three of us (him, me and our child).  He didn't even want to visit his own family!  Oh, and we only went on vacations when I paid.  I saved up money from my little part time jobs until I had enough for airfare or gas for the car, hotels, event tickets, entry fees and meals.  He would not contribute one cent toward travel.  Obviously we were not significantly bonded as we are divorced, but geez, sitting at home all the time was so tedious!  He didn't like me meeting up with my girlfriends for lunch and shopping either.  He sabotaged as much as he could if I made plans.

I'm completely single and have been for about eight years.  So I go on my own adventures.  I'd love to find a friend close to my age who also likes to go places and see things.

I went to an event for NFL football this past summer.  I was happy to see a group of women who were about my age or a bit older who were there on their own, wearing their jerseys and cheering for the team.  I wanted to make friends with them but I didn't want to be pushy.  I talked to them for a few minutes.  I hope to see them at other events and maybe I can try to make friends with them.  Middle aged women who like football enough to go to events on their own are rare, at least from what I've found.

So to answer your question, I need someone who's adventurous in order to bond.

[Jaunty]

1 hour ago, Sindy_0311 said:

Stop watching this crap 😂

Well, since it's framed in the context of a ridiculous television program,  I think the "correct" answer will be the one that provides the most engaging experience for viewers.  That would be the exciting lady.

In "real life," assuming that nobody here is on a reality TV show, this will translate into much more views and "likes" on ones social, thereby winning them ... whatever is gained by such things.  

I don't really understand it all, being old and curmudgeonly.  But I do definitely get the picture that providing valuable fodder for an audience is very important to many people.  

[Kwothe28]

No2. I never was "excitment chaser" and fan of people who would chase it any cost. Always wanted more "peaceful harbor" life. I think a lot of it depends on how people grow up and what they adopt as the norm. I had a nice family life as a kid. So naturally I am more inclined to that. Dont need a vacation every month and trip to the mountains to spice up life. Would satisfy with one over the summer at the sea. 

[rainbowsandroses]

7 minutes ago, boltnrun said:

So to answer your question, I need someone who's adventurous in order to bond.

This resonates with me so much, thank you!  It's like you need No. 1 (in some form or fashion) to have No. 2! 

And developing No. 2 takes time, you don't just meet someone and immediately bond.  Or maybe some people do, I shouldn't speak for everyone.

Thanks again, I think I'm on my way to figuring this out! 

 

[Batya33]

I would choose the bond.  But also it depends on how much you think couples have to pursue interests together.  I know of couples where one spouse climbs mountains/does triathlons etc etc and the other spouse doesn't participate and it's all good.  I had my list of musts.  Adventurous was not on that list.  But to me having a baby especially at our age while moving 800 miles away (and I'd lived in that city we were from 43 years straight -him more like 30-ish) and leaving my career all in one year -I mean I think that's pretty darn adventurous on both our parts.  

I'm not joined at the hip with my husband.  So if he wants to go on rollercoasters I'm not going with him but I'll do other rides.  We both like to travel -him more than me - I'm more of a comfort zone person. So here's the other thing -it's silly to think people are set in stone to that extent.  I've been much more adventurous travel-wise because of him - and then there are couples where they have all these plans and then one spouse all of a sudden is content to watch a good show at night and go to bed early.  That's when the bond and the vows take priority IMO.

[Batya33]

52 minutes ago, rainbowsandroses said:

This resonates with me so much, thank you!  It's like you need No. 1 (in some form or fashion) to have No. 2! 

And developing No. 2 takes time, you don't just meet someone and immediately bond.  Or maybe some people do, I shouldn't speak for everyone.

Thanks again, I think I'm on my way to figuring this out! 

 

I don't think it's a fixed bond. There's this core commitment/core bond but what you bond over and the nature of your bond changes especially if you have a child (or fur babies I bet) or others in your family unit you also bond with.  

It's ironic that you posted this today, the day Rosalynn Carter has passed at age 96.  She and Jimmy Carter were married 77 years.  They certainly had an adventurous life but neither had any idea it would be this way when they married so young.  I have a feeling "bond" was paramount. I believe they met when she was just a baby.  

[Cherylyn]

Excitement gets boring eventually. 

Emotional bond,  empathy,  placing yourself in other people's shoes,  emotional intelligence and a true partnership of that caliber trumps is most enduring and trumps all else IMHO. 

[shouldhavelearned]

With #2, you can have #1

[tattoobunnie]

On 11/19/2023 at 4:35 PM, rainbowsandroses said:

1) Someone interesting, fun, exciting, stimulating where life would never be boring and we each have each other's backs?  

OR ..

2) Someone with whom we share an emotional bond, can feel each other's thoughts and emotions where relating is easy and effortless but sometimes a bit hum-drum?

I have both with my hubs.  True intimacy and being able to be vulnerable is never boring.  People who bring the best out in you is never boring.  Gerry's statements just sound like generalizations of two people he doesn't really actually know.  Over time, the right person for you is always going to be both of those things.

