Finding "THE ONE", "SETTLING" & "LOVE"

[Kamilah]

OMG Yall!

I found this article last night and I felt like it was talking to my SOUL. Like it was written just for me and that it was a sign for me to find it. It's a bit long but reads with ease b/c it's so true. I just want to know what you all think of it. I'm really interested in what you all think of it. Married, single, divorced, whatever....what do you think?

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23053553/

 

[BlkHoneyLuv2U]

Thats always been my problem with men, I always overlooked their shortcomings and settled for less than I deserved in the men I dated and in the end was the one holding the short end of the stick. Now at age 48, 49 in August, I realize this and refuse to do it anymore. Yes I am alone in a sense but I am not lonely, there is someone in my life right now who gets me, makes me smile at the very thought of him, stimulates me mentally, spiritually, physically and emotionally though we've never met in person. Maybe he is THE ONE maybe not but I am not going to dewll on the thought of wether he is or is not. I am just going to enjoy the moment and let it ride. Will keep err body posted if there are wedding bells in my future. LOL

 

[Kiadodie]

Wow..it's funny you bring up this article. Just today I was asking friend of mine that I had this guy that was interested in me but I didn't have any chemistry w/ him nor ws i attracted to him. She told me tht sometimes God gives us wht we want insted of what we need. I was like huh erplexed?

I just can't see being with someone if I don't have chemistry with him. I just can't.

So..I guess settling is NOT for me. It just isn't.

 

[Bunny77]

This is a good article. I need to think about this for a minute...

 

[NYLegalNewbie]

I can understand the article's perspective and even where she's coming from. I think she hit the nail on the head in many ways. However, I don't think she quite framed the issue correctly (or at least a way that's digestible to many readers).

I think that when we are on our quest for "Mr. Right" we tend to do so with all of these checklists - does he have this? Does he do that? etc, etc. We have great expectations that we will have super intense chemistry with "The One" and that our relationships are supposedly to just be wildly passionate. We have this dream, this image in our minds of how we want things to be. How things have to be, in order for us to live "happily ever after" like some kind of fantasy.

But you see...that's just it. It is a fantasy. At least to say, what we have put into our minds is fantasy.

I've personally been on a dating hiatus, and it will continue for a few more months. However, doing this has been one of the BEST things I could have done for myself and I think in the future, I will come to value it even more. It has given me time to think about what's important to me, what I want, and what I value.

I've come to this conclusion. You've got to get rid of the checklists. You've got the get rid of the fantasies. Be in the moment. Allow people to be who they are. Allow yourself to get to know them. Allow yourself to enjoy the opportunity to get to know them and them getting to know you. And then, with time, you will see if the Big Three are really there - shared attraction, shared goals, and shared values. I think if you've got those three, then you're good and you're not really compromising that much at all. And if the two of you happen to share even more than that in common, well then bless your little hearts.

This concept of "settling" (with its exceedingly negative connotation) really only enters the fray when you just have this "perfect vision" of the person you should (in your mind) be with in order to have your happily ever after. If you hold that vision in your mind too strongly, you could lose sight of some amazing people who don't quite come in the package that you expected. And ultimately, I think this is what the author of this article was trying to get at.

So the guy is 5'8" rather than 6'2" and he's an engineer rather than a financial guru. And rather than being a former college football player, he plays squash now and then. But you're very attracted to him and you think he's a wonderful person. He makes you laugh and you feel pretty darn good whenever you're around him. He shares the same vision of his future, and he has the same values that you do in life. Not to mention, the guy thinks you're pretty darn swell as well and wants to spend the rest of his life with you.

How in the world is that settling?

Now, I do have one MAJOR gripe about the article overall.

I really, really, REALLY do not like how she suggests that having someone and feeling alone in a marriage is better than not having anyone at all.

That's really not, in my opinion, the right frame of mind to take. Many times for folks it is NOT better "to have someone rather than no one" particularly if being with that other person makes you feel miserable and/or trapped. What a sad state of affairs.

I think it's okay to go with the guy who, while the super intense passion may not quite be there, you find attractive and will make a good long term partner with whom you can be content. I do NOT think it's okay to go with someone just to have someone.

 

[NYLegalNewbie]

One more thing...

I think people really underestimate how strong attachments and attraction can become over time. Someone who you initially thought was "Cute, and fairly okay" in the looks and personality department may, after knowing them for 5 to 10 years, come to be one of the most wonderful people that you know.

