Why you should settle for "Mr. Good Enough."

[TravelingGal]

Article on MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23053553/

Some Quotes: Marriage isn’t a passion-fest; it’s more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business.

I’m guessing there are single 30-year-old women reading this right now who will be writing letters to say that the women I know aren’t widely representative, that I’ve been co-opted by the cult of the feminist backlash, and basically, that I have no idea what I’m talking about. And all I can say is, if you say you’re not worried, either you’re in denial or you’re lying. In fact, take a good look in the mirror and try to convince yourself that you’re not worried, because you’ll see how silly your face looks when you’re being disingenuous.

A number of my single women friends admit (in hushed voices and after I swear I won’t use their real names here) that they’d readily settle now but wouldn’t have 10 years ago. They believe that part of the problem is that we grew up idealizing marriage — and that if we’d had a more realistic understanding of its cold, hard benefits, we might have done things differently.

 

[FrekeChild]

Fascinating. Now I want to know out of the married ladies here, who feels they settled?

Hmmmm....

 

[gwendolyn]

I''ve only just skimmed it so far (will read it completely later), but it sounds to me like she''s basically saying, "Don''t be so picky you end up spending your life alone." Which I think is decent advice, although I think my way of phrasing it comes across better (in my oh-so-humble opinion) than saying, "Go ahead, settle," which to me comes across as thought the person settling is unhappy, pairing up with someone because they feel like that''s their last chance.

Will have to read it thoroughly later to see if that really is the gist, but this is the part that made me think that:

"My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics."

And I agree. Nobody''s perfect.

 

[bee*]

I used to work with a woman who got married in her 40''s and she was very open with the fact that they settled. She told us all that he was never someone that she would have married in her twenties or thirties but in her fourties she wanted companionship and he came along. They seemed very happy though.

 

[Sha]

Wow- such an interesting article. My best friend and I were arguing about this sometime ago. She was thinking about getting married to her boyfriend of 4 years - not because she really wanted to, but because she didn''t think anything better would come along (she''s 30). They''ve broken up several times over the years, and she''s repeatedly told us she didn''t think he was the ONe, he got on her nerves too much, too moody, she couldnt'' see herself being with him forever yada yada. Imagine our shock when she announced her engagement two weeks ago!

Anyway...I asked her if was ''settling'' just because she was afraid of being alone. She basically said "and what''s wrong with that?" , ":Why should i go looking for another love when the person I have is good enough? He''s not perfect... but he''s good enough. And he loves me." We argued about that a lot - with me saying she should hold out for Mr. Right (a difficult task at 30 years old, admittably) especially when she had so much to offer. She didn''t agree...

I don''t know what to think about this issue. On the one hand, I can definitely understand the urgency some women feel when they approach 35. ...SHUCKS!! I was feeling desperate at 28 years old!!

(Thank Goodness DH came along!) I can''t imagine how I would feel now...being 31 and single, and definiteliy wanting children. So I can understand the desire to settle. Definitely. But at the same time, I wonder if I would truly be happy settling? What if....3 years after settling... I met someone who WAS my MR. Right? How happy would I feel in my marriage then? To me, I would be thinking about the love, romance, and compatibility that might have been possible if I had met my true match. How do you ignore those feelings?

Plus, if I had settled, I think I would envioius seeing other women who seemed to be so compatible with their mates. I would have wished I had that connection too.

I don''t know...To me, settling just sets the stage for future resentment and discontent. For me, I think I would always be looking outside of my marriage at other male possibilities,thinking, "What if...?". Right now, I don''t even look at other men that much (other than to say, "okay, he looks cute") But I''m not interested in "what if?" because I''m so happy with who I have.

 

[Erin]

"By the time 35th-birthday-brunch celebrations roll around for still-single women, serious, irreversible life issues masquerading as “jokes” creep into public conversation: Well, I don’t feel old, but my eggs sure do! or Maybe this year I’ll marry Todd. I’m not getting any younger! The birthday girl smiles a bit too widely as she delivers these lines, and everyone laughs a little too hard for a little too long, not because we find these sentiments funny, but because we’re awkwardly acknowledging how unfunny they are."

Ha! and in real life I'm dating a divorcee named Todd. How's that for relating to this article?

I think moreso now than ever I'm understanding that in my twenties I had a rap sheet of qualities I thought my future husband should have. Now that list basically boils down to "We'll always be able to talk about anything" and "he doesn't suck." But at 32 I'm still hoping for at least college education, attractive to me, and a good kisser. Okay, okay, sense of humor and responsible are on there too. There I go being picky again

The hardest part is someone who wants to start a family as soon as I do. That is why my standards loosen at the collar a bit.

 

[Erin]

TGal what are you doing up at 2:30 in the morning? You''re supposed to be relishing sleep!

 

[janinegirly]

this is a great topic, and for me living in nyc, very appropos! I have soooo many friends who are now 35 and single (more than who are married) and it ain't pretty. One or two of them are still clinging on to the search for "mr perfect" while some of the others are scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything. Makes for some entertaining discussions and analyses but kind of depressing! I am very happy to only have to observe it from a distance.