[boltnrun]

I loved it when my husband surprised me. Sometimes he said or did something I could have sworn he'd never say or do. It was fascinating. 

If I knew everything he would say or do every minute of every day, that would have been deadly boring. Unfortunately he did become that predictable guy, which is partly why we're not married anymore.

[rainbowsandroses]

3 hours ago, tattoobunnie said:

I have both with my hubs.  True intimacy and being able to be vulnerable is never boring.  People who bring the best out in you is never boring.  Gerry's statements just sound like generalizations of two people he doesn't really actually know.  Over time, the right person for you is always going to be both of those things.

💛  

Thank you.  

[rainbowsandroses]

5 hours ago, boltnrun said:

I loved it when my husband surprised me.

I love that too Bolt!

I seem to like being separated a lot, togetherness just isn't my thing.  And it's not because I'm not crazy about him, I am!  I just like missing him, thinking about him, anticipating our next date/meet.

My ex-husband was a new entrepreneur, so he was gone a lot building his business, which suited me just great!   

But then my brother died, I had a miscarriage and some other things were happening and not sure why but I guess he felt I needed coddling or something and he was always around doting on me and I know it sounds weird but I hated it!  

The dynamic completely changed and I started feeling suffocated so I shut down. And it all went downhill from there.  I eventually left.

I dunno, that's why I don't think I'm cut out for relationships but I get so lonely sometimes like now.   And when I do meet a man I'm attracted to and everything clicks, my feelings run quite deep, but that STILL doesn't mean I want to see him all the time. 

I need a man to "be there" but not be there at the same time, if that makes sense.  It does to me.

Oh and I'm definitely not into casual dating, I believe in monogamy and loyalty on both sides.  Just not big on a lot of "togethernesss." 

[Lambert]

I think his comments were stated in a way for a reality show.  To build suspense.

Neither will really last long term.  You need both-- someone you want to be on adventures with and feel connected to.  I mean how will the woman he choses feel when she sees this?  She's either boring or not the one he feels a bond with.  YIKES. LOL

If I had to pick, I'd stay single.  Why settle.  I want have fun and feel connected.  

 

[Kwothe28]

1 hour ago, rainbowsandroses said:

I need a man to "be there" but not be there at the same time, if that makes sense.  It does to me.

 

Nobody likes to be "suffocated". For example, Ive heard that kind of talk(to be there but not be there at the same time) when it comes to dating. Being there all the time means you have nohing else going on, so you have to "be there but not be there" as that would at least show the other person that you can and will do the other stuff outside your relationship and that they can also do the same. And that you will not constantly require them to entertain you and be the strain on them. 

[rainbowsandroses]

16 minutes ago, Kwothe28 said:

Nobody likes to be "suffocated". For example, Ive heard that kind of talk(to be there but not be there at the same time) when it comes to dating. Being there all the time means you have nohing else going on, so you have to "be there but not be there" as that would at least show the other person that you can and will do the other stuff outside your relationship and that they can also do the same. And that you will not constantly require them to entertain you and be the strain on them. 

Totally agree, the issue however is the more space I need, the "hungrier" they get, the hungrier they get, the more space I need! 

I'm very much into balance but it's been difficult achieving it.   

Honestly I think I'm probably better off single.  I have a plan for next year that will keep me busy and challenged so gonna focus on that. 

I'm looking forward to it! 😀

[Batya33]

Just now, rainbowsandroses said:

Totally agree, the issue however is the more space I need, the "hungrier" they get, the hungrier they get, the more space I need! 

I'm very much into balance but it's been difficult achieving it.   

Honestly I think I'm probably better off single.  I have a plan for next year that will keep me busy and mentally challenged so gonna focus on that. 

I'm looking forward to it! 

But that's about gamesmanship- if you have a direct conversation with your SO about needing space (for example I strongly prefer these days to eat alone and have space to enjoy my food without having a conversation) then the push pull stuff is not likely to happen -you both get accustomed to the other's need for space and if you have a strong foundation of love and commitment it most likely won't be taken personally and trigger needy reactions.  

[rainbowsandroses]

8 minutes ago, Batya33 said:

But that's about gamesmanship- if you have a direct conversation with your SO about needing space (for example I strongly prefer these days to eat alone and have space to enjoy my food without having a conversation) then the push pull stuff is not likely to happen -you both get accustomed to the other's need for space and if you have a strong foundation of love and commitment it most likely won't be taken personally and trigger needy reactions.  

Ideally that sounds great and very logical.  However when emotions are involved, it can be challenging.

Plus, it's not one or two specific things, like having dinner alone or without a conversation, it's a way of life and just "being." 

In fact I LOVE talking and communicating and when we are not seeing each other in person, I love messaging!

In fact, sounds weird but before things went south, ex-hubs and I would have the best and most fun conversations sometimes via messaging and he'd be in another room (same house)!

It's very difficult explaining my nature, there's a duality to it, I'm actually just beginning to figure it out myself.

Thanks for your thoughts though, taking it all in!