TiK, I certainly appreciate where you're coming from regarding the way the question in the poll and OP was framed re. selfishness, the ideal reciprocity that healthy relationships should have. But I'm not sure I understand your answer. First, you wrote the there is no true love out there, and that option 2 in its own way represents "settling," but then you say go for compatibility. Why is finding someone whom one could cherish and was compatible, though not necessarily "truly" loved in the popular sense, not akin to option 2? I guess the latter was sort of what I had in mind for option 2, even if I may not have phrased it in a clear way.
Anyway, I think Andrew in the end is probably right above when he points out that, in the context of what are intended to be lifelong romantic partnerships, feelings strongly invested in someone who does not of their own will want to make you happy too are misplaced feelings.
My response was less of an answer and more of an observation of the nature of the choices. What I was aiming for is that neither of these are good options and are examples of settling for less than what is possible, and also that they are don't really encapsulate the full experience of a relationship over time
so they're not necessarily bad either. Also, the terms used make it difficult to answer. What is meant by "true love," "difficulties," and "easy life?"
So, like Nathan, I had to sort of make up in my mind what you meant. I don't believe in "true love" in the sense of a soul mate - one single person out of billions who is
meant for you and you for them forever and ever amen. I am married, and I love and cherish my partner above all others. But, I'm not going to lie to myself and think that if we were no longer together for whatever reason that I'd lost the only single person I could live with. Neither will I lie to myself and say that our love could never fade or change. To me that feels like a realistic, healthy attitude. It actually can make a relationship stronger because you know it's fragile and not infinite and requires effort. Love doesn't fix personality flaws you inevitably find or real world problems that can strain relationships (finances, illness, violence, etc). Love is the motivator, the fuel that gives you the energy and stamina to even want to try to get through the hard times, let alone fix them.
And that's where the definition of "difficulties" plays a huge role. In my reply, I figured the difficulties would be some kind of chronic but avoidable awfulness that the other person refuses to address. Violence and manipulative behaviour come to mind. Perhaps drug addiction. Or, you know, it could easily be something very small that slowly eats away at you over time. The key to me was that these difficulties were unnecessary and horribly burdensome, yet preventable by your partner
who is deliberately choosing not to do anything out of stupidity, malice, or whatever.
Staying in that kind of relationship long-term because you think you have found your "soul mate" or because of "true love" strikes me as misplaced and foolish (and very human and understandable).
So, instead, you should find someone who you truly love, but also isn't making your life into a constant struggle. That's not option 2 to me. Option 2 is more no constant struggle but no strong emotional bond to the other person. And my point was that if you're willing to give up on finding anyone who makes you want to work at life and live with passion, you're also kind of a failure (but a very human and understandable one).
And my third point was that you could grow to love the person you have no strong feeling for in option 2, or that your easy life could make you feel miserable eventually, or that the difficulties in option 1 could be overcome, or that your true love could fade. So they're both unrealistic and bad options.
tl;dr Man love woman
Woman make man life hard no reason
Man find better woman
Man find woman no love
Man maybe regret
Man find better woman
Many pleasure
Poll