I think this article hit it spot on. Its not about missing out on romance -- life is not a romantic comedy (for most at least). And settling is a harsh word, I consider it more being realistic. In your early 20's the things that matter to you are more shallow (looks! looks! status! will he make my friends jealous?!) but by 30, you're in a better and more secure spot--more mature and better able to see and appreciate the bigger picture. I mean in my early 20's I wanted to marry a hot investment banker who graduated from an ivy league. Uh ok...first of all there aren't too many of those and second of all 95% of them are jerks and likely to cheat. So even if I did pulll that off, probably wouldn't have been such a success story in the end.

What matters in a life-long partner is compatibility, respect, decency, strong character, selflessness, family values. And these qualities are actually the true HARD ones to find. Now I'm not saying go out and find someone like that even if you're not attracted to them b/c you still need to feel physically atttracted to them to make it a romantic fit as well. But finding an attraction doesn't have to be built soley around looks and others' perception. what is sexy to you may not be to the next person. And that's what makes each coupling so special.

 

[TravelingGal]

Starset, I am on pacific time, so it was only 1130.

But usually I am up pretty late. I''m training like Rocky for TTot''s eventual nightowl feedings!

I would have a hard time advising my 30something friends to "settle." I was really truly someone who turned 30 and didn''t panic about being single. I would be lying, however, if I said that milestone and lack of a prospect didn''t pass some mental notice. But I was like, glad THAT''S over...time to head off to Europe! Of course, 2 weeks into my trip I met TGuy and the rest is history. I do wonder to myself if I would still feel so footloose and fancy free (and unpanicked) if I were at my age now (35) and without a prospect. Interestingly, I think it would have more to do with my biological clock (even though I never cared to have kids) than the possibility of being alone. I don''t think I would have thought much about kids...UNTIL the possibility of having one was taken away from me.

I know lots of women in their 30''s DO settle. I know lots of women in their 20''s THINK they''re not, but end of getting divorced. Then they come back and meet someone in their 30''s and appear to settle again, but make a much wiser choice in a partner.

I still shake my head when I see someone settling...but it''s usually what I consider an overall BAD choice instead of someone who isn''t the BEST choice, if that makes any sense.

 

[Sha]

Date: 2/8/2008 9:44:43 AM
Author: janinegirly
this is a great topic, and for me living in nyc, very appropos! I have soooo many friends who are now 35 and single (more than who are married) and it ain''t pretty. One or two of them are still clinging on to the search for ''mr perfect'' while some of the others are scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything. Makes for some entertaining discussions and analyses but kind of depressing! I am very happy to only have to observe it from a distance.

I think this article hit it spot on. Its not about missing out on romance -- life is not a romantic comedy (for most at least). And settling is a harsh word, I consider it more being realistic. In your early 20''s the things that matter to you are more shallow (looks! looks! status! will he make my friends jealous?!) but by 30, you''re in a better and more secure spot--more mature and better able to see and appreciate the bigger picture. I mean in my early 20''s I wanted to marry a hot investment banker who graduated from an ivy league. Uh ok...first of all there aren''t too many of those and second of all 95% of them are jerks and likely to cheat. So even if I did pulll that off, probably wouldn''t have been such a success story in the end.

What matters in a life-long partner is compatibility, respect, decency, strong character, selflessness, family values. And these qualities are actually the true HARD ones to find. Now I''m not saying go out and find someone like that even if you''re not attracted to them b/c you still need to feel physically atttracted to them to make it a romantic fit as well. But finding an attraction doesn''t have to be built soley around looks and others'' perception. what is sexy to you may not be to the next person. And that''s what makes each coupling so special.

Yeah, when I first met my DH I wasn''t sure I wanted a serious relationship out of it....he just didn''t meet the mental picture I had it my head of ''Mr. Right''. He''s an attractive man, but there were little things that bugged me.... like his lips, his different political views, his ''wry'' sense of humour. I broke up with him twice because of those things, while keeping my eye on an ultra-hot, funny, man who had expressed an interest in me. It turned out, after I had gotten some more info on this ultra-hot man. that he verbally abusive to his ex-girlfirend as well as a cheater. (The grass is not always greener!). DH and I eventually got back together and the love grew from there.

I realize now that I would''ve been giving up a lot if I had stayed broken up my DH...just because of those niggling things that turned me off. He has the core qualities that I look for in a man... respectful, intelligent, considerate, loyal, affectionate... the list goes on. I find him more attractive now than when we first met! I''m so glad that it didn''t throw our relationship away just because he didn''t fit what I initially had in mind.

 

[TravelingGal]

Interesting ladies to hear your stories! So would we gals in our 30''s say we settled when we married our guys?