It's not about "settling" or "not settling" but being willing to be open to the possibilities and gifts that different folks can offer you.

 

[Maa Maa omo mti]

NYLegalNewbie you need to preach girl preach. Great post, you hit on really good advise that we all need to be opened to, I know I am taking the info and trying to change

 

[janiebaby]

Ok, I'm gonna go off the deep end here and say a few things

First, I could not read the rest of the article after she said something like look past the halitosis and the annoying laugh and settle. Um, I know it was a joke and even if it weren't the halitosis could be cleared up and everyone has had an off day but I just don't like the concept of marrying a man that you're not attracted to....

Second, I think NY brought up a lot of good points. Although, I know I may not be the majority but I don't know that many women who don't actually settle. I mean women talk a good game (myself included) about what we want etc. but if a man that we are attracted to for whatever reason comes up we're not gonna look past them.

Example: Everyone knows that I like tall men, if nothing else...BUT, I have been attracted to men that were my height before with no problem whatsoever (actually I think they may be better than the tall ones but don't tell anyone I said it). What's wrong with not being attracted to certain things??? I've also found out that I have little control over what I actually AM attracted to opposed to what I THINK I'm attracted to.

Another Example: I know a man that loves tall women yet I have never seen him with one. Just because you say you like something doesn't mean you'll look past something else that comes along. BUT I do understand that some people do.

Point is, I think that for some women, it becomes an issue of WHAT attracts them and then it also becomes an issue to find out if you are the type of woman that would attract your type of man.

 

[Ms Red]

NYLegalNewbie-- Excellent posts!!!!

 

[lotusspecter]

I think that article was all about the author trying to assuage her own misjudgments and regrets. Her criticism of books she read seem to blame them for her own wrong thinking and lack of foresight. I can't believe she claims each and every single woman over 30 that isn't worried about not being married is in denial or flat out lying. Really? Who is the disingenuous one? That's the most blatant projection I've ever heard. And there's this gem:

Two of Jennifer’s friends married men who Jennifer believes aren’t even straight, and while Jennifer wouldn’t have made that choice a few years back, she wonders whether she might be capable of it in the future. “Maybe they understood something that I didn’t,” she said.

Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, but that is just beyond pathetic. Not that there's anything wrong with having a partnership with someone that shares the same values with you, even if you have different sexual orientations. It's the lying that bothers me. I echo a previous poster's statement that most, if not all of the married women I know have "settled." That's fine, just don't try to convince me (and yourselves) that your marriage is something it's not. These type of people lament that society perpetuates this false, idealized image of marriage while they are the biggest offenders.

We need to do away with our The One manifestos but to suggest that marrying whomever you can get is better than being alone sends the message that we don't deserve love for the sake of love. How sad. Instead of settling, how about some thoughtful contemplation, introspection, and honesty?

(This was much better than my initial reaction of "GMAFB, this **** needs to sit down somewhere." )

 

[ALWAYZL8]

Now, I do have one MAJOR gripe about the article overall.

I really, really, REALLY do not like how she suggests that having someone and feeling alone in a marriage is better than not having anyone at all.

That's really not, in my opinion, the right frame of mind to take. Many times for folks it is NOT better "to have someone rather than no one" particularly if being with that other person makes you feel miserable and/or trapped. What a sad state of affairs.

ITA with you. How is being in a miserable marriage better than be single, but content with my life?

 

[darkangel25]

I can understand the article's perspective and even where she's coming from. I think she hit the nail on the head in many ways. However, I don't think she quite framed the issue correctly (or at least a way that's digestible to many readers).

I think that when we are on our quest for "Mr. Right" we tend to do so with all of these checklists - does he have this? Does he do that? etc, etc. We have great expectations that we will have super intense chemistry with "The One" and that our relationships are supposedly to just be wildly passionate. We have this dream, this image in our minds of how we want things to be. How things have to be, in order for us to live "happily ever after" like some kind of fantasy.

But you see...that's just it. It is a fantasy. At least to say, what we have put into our minds is fantasy.

I've personally been on a dating hiatus, and it will continue for a few more months. However, doing this has been one of the BEST things I could have done for myself and I think in the future, I will come to value it even more. It has given me time to think about what's important to me, what I want, and what I value.

