Which Kind of Life Would You Prefer?

[anvi]

I've been thinking about this for a long time, for reasons I'm not going to reveal.  But I am interested in what you all think, so please vote and discuss.

If you had to choose one of only the following two options, which would you pick and why?  You're free to imagine and fill in your own details and limits as you like.  But, given those, which one would you pick?

Would you choose to be with a lifelong partner whom you deeply loved, but whose personality made daily life, within more or less tolerable limits, difficult in various ways?

Or, would you choose to be with a lifelong partner for whom you did not have especially deep feelings, but whom you liked and could get along with without much difficulty, and who made daily life relatively easy?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I imagine probably the second one, though I've little experience in the matter.

[afleitch]

Would you choose to be with a lifelong partner whom you deeply loved, but whose personality made daily life, within more or less tolerable limits, difficult in various ways?

Or, would you choose to be with a lifelong partner for whom you did not have especially deep feelings, but whom you liked and could get along with without much difficulty, and who made daily life relatively easy?

I would imagine that the second scenario actually fosters a deeper love for your partner than the first scenario. Deep love for someone who made life difficult for you is misplaced.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Would you choose to be with a lifelong partner whom you deeply loved, but whose personality made daily life, within more or less tolerable limits, difficult in various ways?

Or, would you choose to be with a lifelong partner for whom you did not have especially deep feelings, but whom you liked and could get along with without much difficulty, and who made daily life relatively easy?

I would imagine that the first scenario actually fosters a deeper love for your partner than the first scenario. Deep love for someone who made life difficult for you is misplaced.

Not to criticize the comment itself, but I'm just guessing that "second" should be in there somewhere.

[opebo]

I voted for the latter before reading it - I thought it meant being single and rich.

[anvi]

I voted for the latter before reading it - I thought it meant being single and rich.

That's a good option too.  It's just not available to me.  At least not the rich part.

[DemPGH]

Would you choose to be with a lifelong partner whom you deeply loved, but whose personality made daily life, within more or less tolerable limits, difficult in various ways?

Or, would you choose to be with a lifelong partner for whom you did not have especially deep feelings, but whom you liked and could get along with without much difficulty, and who made daily life relatively easy?

I'm really pretty tolerant, Anvi, and I have my quirks; I expect that others will have theirs. Like shoe shopping. I'm opinionated and so on, but if I truly loved a lady who loved me back, I would take her without a second thought and with the good and the bad - because the good would outweigh the bad by far. So choice 1 above in quote.

A philosopher once said, "Lovers do not finally meet somewhere. They are in each other all along."

So true. The second choice in quote above sounds like a friend. Love gives more than that. But some folks aren't prepared for that ride. So, I think it depends upon what you are prepared for. I'll take the first one. Love with difficulty. I can handle the difficulty.

[anvi]

Tolerant and loving is definitely a great human combination, DemPGH.

[Aliens]

I chose Option 2.  True love isn't a good enough excuse to continue a relationship that adds unnecessary emotional drama and negativity to one's daily life.  I'd have a much better relationship with someone who I could get along with.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Option 1 without hesitation. I have self-destructive tendencies in a lot of my relationships with other people and am thus probably not a great role model in this regard, but life is going to have difficulties no matter what you do and anything promising ease probably has some sort of moral or other catch so I really can't see the point of choosing Option 2.

[ElectionsGuy]

I chose Option 2.  True love isn't a good enough excuse to continue a relationship that adds unnecessary emotional drama and negativity to one's daily life.  

[Goldwater]

I chose Option 2.  True love isn't a good enough excuse to continue a relationship that adds unnecessary emotional drama and negativity to one's daily life.  

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

If you're willing to love despite the difficulties, I'd argue that that actually creates a much deeper love. Trial by fire is how iron becomes steel, after all. If you truly do love the person, the difficulties won't really seem like difficulties, even if they are so.

A relationship is a partnership after all, to take on the good and the bad. You have to take on life together, after all, so I think the first is always much more preferable to the second.

[Хahar 🤔]

The latter is the whole purpose of arranged marriage, isn't it?

[Lief 🗽]

Whichever one I pick, I know I'd just spend a significant part of my life wishing I had picked the other.