Oddly, on paper, I probably did...but I settled on things that I would have valued in my 30s...like having someone with a solid career, money, etc. I wanted a guy with a white collar resume! But after reading Janine''s post...maybe that is someone you actually dream of in your 20s?

TGuy seemed like someone who would have made my 20 something friends take notice...he was cute and had that Aussie accent (always adds two points to the total score!). But his resume was blue collar...he didn''t make much money, having worked on the factory floor, then starting a recent stint as a telephone technician. He had also never finished college (although he did nearly make it through, what a pity). By my standards, not "marriageworthy" but DEFINITELY flingworthy...woo hoo!

Darn it if I didn''t fall in love with the guy. Even worse, he fell in love with me!

Of course, as you all know, he ended up moving to the US to be with me. I was lucky that he ended up having a lot of other things that I do look for in a guy. Yes, he didn''t make a lot of money, but he was debt free. He was from a good, loving family. We saw eye to eye on a lot of things. In the beginning, he joked he was my bluecollar man. I was like, whatever...you''re one of the brightest guys I know and you''re awesome at what you do. Now, 2.5 years after he''s moved here, he has moved up to a pretty white collar job in an IT department where he wears a button down shirts and slacks everyday instead of a tech''s work uniform. He''s still amazed at how well he''s done here, and I''m amazed that in the end, I somehow got my white collar work guy, but only because I decided it really didn''t matter anyway.

 

[sandia_rose]

Date: 2/8/2008 2:28:49 AM
Author:TravelingGal
Article on MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23053553/

A number of my single women friends admit (in hushed voices and after I swear I won’t use their real names here) that they’d readily settle now but wouldn’t have 10 years ago. They believe that part of the problem is that we grew up idealizing marriage — and that if we’d had a more realistic understanding of its cold, hard benefits, we might have done things differently.

I had a similar conversation with my BF when we were having the afore-posted about TALK last week. He admitted that he had a fear that if we settled down together, I would drive him crazy. So I said, "Do you love me?" And he said, "Yes, I do. It's a dumb fear." And I said to him, "If we broke up, you could look all over the universe for someone perfect, and I'll tell you right now, she does not exist. People should marry or settle down with someone they love and want to build a future with -- and not look for an ideal that they'll never find."

My BF is not perfect. Far from it. But rather than concentrate on his faults - which we all have - I choose to concentrate on his good qualities: His ethics, his sense of humor, his intellegence, his hard-working work nature, his creativity, his compassion and wisdom as a father, how he treats me and makes me feel. He has definate husband potential.

I am going to be 40 in a couple of months, and I was previously married. My ex looks good on paper and was very attractive when I first married him (he's since gone bald and gained a lot of weight), but he treated me horribly and I was unhappy. Prior to my ex, I dated a wealthy lawyer with his own practice - another one that looked great on paper and on my arm, but who had aggression issues and treated me like a second-class citizen (chauvanistic) when we were alone. And all through my 20s, I refused to date men who were less than good-looking, who didn't have what I deemed to be a great job and had other things going on that I saw as flaws (overweight, previously married or with kids). I wonder now looking back how many chances at being happy I passed up. If I wasn't so unrealistically choosy, for example, I could be married for 5-10 years at this point, with children that were fathered by my husband. Even if I got married tomorrow, I'm too old (IMO) to start a new family with my BF.

After my divorce, I took a hard look at why I was choosing the men I had chosen in the past. And I decided that I would stop looking for gorgeous and ultra-successful and start concentrating on "nice" and "potential-worthy." It sounds simplistic, but a lot of women get stuck in that trap. Kind of like the old movies Revenge of the Nerds - the unassuming and non-flashy men get passed up...until women wise up and see what they have to offer.

This whole concept of "settling" I think is a relatively new one in our society. It echoes some of the opinions people posted on the Child Man thread. Women have more options nowadays - we don't really "need" men - and so we've gotten choosy. Think about back in the Gold Rush or Pioneer Days, which were less than 200 years ago. Men would post advertisements in papers (kind of like our personal ads) looking for wives or would have their relatives look for one and send her out to him. They didn't care if a woman was beautiful - but they did care that she could cook, keep a man company, shoot a gun, be God-fearing, make a nice home and care for children. In fact, I remember reading somewhere that French convents would "groom" young girls as potential wives for the French-Canadian settlers and trappers....and apparently, everyone was happy.

I don't call it "settling." I call it being more realistic with your choices, relative to what you really want and need in life.

Bridget in Connecticut.

 

[Pandora II]

I absolutely didn't settle.

But... the things I looked for in a man adjusted from what I thought were important for in my early 20's.

For example, being solvent - with a good attitude towards finances and saving for tomorrow; good character; brains and a good education; someone I was best friends with and would be happy to sit across the dinner table from when I'm 80 and never run out of good conversation; someone from a similar background as me and with the same values; and someone who was kind and affectionate.

Good looks; being the life and soul of the party; someone my friends fancied; a horribly well paid job, and a hugely passionate relationship with amazing

, all became a lot less important.