I've come to this conclusion. You've got to get rid of the checklists. You've got the get rid of the fantasies. Be in the moment. Allow people to be who they are. Allow yourself to get to know them. Allow yourself to enjoy the opportunity to get to know them and them getting to know you. And then, with time, you will see if the Big Three are really there - shared attraction, shared goals, and shared values. I think if you've got those three, then you're good and you're not really compromising that much at all. And if the two of you happen to share even more than that in common, well then bless your little hearts.

This concept of "settling" (with its exceedingly negative connotation) really only enters the fray when you just have this "perfect vision" of the person you should (in your mind) be with in order to have your happily ever after. If you hold that vision in your mind too strongly, you could lose sight of some amazing people who don't quite come in the package that you expected. And ultimately, I think this is what the author of this article was trying to get at.

So the guy is 5'8" rather than 6'2" and he's an engineer rather than a financial guru. And rather than being a former college football player, he plays squash now and then. But you're very attracted to him and you think he's a wonderful person. He makes you laugh and you feel pretty darn good whenever you're around him. He shares the same vision of his future, and he has the same values that you do in life. Not to mention, the guy thinks you're pretty darn swell as well and wants to spend the rest of his life with you.

How in the world is that settling?

Now, I do have one MAJOR gripe about the article overall.

I really, really, REALLY do not like how she suggests that having someone and feeling alone in a marriage is better than not having anyone at all.

That's really not, in my opinion, the right frame of mind to take. Many times for folks it is NOT better "to have someone rather than no one" particularly if being with that other person makes you feel miserable and/or trapped. What a sad state of affairs.

I think it's okay to go with the guy who, while the super intense passion may not quite be there, you find attractive and will make a good long term partner with whom you can be content. I do NOT think it's okay to go with someone just to have someone.

Hmm. You've given me a lot to think about. Nice post.

 

[NYLegalNewbie]

I think that article was all about the author trying to assuage her own misjudgments and regrets. Her criticism of books she read seem to blame them for her own wrong thinking and lack of foresight. I can't believe she claims each and every single woman over 30 that isn't worried about not being married is in denial or flat out lying. Really? Who is the disingenuous one? That's the most blatant projection I've ever heard. And there's this gem:

Two of Jennifer’s friends married men who Jennifer believes aren’t even straight, and while Jennifer wouldn’t have made that choice a few years back, she wonders whether she might be capable of it in the future. “Maybe they understood something that I didn’t,” she said.

Are you kidding me? I'm sorry, but that is just beyond pathetic. Not that there's anything wrong with having a partnership with someone that shares the same values with you, even if you have different sexual orientations. It's the lying that bothers me. I echo a previous poster's statement that most, if not all of the married women I know have "settled." That's fine, just don't try to convince me (and yourselves) that your marriage is something it's not. These type of people lament that society perpetuates this false, idealized image of marriage while they are the biggest offenders.

We need to do away with our The One manifestos but to suggest that marrying whomever you can get is better than being alone sends the message that we don't deserve love for the sake of love. How sad. Instead of settling, how about some thoughtful contemplation, introspection, and honesty?

(This was much better than my initial reaction of "GMAFB, this **** needs to sit down somewhere." )

Agreed.

You know, the more I chew on that article, the more I realize that this woman really was NOT trying to put forward the same point that I was putting forward in my post.

The point of my post was that if you let go of preconceived notions of what "The One" is supposed to be like, then you open yourself up to more possibilities and more chances to meet some truly wonderful folks with whom you did not initially picture yourself. However, I think that you can (and should) still have an AMAZING relationship with this person. It may not be all about fiery passion, but you guys have got some sparks and you really add a lot to each other's lives.

The author, on the other hand, really is saying, "Just take whatever you can get, especially once you are past the 35 mark." That really is just absolute crap.

Now, granted, this example comes from La La Land...but...

Anyone watch The Real Housewives of Orange County? Remember Laurie? Divorced, three kids (one major problem kid)? She got back on her feet financially and continued to date. On one of the episodes, she expressed frustration about not having the kind of relationship she wanted. Her friend suggested that she lower her standards. Laurie refused. At the end of the last season, she got married to her dream guy.

Now, granted, this woman looks like a damn Barbie and gets invited to the Playboy Mansion...

But still...the point is, had she settled like her friend suggested, she wouldn't have met the guy she eventually married.

