After getting out of string of very passionate, but brief relationships, you end up enjoying your time being single. But after a while, you start to get bored and kind of lonely. You know you’re still young, but while all of your friends are off getting engaged, you suddenly have a vision of yourself as a crazy cat lady in 30 years. Would it be worse if . . .
This: You end up single late in life — but not forever? You definitely get to know yourself better than you ever thought possible, but there are some tough years.
Or…
That: You start dating a new guy, who’s very sweet, but you just don’t feel passionate with him? He's a nice guy so you decide to make it work, but the chemistry never shows up.
Which is worse?
Carvela
Marc O'Polo
Juan Antonio Lopez
Being in a hum-ho relationship is worse. Out of billions of people on the planet- you are bound to meet a nice guy or two so I dont understand how people justify this as a reason to stick around. It is the passion and chemistry that makes a relationship worth being in! Why would you bother otherwise?
1I'm definitely in "this" situation right now and yes i have gotten to know myself better. Nothings better than the know yourself before you know someone else.
2I'd so much rather just be with myself. I happen to enjoy my own company quite a bit. Being alone is definitely better than being bored to death by someone else.
3I can't settle. I just can't be with some guy I don't feel strongly about, it feels fake to me.
4I refuse to settle, I would rather be with myself until I find someone I would want to be with.
5I chose this. I would rather be truly madly deeply in LOVE and if I don't find that until I'm 35, 45 or even 65 then so be it. I agree w/ the above comments. I can't settle. I want passion and I want to be with someone that I care about deeply.
6I think the best part about being with someone is the passion and the butterflies you feel inside about how much you like that person... so without passion -that's a tough one. i definitely thinks it's better to be single than settle for someone your just not that into.
7I would much rather be single forever than be with someone I don't feel hot for.
8I'd be better off being single......I could never be in a relationship with a man that i don't feel passion for.It's either there or it's not and i'm not the type to settle for just anyone.
9It's amazing how everyone so far says they'd rather be single, but look around and you'll be amazed at how many are in loveless relationships / marriages because they are afraid of never finding the "spark". I'd rather be single (and I was for many years) but so many people I know were in lackluster relationships all the while feeling sorry for me because was alone. I hope some of those people post because I know they are out there.
10Why would you want to marry someone that you didn't have chemistry with. That is what ends up in divorce later in life. I know a lot of people in relationships like this. You could just have this man as a good friend and wait for the love of your life. I'd rather be old and really know myself than stuck in a loveless marriage.
11I'd rather be single forever than with someone that I was ambivalent about.
12I agree with Hayley. In theory waiting for the perfect match is the more noble choice, but in reality very few people are brave enough to spend the majority of their lives alone.
Personally, I don't think that there is anything wrong with settling. Marriage and life are about a lot more than chemistry, and to a lot of people its more important to raise a family and find a good, kind companion than to wait for a passionate romance. As for me, I hope I don't have to settle, but then again, do I really want to miss out on having a family with a kind, thoughtful man while waiting for my one true love? I personally am stubborn, and have been single for almost five years, so maybe I could, but I'm not necessarily proud of it.
13I'm not one to settle...both options suck, but I'd rather be alone than in an unhappy relationship.
14"Why would you want to marry someone that you didn't have chemistry with. That is what ends up in divorce later in life"
That may be true, but at the same time chemistry is not enough when the mystery ends and you have to deal with REAL LIFE with that person, i.e. bills, kids, work, etc. and not live in the fantasy of it all. Ideally, a relationship should have both (chemistry and practicallity) but that doesn't always happen, does it!
Of course both options suck. I see the loveless relationships, but at the same time, I see women who waited to long, and men their age (40s) want women in their 20s. Now I'm venting about something else....
I have "chemistry" right now, but it may not work for a multitude of reasons of a practical nature (financial, etc).
Thanks for listening!
15I'd rather wait for it. No one should be in a relationship with someone that they secretly can't stand.
16I picked "this." Last year, I was thisclose to settling for the very thing in the "that" option, but I broke things off. I have to say a year I was a lot miserable than I would have admitted back then. I can see why the divorce rate is so high- you don't have to have a grand passion in a marriage, but there has to be a degree of chemistry, even if it resembles more of a friendship along with the love you feel to make it last.
Besides, I like cats. So I can wait.
17I'd rather wait. I like cats, too
and I'm totally in a
single rut right now, but I'll sit tight
18can't be commited for good to someone I am not in love with.
19Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.