Great if they were there too, but not as the basis for building a lifelong relationship on.

I was lucky and am marrying a guy who went to Oxford, who is fiscally responsible, has the same values as me, similar interests - and both our parents are MD's, so almost identical backgrounds. And he's my biggest fan.

Would I have settled?

At 30, I became extremely ill (for 2.5 years) - I had no job, no house, no boyfriend, no friends as I was living with my parents in a village in the middle of nowhere, with no-one my age around, in a country I hadn't lived in for over 8 years. That is a pretty bad place to be when your body clock is ticking.

I learnt that if I couldn't have a marriage like my parents - I didn't want one at all, and that I had enough interests and hobbies that if I never found Mr Right, I could be very happy on my own.

After 2 years, I went out to a party for the first time since I'd become ill - I met FI and it was literally love at first sight...

 

[Independent Gal]

Let me start out by saying, only a goddess would have to "settle" for my guy. He's gorgeous and deeply kind, brilliant and loving, adventurous, wordly, and he makes my heart go pittapat. Sure he doesn't make a lot of money, and he's not exactly hilarious (he comes from a serious culture) but he can still be super goofy and silly...very important. And yeah, sometimes he appears to exhibit some limitations in the common sense department, but the most important things to me were:
1) Does dude have a moral compass that knows which way is up? (Honest and good)
2) Is Dude instinctively kind?
3) Is dude entertaining and challenging?
4) Will dude respect me and respect my independence?
5) Is dude grown up enough that he is able to put what he feels or needs into words, instead of bottling up or acting out?
He's all those things. And OH! so so so so much more. I am a lucky lady.

OK, that aside. Had I not found FI, yes, I would have settled. There are many, many happy arranged marriages. I'm not saying that's the best way to go, obviously, just pointing out that marriage really is a partnership first. Love grows from it, often, and the love that grows FROM the partnership is a more lasting and beautiful love than romantic passion.

So, if a woman found a good man. A solid man who was responsible, honest, kind, and caring , then even if he had a paunch or an annoying habit (and seriously, which of us has a guy with NO annoying habits?!?!) or even if the 'deep connection' wasn't there to begin with, at 30, you'd be crazy to let him go. Let the connection grow FROM the marriage, not the other way around.

That said, one should NEVER settle for someone who lies, cheats, can't communicate, is irresponsible, abusive, dismissive, or disrespectful. Love won't grow from those things.

My tuppence, for what it's worth (which is about a nickle these days, I think?).

 

[firebirdgold]

Geez, what a messed up article! For most of it she goes on about how single women with ticking clocks should grab the first non-mouth breather even if he''s gay, mind-numbingly boring, or you find him sexually repulsive! Then at the end she bashes advice books giving the same advice only sugar-coated since you actually have to live with the guy.

Realizing that no one is perfect, including yourself, is far different than settling for a guy you don''t love.
I don''t know how women got the idea that mr. Right is also mr. Perfect who''s 100% in sync with you. Even the the author of the article admits that she ditched a guy she had a great connection with because they ''didn''t view the world through quite the same lens''. Which implies that they didn''t have wildly different mores and values, but saw things differently. If your husband sees and thinks the exact same things you do, where''s the fun in that anyway?


Although, may I say that I am deeply indebted to all those under 30 something women out there who are looking for mr. Perfect? It''s the only explanation I have for why DH hadn''t been bopped over the head and dragged off long before we met.

I 100% believe that your husband should be the person you most want to spend time with, that being with him should make everything a little brighter and easier, he should be the man who makes your heart beat faster. When things to get tough, the viseral memory of your love for each other is what will get you through.


If you think your guy is perfect, then you''re probably deluding yourself and there''s a horrible flaw you''re ignoring because you want him to be the right guy. Believe me, all men are imperfect, make strange annoying noises, are difficult and stubborn, and have weird domestic task blind spots.

 

[ladypirate]

Kris always says you should marry someone that you can eat with and watch tv with, because 50 years down the line, that''s about all you''ll be doing anyway.

While I agree that finding someone who is perfect is a bit lofty of a goal, it doesn''t mean you have to "settle", either. Kris is far from perfect and we have our disagreements, but he has all the qualities I consider most important--smart, funny, responsible, kind, etc. It''s nice that I think he''s handsome and I think that being attracted to each other is important, but women who are only looking for status and looks are not seeing past the surface.

As far as money goes, my mother told me once that it wasn''t as important to find someone who was wealthy as it was to find someone who was willing to work for what they wanted. Even if we''re never rich, I''d much rather have someone with character. Granted, who knows--maybe we''ll win the lottery and have both!