 

[graCeful_89]

I'm very young (newly-19) but I have a little bit to say about this article.
My eldest sister was married at 19 and she just had her 5th child and her 17-year wedding anniversary. I don't think she settled. She found the person that she believed was right for her, and married him (and yes she married him FIRST and then had her first child almost 2 years later). No use in walking around for 10-15 years waiting for Mr. Right or establishing careers. I failed to mention that my sister is also an attorney. She went through college and graduate school as a mother, wife and student and is currently the only african-american female attorney in a firm of about 30 lawyers. Seeing her do all of those things has given me hope. I know that I am not her, and might not be as lucky but for that article to tell women that its okay to settle is kind of silly. Aren't we all worth a little more then that? Don't we all deserve the best?

Anyway, I have another sister, who is newly-30, with a boyfriend of about 8 months. She has never had any children and has never been married, although she has been engaged a few times. She has been able to travel, see the world, do and expierience things our older sister will probably never get to do. She has her MBA and works for a multi-million dollar company. Now, she is also ready to settle down and have a family of her own and I don't think she is struggling or desperate. She has lived a great single life and now shes thinking about settling down and believes she has found the person to do it with.

With those two people in mind, I definately have a tiny look at both sides. They took different approaches but are both established and happy. Maybe, one feels some regret for not living a little before marriage but she has a wonderful family and a great career; the other might feel a little strange about not getting married when she had the chance but I don't believe she would have been as happy as she is now.

And the thing about having children young is kind of bogus to. My mother had me when she was 43 and I came out perfectly healthy. Heck, I even skipped 2 grades! I hate this mold that society places on women. It is not our duty to go out and have children and be mothers and if some of us feel like taking care of ourselves first, then why not? Men can go out and have COUNTLESS babies at any old age and no one says anything to them. Back in the day, there was a worry about women having kids at an older age, but with modern medicine, anything seems possible. We shouldn't feel "desperate and panicked" at 30 years old because we don't have children! Its as if, women without children or husbands, no matter how established, are worth nothing! Even Oprah gets looked down upon sometimes!

 

[chichibean]

I absolutely agree with all you ladies! I reallly think that what the author is missing is that WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT... and we want and value different things. I firmly believe that many women get married for all different reasons. Some really want to have children and so they choose someone who may not be the "love of their life" but someone they can build a life with and who would be a good father. Does that make them wrong? I don't think so... On the other hand, I would never marry someone under those circumstances UNLESS I really felt he was the love of my life. That's just me... I'm not willing to settle... and while I'm 32 I feel neither desperate nor fatally lonely. Am I lying??? Uh... no.
We all make decisions (about marriage) for the reasons that suit our needs, lifestyle and values. If you are willing to marry someone who may be gay because it is more important for you to build a household and family than to nuture a relationship, then that is your choice but it is impossible to paint everyone with the same brush!
And I just feel that the author was projecting a lot of her own opinion on the rest of the female society. She's really only speaking for herself.

 

[prettypuff1]

And while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together (for the umpteenth time) in the finale of Friends, do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the orthodontist, 10 years earlier? She and Ross have passion but have never had long-term stability, and the fireworks she experiences with him but not with Barry might actually turn out to be a liability, given how many times their relationship has already gone up in flames. It’s equally questionable whether Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, who cheated on her kindhearted and generous boyfriend, Aidan, only to end up with the more exciting but self-absorbed Mr. Big, will be better off in the framework of marriage and family. (Some time after the breakup, when Carrie ran into Aidan on the street, he was carrying his infant in a Baby Björn. Can anyone imagine Mr. Big walking around with a Björn?)
When we’re holding out for deep romantic love, we have the fantasy that this level of passionate intensity will make us happier. But marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you’re looking for a stable, reliable life companion.

Ok.

I think that we are missing some key points to what this is about. i dont think she is saying " Take what you can get because it isn't getting any better" But she is saying that stop rejecting men for the smallest things. We expect the man that we marry to be perfect, not do anything that annoys us, like laugh to loud or have a weird way of eating his food. We can't expect that. I think the way to true love can in go with a deep burning and growing from someone that u may not have had sparks with right away, but someone who has very good qualities like GOES TO WORK EVERYDAY, or is POLITE AND RESPECTFUL AND GOOD TO U AND UR SON( this is in caps for me)

I am writing this as someone who is there now. I am dating someone who truly likes me, has everything that i want in someone, loves to be near me and wants to get to know my son and be there for us in every way that a man should be. What's the problem.... That spark isnt there, that wanton desire that i think love should come with. But what if true love doesnt come with that, or that kind of spark lasts the longest when it develops over time. I have someone else that i talked to once upon a time, we have that spark. When i see him it is GREAT? Problem with him is that he just won't give me the time of day. I see that spark in him all the time and when i think back to the day that we met, it was sooo there, But like all sparks, they tend to fizzle out quickly. What the woman is talking about is just to not expect the spark all the time. She isnt saying take" Chester the fool" or live with "Tommy Tightpocket" or " Jack won't keep a job", just don't leave that good man just beause the * spark* isnt there.