[anvi]

All helpful responses, and a good number of votes for both sides. 

I think Lief might have it right with the "grass is always greener" suspicion.  I also appreciate what Andrew says above about love for someone who doesn't treat one well being misplaced, precisely given the fact that real love, freely given by both partners, ought to naturally be mutual.  That's probably right, of course.  If only feelings would be that rational and pragmatic, perhaps human beings would have a much easier time with their lives.  As Nathan says and I definitely understand, the pull of feelings can often overpower one's sense of mere self-preservation, and as others above have intimated, there are lots of examples of instances in which that can be a noble thing; another aspect of real love is that it's a reaching out toward the other and not merely about protecting the self. 

Still, if feelings can't be rational and pragmatic, choices still can be, and the question in the OP was precisely about a choice. 

I am comforted, at least, that those who would prefer either option have very good reasons for doing so and so it's not necessarily an easy call. 

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No middle ground option here, anvi? 

[anvi]

No middle ground option here, anvi? 

Ideally, there would be one, wouldn't there? 

[opebo]

I voted for the latter before reading it - I thought it meant being single and rich.

That's a good option too.  It's just not available to me.  At least not the rich part.

Well you'll certainly be richer (or less poor) being single..

Option 1 without hesitation. I have self-destructive tendencies in a lot of my relationships with other people and am thus probably not a great role model in this regard, but life is going to have difficulties no matter what you do and anything promising ease probably has some sort of moral or other catch so I really can't see the point of choosing Option 2.

Have you ever considered the possibility that morality is self-destructive, Nathan?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Option 1 without hesitation. I have self-destructive tendencies in a lot of my relationships with other people and am thus probably not a great role model in this regard, but life is going to have difficulties no matter what you do and anything promising ease probably has some sort of moral or other catch so I really can't see the point of choosing Option 2.

Have you ever considered the possibility that morality is self-destructive, Nathan?

In this context? No, and you appear to be having some reading comprehension issues relating to what the word 'but' is doing in that sentence. In other contexts? Of course it is, and that's, in the contexts in which it's true, a good thing. Have you ever considered the possibility that rejecting morality is destructive of things far more important than the self?

[opebo]

...things far more important than the self?

I must confess I cannot conceive of anything more important than myself, Nathan.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...things far more important than the self?

I must confess I cannot conceive of anything more important than myself, Nathan.

And it is precisely in holding that view that you ensure that almost anybody else on the planet is more important and deserving of respect and concern than you are, opebo.

[opebo]

...things far more important than the self?

I must confess I cannot conceive of anything more important than myself, Nathan.

And it is precisely in holding that view that you ensure that almost anybody else on the planet is more important and deserving of respect and concern than you are, opebo.

My friends can't have coffee with 'everybody else on the planet', Nathan.  But I do get your point, and understand this mode of thinking.  I just find it a bit fantastical.  Somewhere in between our two extremes is no doubt the 'happy life'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Option 2, it gives you a stronger negotiating position(but not the strongest). The party less invested in the relationship wins it.

I don't think a relationship is something that one is supposed to 'win'.

[tik 🪀✨]

I would rather have neither of these options. I would seek true love with an easy life.

They all fail to encapsulate much of real life, though. If you believe in true love you'll forever be disappointed in the long run. Today's true love is tomorrow's comfortable feelings or, commonly, loathing. Today's difficulties are overcome leading to an easier life with the chance of having gained valuable lessons and character.

The real fault I see is the selfishness implied with both options - they only reflect how the other person in a relationship makes you feel or live. Ideally, unrealistically, a relationship should be about what you're both providing to each other. If you're in "true love" but have constant, serious insurmountable (despite being preventable) difficulties because of the other person, are you in a healthy relationship worth continuing? If you're merely tolerating someone and stay with them because it's easy, what does that say about you?

I am feeling indecisive so I'm not voting, but I have to say they're both pretty awful. "True love" isn't something I believe in - there's an incomprehensible amount of humanity dicking around right now. Surely there are many people one could cherish besides the one they love now. It's not worth settling when there are plenty of very compatible people out there for everyone. Both of these options are settling. If you do settle, don't be afraid to admit to yourself it may not last forever.