 

[absolut_blonde]

Date: 2/8/2008 1:26:50 PM
Author: Independent Gal
Let me start out by saying, only a goddess would have to ''settle'' for my guy. He''s gorgeous and deeply kind, brilliant and loving, adventurous, wordly, and he makes my heart go pittapat. Sure he doesn''t make a lot of money, and he''s not exactly hilarious (he comes from a serious culture) but he can still be super goofy and silly...very important. And yeah, sometimes he appears to exhibit some limitations in the common sense department, but the most important things to me were:
1) Does dude have a moral compass that knows which way is up? (Honest and good)
2) Is Dude instinctively kind?
3) Is dude entertaining and challenging?
4) Will dude respect me and respect my independence?
5) Is dude grown up enough that he is able to put what he feels or needs into words, instead of bottling up or acting out?
He''s all those things. And OH! so so so so much more. I am a lucky lady.

OK, that aside. Had I not found FI, yes, I would have settled. There are many, many happy arranged marriages. I''m not saying that''s the best way to go, obviously, just pointing out that marriage really is a partnership first. Love grows from it, often, and the love that grows FROM the partnership is a more lasting and beautiful love than romantic passion.

So, if a woman found a good man. A solid man who was responsible, honest, kind, and caring , then even if he had a paunch or an annoying habit (and seriously, which of us has a guy with NO annoying habits?!?!) or even if the ''deep connection'' wasn''t there to begin with, at 30, you''d be crazy to let him go. Let the connection grow FROM the marriage, not the other way around.

That said, one should NEVER settle for someone who lies, cheats, can''t communicate, is irresponsible, abusive, dismissive, or disrespectful. Love won''t grow from those things.

My tuppence, for what it''s worth (which is about a nickle these days, I think?).

I agree. I really hate to use the word ''settle'' to convey what I think is common sense. While I think the article is *trying* so say ''be realistic about your standards'', labeling that as ''settling'' is misleading.

To me, settling is going against your gut/better judgement, and committing to person you KNOW isn''t right for you. It''s marrying someone because you should, or because you''re afraid of being alone. That kind of thing. It''s when people tell you ''you could do better'' and you know they''re right. (Because with the right person, you know people who tell you that are dead wrong).

Of course nobody is perfect. You have to find someone whose flaws you can tolerate. Someone who the good outweighs the bad, at least most of the time. I don''t think that is settling, though. I would never want to feel like I had settled. And with SO, I know I didn''t. He''s more than I could''ve asked for.

 

[peridot83]

I think actually this occurs more in males than females. Males, in my experience, seem much more likely to dump someone that doesn''t meet their laundry list criteria than a female is. The thing that sucks is that females have a clock (if they want kids) that men do not have. Also men can date younger women so for awhile their available pool is GROWING not shrinking.

So men have the "luxury" of making a few mistakes, letting go of the wrong relationships, and still ending up with someone who has all the valuable characteristics they need.

Females do not have this same luxury, but I think most of them realize that.

 

[hairgirl95]

I am going to add a little different spin to this. I read the whole article, and it was very interesting. But here is my stance---what is it about people having these over the top expectations to begin with? When did our future relationships become a job interview? I can honestly say that I have NEVER dated anyone based on some tally sheet of expectations. I believe that you meet people and some you hit it off with and others you don''t. When you look at the "criteria" that some people have for a potential mate, I can''t help but think "no wonder the divorce rate is so high". It doesn''t matter what age people are, shouldn''t the ultimate goal just to meet a good match for yourself? If you throw out the expectations and criteria, noone would ever "settle". I hate the word settle. It makes it sound like you are taking a huge leap in the negative direction and that the mate you choose is somehow a lesser person. I am not saying that a Harvard law grad should even attempt to date a drug dealer or anything as equally polar opposite, but what about the other criteria that mostly women put into place?

1. Tall Dark and Handsome----okay, why? Are they better men? No. They just look good. Do you want a companion or arm candy? Isn''t this the very thing women complain about when men date younger women?

2. Big bank rolling job---this one really gets me. Are you looking to be taken care of? Do you want the big fancy career man to buy you the biggest house on the block? Whats wrong with a typical middle class income job? Maybe you won''t be able to quit your job and live the life of a stay at home mom, but really who cares? Its all about appearances.

3. Must be a college grad--and a masters is icing on the cake. Okay, once again, why? Do you have to be with a man who is defined by what he does, not the kind of man he is?

I realize I may sound like I married some bottom of the barrel troll with no ambition after rebuking these "standards". But heres how it worked for me:

I never dated or didn''t date anyone because of what they looked like, their education, or career. In fact, I only dated people based on how well we clicked together--if they made me laugh, I enjoyed talking to them, etc. I didn''t have these superficial standards. My reward was meeting and marrying my wonderful husband. 1.Is he tall dark and handsome?? Well......a cutie pie yes. With dark blond hair and he stands about 5''9". I am 5''7" so we are about the same height. So tall and dark, no. 2. Does he have a fat bankroll job? No. He gives people chemotherapy everyday. He has stickers in his pockets for the sick kids he sees. He wears cute scrub tops that make cancer riddled kids smile. He sits with middle aged women while they vomit, he helps people out to their car when they are too sick to walk alone. He makes them smile and laugh when they couldn''t feel more miserable. He flirts with the little grandma types and trades pictures of our dogs with their grandkids photos. He has a heart bigger than any bank account on this planet. Does his $50K per year job allow me to be a stay at home mom? Heck no. And I would rather work full time forever to see how wonderful he is at his job. Does he have greater satisfaction than most of these high paying high stress job holders? I would bet on it. And he is actually able to be home and enjoy a home life. And spend time with me. 3. He does have an associates degree, but no bachelors or masters. It wouldn''t matter to me--I would be with him regardless.