 

[Sly]

I didn't care for the article.

“The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for.” ~ Maureen Dowd

 

[lotusspecter]

Ok.

I think that we are missing some key points to what this is about. i dont think she is saying " Take what you can get because it isn't getting any better" But she is saying that stop rejecting men for the smallest things. We expect the man that we marry to be perfect, not do anything that annoys us, like laugh to loud or have a weird way of eating his food. We can't expect that. I think the way to true love can in go with a deep burning and growing from someone that u may not have had sparks with right away, but someone who has very good qualities like GOES TO WORK EVERYDAY, or is POLITE AND RESPECTFUL AND GOOD TO U AND UR SON( this is in caps for me)

I am writing this as someone who is there now. I am dating someone who truly likes me, has everything that i want in someone, loves to be near me and wants to get to know my son and be there for us in every way that a man should be. What's the problem.... That spark isnt there, that wanton desire that i think love should come with. But what if true love doesnt come with that, or that kind of spark lasts the longest when it develops over time. I have someone else that i talked to once upon a time, we have that spark. When i see him it is GREAT? Problem with him is that he just won't give me the time of day. I see that spark in him all the time and when i think back to the day that we met, it was sooo there, But like all sparks, they tend to fizzle out quickly. What the woman is talking about is just to not expect the spark all the time. She isnt saying take" Chester the fool" or live with "Tommy Tightpocket" or " Jack won't keep a job", just don't leave that good man just beause the * spark* isnt there.

I think that is exactly what she is saying. She regrets not settling when "[her] marital value was at its peak." She's made herself into a commodity that depreciates with age so, in that regard, she is saying she should have taken what she could have had before she becomes worthless. *** that. She went well beyond advising to look beyond the fireworks and wow factor. I'm not going to accept someone with undesirable personality traits or questionable sexual orientation for fear of being alone.

It sounds like she was saying to think about someone who will be a good father and provider first. If you both have something more than that, great and if not, it's better than nothing. If "Chester the Fool" and "Tommy Tightpocket" meet the very minimal requirements (apparently halitosis and the such are ok) you better woman up and take them before even they won't give you a second look. Maybe I could respect her if she didn't frame the article the way she did and wrote about being honest with what you are looking for in a partner. She's not even fully informed, just full of regret because obviously, she's never been married! Her ideal romantic relationship is Will & Grace. I mean, come on! She thinks marrying someone even though the thought of hugging them makes you shudder is an "adult compromise." That's just so laughable, I don't even know what else to say. She's just taken it too far.

 

[Connie]

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the word, "settle".

I settled for Mr. Good Enough..twice. I'll NEVER settle again. I'm not someone a man can grow on. I either feel a guy or I don't, and I can't fake it. I did that in the past, and I ended up hurting men who truly did love me. I'll never make that mistake again.

It's either Mr. Right-For-Me or no man at all. It's better to be alone and than to live your life wishing you'd left well enough alone.

 

[Bunny77]

Ok.

I think that we are missing some key points to what this is about. i dont think she is saying " Take what you can get because it isn't getting any better" But she is saying that stop rejecting men for the smallest things. We expect the man that we marry to be perfect, not do anything that annoys us, like laugh to loud or have a weird way of eating his food. We can't expect that. I think the way to true love can in go with a deep burning and growing from someone that u may not have had sparks with right away, but someone who has very good qualities like GOES TO WORK EVERYDAY, or is POLITE AND RESPECTFUL AND GOOD TO U AND UR SON( this is in caps for me)

I am writing this as someone who is there now. I am dating someone who truly likes me, has everything that i want in someone, loves to be near me and wants to get to know my son and be there for us in every way that a man should be. What's the problem.... That spark isnt there, that wanton desire that i think love should come with. But what if true love doesnt come with that, or that kind of spark lasts the longest when it develops over time. I have someone else that i talked to once upon a time, we have that spark. When i see him it is GREAT? Problem with him is that he just won't give me the time of day. I see that spark in him all the time and when i think back to the day that we met, it was sooo there, But like all sparks, they tend to fizzle out quickly. What the woman is talking about is just to not expect the spark all the time. She isnt saying take" Chester the fool" or live with "Tommy Tightpocket" or " Jack won't keep a job", just don't leave that good man just beause the * spark* isnt there.

