Tuesday, 28 April 2009
-
What Would You Rather Have in a Man: Passion or Contentment?
Say you had to choose a future between two very opposite men:Would you stay with a guy who has low self esteem, anger management issues, constant family crisis, is very pessimistic and constantly worries about money problems for the sake of passionate love and perfect chemistry? As a couple, you'll always have the feeling that nobody/nothing can tear you guys apart. Are you willing to put up with all that and maybe even worse knowing you will be one of those couples who grow old and will forever have that passion for each other?
Or would you rather settle for a guy who you have decent chemistry with (not great but not that bad either) who treats you well, knows how to treat a lady and keep you satisfied, has a great future ahead of him, has money, tends to be very optimistic, is loyal/faithful, and causes you a lot less stress overall? You won't be happy-go-lucky with your life, but at least content knowing he can provide everything and is a great companion, someone who will be there when you need them, listens, cares, and most of all is loyal to you.
It comes down to a very complicated man who will provide you with passion but drama, or a loyal man who will be satisfying but lacking excitement.
You can only choose one! Which is more important to you?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to datingish's Datingish Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in datingish's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: serendipity211
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 0 Views: 0 0 Comments: 0 0 View all posts by serendipity211
Comments (69)
passion :] i get contentment from passion.
Money.
Depends on my mood... but while I'm *inclined* to say that I *should* go for the passion-less, practical guy... I know, based on past experiences and whatnot... that I'd go for the guy full of problems, and loaded with zest and passion for me and for life. My life would never be drama-free, that way, I'm sure...
Neither. Neither one will be a functional relationship.
Passion without a doubt in my mind. A relationship without passion is just boring.
The second one, probably. I have enough turmoil in my life, don't need a guy to add on to that.
Passion. I'd rather have a guy with flaws than someone who is 'perfect' but boring.
The loyal guy for sure.
I can not deal with a guy who deals with too much problem, internally or phyiscally. But I can not be with someone who doesn't have passion either.
Hard to choose ;x .
*problems
@sophia@xanga - Me too, the loyal guy.
Neither.
Neither I hope! Never settle!
But i was going to settle, I'd settle with guy #2, because the situation in #1 sounds like it could very easily turn abusive/violent/wayyyy to intense.
I think the thing to keep in mind here is not to limit yourself by thinking you only have two options! NEITHER of these guys are the right one, and they are NOT the only guys in the world (even if it may feel like it). Settling for one of them simply means that the person is too lazy/impatient to put in the time in effort to find someone who can truly make them happy in a passionate relationship (which is really worth it in the long run!).
passion.
it's way more fun that way.
The first one, if I HAD to choose.
Neither, because first of all I don't think it's even possible to stay with someone when one person is having all these problems...it gets old after a while and you start having fights and the next thing you know, it's too painful to stay together. Now you may still care deeply for each other, but the underlying problems are always there, but there comes a point when it's just too much.
And with the second guy? I think "settling" is a horrible word to use in a relationship. You should never settle for someone, and that person should not be "settled." It's just unfair for both parties; again, that's going to take a toll because you don't love that guy as much, and guys are less dense than they portray themselves (or we portray them), and they will sense it.
The first - all his complications and stress in life will turn me off in the long run. The passionate love and perfect chemistry will surely die down as well.
The second - though we have a decent chemistry, I am content with that. As you said, he kept me satisfied, so I'm down with that!
I've dated two men with the descriptions you mentioned. The passionate guy with the problems was always so dramatic and pessimistic, i always had to try and uplift and encourage him......it got very draining. He was controlling and jealous and our relationship mostly resembled an obsession. I will however, say this: when we were apart, i never missed anyone as much as i missed him.
The second guy i am currently dating. I dont believe in perfection, but he's an ideal partner. He listens, he cares, he wants to make me happy, we are the bestest of friends. I love it. Sometimes, because of my past relationship with psycho guy, i feel like something in our relationship is missing, but then i remember that i hated feeling controlled and always brought down by the other guy and i remember i'm much happier having someone like guy #2.
passion, you can deal with the rest later =)
realistically, neither.
but if i had to choose...
my first impulse was definitely to say passionate, because i'm an extremely sentimental "feeler" and chemistry is one of the most paramount considerations for me.
then i thought about it, and i realized the latter option might actually not be so bad... i find that throughout my life, even when i have a crush/uncommitted preference (which is generally the guy i feel the most chemistry with) i also often have those certain friends/acquaintances that i could see myself being with or liking but just haven't been inclined toward for whatever reason. they signify less initial chemistry- certainly not the whirlwind, head-over-heels kind as the passionate ones- but with them it's possible a deeper, more essential chemistry based on more than bodily electricity might exist below the surface and reveal itself at a hint of the right kind of interaction. to that end, i've seen very deep, enduring loves flourish out of what used to be platonic friendships... and doesn't platonic suggest there once was a lack of passion there?
and i think even the intensest of passions is like a star: it might be bright at the peak of its life, but eventually it's going to burn out and give way to something more subdued.
i personally choose contentment, as much as i like a dramatic life that is just too much for me to have to deal with. i hate dealing with family crisis especially those, mother in law does not like me and you make you husband choose, you will always lose!!
i think passion/love grow in time. you may be content now but have passion after being together for a while. :)
What a ridiculous question, even by Datingish standards.
For what? I don't get it. A pool guy or the yard man?
Passion. When you find that untamed chemistry with someone and you both feel it.....it's magical.