Sorry for this to ramble on, but how many women would have had to "settle" to meet and marry my husband? Thank God I met and fell in love with him first before some desperate idiot with a high standard criterion chucked her materialistic standards out the window and "settled" for him out of desperation. What a miserable life that would have been for him.

 

[TravelingGal]

LOL...I never thought of that reason for a big bank rolling job. I wanted him to have it so he can keep his grubby hands off MY money!

 

[hairgirl95]

LMAO TravelingGal!!! Now THAT is in excellent reason to marry for a big bankroll! I am almost crying over that one. You are a hoot! Got to be one of my favorite posts ever!!!!

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 2/9/2008 1:27:31 AM
Author: hairgirl95

1. Tall Dark and Handsome----okay, why? Are they better men? No. They just look good. Do you want a companion or arm candy? Isn''t this the very thing women complain about when men date younger women?

2. Big bank rolling job---this one really gets me. Are you looking to be taken care of? Do you want the big fancy career man to buy you the biggest house on the block? Whats wrong with a typical middle class income job? Maybe you won''t be able to quit your job and live the life of a stay at home mom, but really who cares? Its all about appearances.

3. Must be a college grad--and a masters is icing on the cake. Okay, once again, why? Do you have to be with a man who is defined by what he does, not the kind of man he is?

I found your post really interesting. I wanted to add in a few things.

I totally agree on point one - absolutely not important. Obviously if you find the man totally repulsive that''s not going to work, but - as my mother puts it - there are lots of men with ''quiet good looks''. They''re not going to be modelling Calvin Klein undies, but your kids will look as cute as any other in the playground

Points two and three - this really depends on the relative backgrounds of the parties involved, and on their maturity and common-sense. I''m not saying by any means that it can''t work and work well, but on the whole the closer people are on those points the easier any potential relationship will be: If you are very rich, you will probably find it easier to be with someone equally well-off.

I come from a background where everyone has been to an ivy-league university, most of them are lawyers or doctors and have a certain income level because of it.

Before I met FI, I dated men from very different backgrounds and all of them felt very uncomfortable around my family - mainly because of their own insecurities. They felt that my parents discussed politics at dinner to show off and make them feel small - in fact my parents just expect that everyone should be capable of holding an opinion on anything political, and the more dissenting views the more fun the conversation is. (We cover 4 political parties in my immediate family, so it''s not like there''s any ganging-up, but you do have to be prepared to defend your position.)

The class system is still very strong here whatever anyone says. I had boyfriends who found it amusing to imitate and make fun of my and my families accents, but would have been outraged if we had done the same to him.

After a serious of miserable relationships, I took a hard look at my priorities and took my father''s advice by dating someone from my own background. Yes it was love at first sight for FI and I, but the relationship developed into an engagement because he was comfortable with my family and background. He was at ease with conversation around the dinner-table and didn''t criticize my background - because his family is exactly the same.


I wonder if it''s easier in the States than in the UK? Do you have such clear class divisions that have nothing to do with wealth?

 

[Independent Gal]

We are animals. Animals look for a mate who will give them offspring that stand the best chance of finding a mate themselves. So, we look for tall, strong, successful men because we implicitly think they will give us tall strong successful children who will then be chosen as mates. I actually caught myself explicitly thinking this once when I went on a blind date with a truly wonderful guy who was desperate to have a family, 40 years old, a catch in every way but... only 5 feet tall. I thought "Heck I don't care if he's short, but if our kids were really short, then they might have just as much trouble as he has had finding a partner."

But we aren't just animals, we're human animals, which means we have the power to reason morally and act against our animal nature. I ended up not being with that guy because of the long distance and his busy schedule, not because of his height.

But sometimes our animal nature is stronger than we think! It's natural, even while it's not good, that we seek certain qualities in a male to mate with.

When you spend a lot of time with someone, you stop noticing what they look like, in my experience anyway.

 

[peridot83]

I find in the U.S., the "culture" that traditionally came out of being in college and graduate school can create rifts with those who don''t subscribe to this culture. Not, who you were born to as such:

i.e. a liking for wine, a willingness to try new foods and travel, a craving for non-chain/huge market store goods, movies, and books. The ability to talk about politics and philosophy in certain measured ways. Additionally, the culture encourages less adherence to gender roles, disdain for yelling/screaming, shows of emotion in public.

I do belong to this group, and it would be hard for me to date/marry someone who couldn''t talk about politics the way I did, who had no curiosity/craving to travel the world, who adhered to more traditional ideas of gender roles.