I'm totally with you.

I can't determine whether the author was being tongue-in-cheek with some of her comments... the magazine she writes for is one of those so-called thoughtful intellectual magazines and the authors often like to stir the pot or just throw **** out there and see what sticks.

Because I can't see any sane woman truly recommending that women marry gay guys or dudes with bad breath. I mean, we ARE going to be having sex with our husbands (right? ) so we do need to be attracted to them.

So... ignoring the extreme examples she gave, I can see the bigger picture, which is exactly what Prettypuff is saying. I'm going through this situation too -- I've met a nice guy who has most of the qualities I say I like in a man, but there's no "spark." He is a great friend though and has a good personality and I enjoy talking to him.

But last summer, I had mega-sparks with one guy who turned out to be a complete *** and we don't even speak anymore.

In the past, I might have totally kicked the first guy to the curb because there was no spark, but I've decided to keep him around for a bit. I'm still dating other people and open to other possibilities, but I'm not going to be so quick to rule this man out because I can tell that he would be the type to be a good husband and father... if I want my marriage to last "forever," then I need to find someone who demonstrates consistency, because sparks alone do NOT sustain a marriage!

(Which is probably why the divorce rate is so high)

 

[MissScarlett]

One more thing...

I think people really underestimate how strong attachments and attraction can become over time. Someone who you initially thought was "Cute, and fairly okay" in the looks and personality department may, after knowing them for 5 to 10 years, come to be one of the most wonderful people that you know.

It's not about "settling" or "not settling" but being willing to be open to the possibilities and gifts that different folks can offer you.

ITA with this. Love that starts out slow, burns much longer, trust me. That's how my feelings evolved for dh and it gets better each year.

 

[bLackButtaFly]

I'm totally with you.

I can't determine whether the author was being tongue-in-cheek with some of her comments... the magazine she writes for is one of those so-called thoughtful intellectual magazines and the authors often like to stir the pot or just throw **** out there and see what sticks.

Because I can't see any sane woman truly recommending that women marry gay guys or dudes with bad breath. I mean, we ARE going to be having sex with our husbands (right? ) so we do need to be attracted to them.

So... ignoring the extreme examples she gave, I can see the bigger picture, which is exactly what Prettypuff is saying. I'm going through this situation too -- I've met a nice guy who has most of the qualities I say I like in a man, but there's no "spark." He is a great friend though and has a good personality and I enjoy talking to him.

But last summer, I had mega-sparks with one guy who turned out to be a complete *** and we don't even speak anymore.

In the past, I might have totally kicked the first guy to the curb because there was no spark, but I've decided to keep him around for a bit. I'm still dating other people and open to other possibilities, but I'm not going to be so quick to rule this man out because I can tell that he would be the type to be a good husband and father... if I want my marriage to last "forever," then I need to find someone who demonstrates consistency, because sparks alone do NOT sustain a marriage!

(Which is probably why the divorce rate is so high)

ITA. I think there are points that the author is just trying to get a rise, and have alittle fun w/ the audience, but her underlying message is still there.

For example a my "whatever"(we're in a limbo) is not what I pictured. I love dark guys w/ perfect complexions he's light with razor bumps, I like tall guys w/ muscular bodies, he's on the shorter side(can't wear high to the sky pumps) and well built but not stupendous. I like really well dressed guys, he's usually in regular clothes and has dorky sunglasses. He's got a lisp sometimes, and has a weird sense of humor, but he loves me, and wants to take care of me, I like being around him and enjoy his company more then most ppl's, we have alot of the big things in common life goals etc, and we're a good match, so I overlook the lisp, and the imperfect teeth and a guy that on first glance wasn't what I was looking for, and I think that's what she means.

 

[Desert Skye]

ITA with this. Love that starts out slow, burns much longer, trust me. That's how my feelings evolved for dh and it gets better each year.

Love that statement. Its so true!