However, the interesting thing is that I wasn''t born into this group: my mother never went to a four-year university, we are an immigrant family. Additionally, college/university no longer breeds everyone to be this way: many of my high school friends/college friends became engineers and among that group very few have developed any of the above values.

 

[ladypirate]

Date: 2/9/2008 1:09:36 PM
Author: peridot83
I find in the U.S., the ''culture'' that traditionally came out of being in college and graduate school can create rifts with those who don''t subscribe to this culture. Not, who you were born to as such:


i.e. a liking for wine, a willingness to try new foods and travel, a craving for non-chain/huge market store goods, movies, and books. The ability to talk about politics and philosophy in certain measured ways. Additionally, the culture encourages less adherence to gender roles, disdain for yelling/screaming, shows of emotion in public.


I do belong to this group, and it would be hard for me to date/marry someone who couldn''t talk about politics the way I did, who had no curiosity/craving to travel the world, who adhered to more traditional ideas of gender roles.


However, the interesting thing is that I wasn''t born into this group: my mother never went to a four-year university, we are an immigrant family. Additionally, college/university no longer breeds everyone to be this way: many of my high school friends/college friends became engineers and among that group very few have developed any of the above values.

I wonder if it''s not so much college in general as it is a liberal arts education? I know that Kris and I definitely fall into that group--we''re total foodies. Speaking of which, I''m going to go make some breakfast!

 

[hairgirl95]

I think the social class you were born into or educated into is only a little piece of this "settling" issue that the original article was about. I didn''t really perceive settling in the article as an ivy league grad selling herself "short" and "settling" for someone who wasn''t a doctor or lawyer. I perceived it as someone who had really high standards in the superficial and materialistic arenas who realized later on that maybe her standards were a little too high and she missed out on some great opportunities because on the scorecard she kept in her mind, the men didn''t meet all 10 criterion, only 7 or 8. She was being too picky and possibly missed out. By lowering her scorecard, so to speak, she might meet a man and get married. She might be "settling" from her original game plan. I have another point to ponder on that though-

As we get older, don''t we ALL have to change the standards a little? I mean lets face it--a 35 year old is not going to snag up her ideal 25 year old ivy league grad with a family house in the Hamptons. Why? The 25 year old guy is probably not looking for the 35 year old. They are still looking for THEIR perfect 10 scorecard. Older men in this educational and professional arena are possibly coming with some excess baggage--maybe a previous marriage, maybe a couple of kids, maybe a mini midlife crisis when his parents randomly divorced after 47 years of marriage. To some people, these baggage items don''t meet the checklist requirements and they are discarded. It could have been a great relationship though! As we get older, life slaps us around a little, we are humbled, we grow professionally and spiritually and worldly. We learn that we like certain things, and that other things while were of utmost importance in our early 20''s, once we reach our 30''s they just aren''t as important anymore.

Yes, social classes exist. And yes, to some people, as evidenced by prior posts, it is IMPOSSIBLE to date or marry someone who is not of the same political, educational, or monetary background as yourself or your family. In that situation, its not a settling issue. Its about like marrying like. While I may not agree with it, it is what it is. It would be a huge mistake for someone to marry someone not in their "social class" if they were unable to see past the class issue. It may be a different form of settling, ie marrying in your social class because you are EXPECTED to, but that is a whole other dimension of this issue.

I still stand by my original thoughts in my first post--take the checklist out of the whole equation when you start dating someone. Get to know the PERSON. That is the most important part of the relationship. Odds are if you like the person for who they are, the rest of it will fall into place. It kind of breaks my heart to see people who date what is "expected" of them rather than who they want to, but we all choose our own destiny. I fear that the prototypical image of dating the Harvard grad and having the "Kennedy" type lifestyle is setting people up for disappointment. Primarily because there are way more upper middle class family types than the Kennedy types. Hey, if you come from a family of all doctors and lawyers and cpa''s thats great. But if you want to find a mate with the SAME BACKGROUND, its going to be a challenge. You have to sacrifice somewhere. Is it going to be compatibility and not marrying someone like your parents? Or will you marry the highly educated professional and compromise personal happiness?? I am not saying that it always ends up like that, but more often than not, it does.

In closing, for the record, social classes are not important to me. Why? No, I am not the offspring product of ivy league educated parents that are doctors or lawyers. I was raised in small town middle America, by two college educated parents who provided very well for us kids. Who instilled the morals into us that its not about what we drive or what we wear, its about what is in your heart. We are a family of wide professions--I have siblings who, along with their spouses, are pharmacists, secretaries, business owners, my husband the nurse and myself a business owner. I don''t think any of us are any better or worse than any other class out there. We are what we are. I am proud of it and will never apologize for it. It has made me very perceptive of the highs and lows of the economic classes. I am pretty happy where I am.

 

[Mediterranean]

Hey all! I''m pretty new ''round here, mostly I''ve just been drooling over on SMTR, but I read this article and I must say...in response to the title "Why You Should Settle for Mr. Good Enough" ....no thanks, Author...YOU go ahead and settle for him....

My story is weird and totally not typical...but here goes:

10 years ago, when I was 23, I was part of a very close group of 5 friends. I totally fell for one of the guys in our group, but I kept quiet for fear of ruining the friendship, and to avoid dividing the group''s loyalties or having discomfort & tension should something have gone wrong. Besides that, I just plain-old had NO idea if he felt the same way, because I never revealed my feelings, and he never said anything either.

So, his job (he''s a cameraman on movies and TV shows and videos and stuff) involved a lot of travel, and for my part, I decided to go to grad school out of state. So, we didn''t see each other for years. E-mails every once in a while, birthday cards, Christmas cards...bla bla bla....

Now, here''s the part you may think is a little nuts: during the time I was apart from him, I never really had a serious relationship. Oh, I dated. I dated TONS and TONS of guys....but I simply never fell for anyone the way I fell for my friend. i couldn''t bring myself to be serious with anyone, and while my friends were making jokes about me "playing hard to get" and being a "heartbreaker" and having "all these guys chasing me" I was DYING inside, I used to cry myself to sleep, and I actually was in therapy for a while because I couldn''t shake the feeling that this guy was THE guy for me.

Even the therapist fed me that hooey about giving up, and getting on with life, and marrying the "next best thing."

Well, I''m glad to say I completely ignored that advice. When I moved back home after grad school, I began to reconnect with all my old friends. By this time, I was 32, and unmarried, and everyone was telling me how time was running out and how I missed the boat by being too picky, and how I was nuts, that I''d never get married if I didn''t just cut it out, etc.

But in reconnecting with old friends, I reconnected with HIM, with the guy I''d had feelings for all this time. And we started hanging out again. And after a couple of months of hanging out, he dropped a bomb on me: as it turns out, he had been attracted to me, but he had been afraid to say anything (because of the same reasons I was). He told me he had strong feelings for me, and that if I didn''t feel the same way, he was sorry, but he just had to say something and know once and for all if he had a chance.

All of this occurred in Oct. 2006. This past Christmas, he asked me to marry him, and we''re planning our wedding right now.

I can''t believe how happy I am. It''s better than all the daydreams I used to have about it, it''s more amazing than I could have ever imagined, and it leaves all my other pseudo-relationships in the DUST.

I''m not saying it''s a perfect fairy-tale...I mean, we''re human and we have the normal issues, but I have never been so happy to ignore advice in my whole life. I''m glad I listened to my heart and refused to settle.

Let the lady who wrote that article have her bland, watery "companionship." I''m sure my marriage will also settle into companionship,too....when we''re 80 years old. However, when I''m 80, I will have the memories of the deepest, most passionate love to sustain me. I will know that when I was young I didn''t "settle" for a mere "companionship" just to have a warm body around. Heck, that''s a reason for having a DOG, not a MARRIAGE

 

[Independent Gal]

That''s a wonderful story, Mediterranean! Thanks for sharing it with us. Oh, and if you''re planning yer nuptials, head on over and join us on the Bride World Wide forum if you like, for ideas, help, honest opinions, etc.

 

[Odilia]

No time to write much now, nor read the article, but just from the title, no way! Everybody''s different, so I guess people who have unrealistic expectations ought to "settle" for reality, but there was no way I''d have been happy if I "settled" for someone I didn''t think was right for me. I didn''t get married until I was 37 because it took that long to find Mr. Right, but I''m SSSSSOOOOOOOOOOO glad I waited!

 

[Mara]

such an interesting thought, especially because i have a bunch of great girlfriends in their mid-30''s and up who are now totally frank about the fact that they are no longer as ''picky'' as they were in their 20''s. kind of interesting for sure. i can''t tell you how many great guys i saw some of these gals pass up for reasons that made me go whaa?

but then again i have alwasy been a bit more on the ''realistic'' side of things. i was lucky to not have to settle, but hey if i was me now and no man in my life, i can definitely say that my ''criteria'' would be shorter than say 5 or 8 years ago.

on the other hand, settle is such a bad word. i don''t see anything wrong with making your criteria for the right man more REALISTIC and maybe the list a little shorter....but i don''t think that is settling. i also think as women age they can look at their ''early 20''s'' criteria list and go ''seriously? i had that on there????''...you change through the years so why shouldn''t your criteria for the right man? the right man at 20 vs 25 vs 30 vs 40 is going to be different depending on who YOU are at the time in my opinion.

i agree with whoever said marry who you can hang out with, watch TV with, eat with etc...because that is what happens as time goes on. not that that is all you do, but long-term marriage and being together with someone for 40 years is not about how hot he looks in that speedo but rather will you guys be able to be compatible long term, still have stuff to talk about, still make each other laugh, think it''s cute when the tufts of ear hair start to grow, and still want to spend time together and hold hands when your 40 year anniversary comes up.