Would you "settle" when it comes to a partner

It always surprises me how many people are happy to settle because they don't want to be old and lonely. In my experience the loneliest older people I have known have been the ones who were married for a long time and then widowed. Most women will outlive their husbands, many by a long time. I think it's harder to cope with that when you've spent a long time as part of a couple. I definitely wouldn't 'settle' to avoid it.

I think most people have to compromise a little but love isn't the area to compromise on!

Me too. When my last relationship broke up I decided I really didn’t want to tread that path again. It’s been nearly ten years since I felt anything emotionally or physically towards someone and I can’t imagine me ever doing so again.

I’m in my early 60s now, not looking and all my future plans and dreams don’t include a partner. I’ve never had so much peace of mind since I swore off relationships and I’ve no inclination to change that.

I think many people settle for their partner but they also have no idea that they also settled. People like to big themselves up sometimes and I blame social media for that.

There are people who actively like to live alone (or say they do) but for the majority, it's more normal to 'pair up'. If you can choose somebody kind and patient who has more or less the same values as you then I think you're winning.

I hate to say it but I think settling is very different at age 60 than 30. Not always but often the energy isn’t there to be out several evenings a week meaning more nights at home on your own. When you know that’s permanent it can feel very lonely. Confidence sometimes dwindles so having someone to travel with helps. Lots of things are different.

In this example it might suit them both to settle. She’d be foregoing the spark (which she might never find elsewhere) and despite feeling very keen on her, he would know she didn’t feel the same about him. But they each might still be happier together than alone.

‘Settling’ is a weird one.
If you we were all trying to find our perfect Prince Charming then settling would be realistic. If we were settling for someone who is bad for us in order to not be alone, then not so much

It depends what you mean by settling for someone.

I don’t really see a problem with someone (particularly if a certain age) taking up with someone who they find agreeable, get on well with, who they care about (and vice versa), and with whom they share common interests, but who perhaps doesn’t get their pulse racing.

Thats completely different to someone who is 30 taking up with an abusive waste of oxygen because any man is better than no man.

It all depends on the circumstances.

I have a couple of friends that settled (ones DH pursued her for 6 yrs until she eventually gave in. The other refused to let us meet her partner because he was larger/bald and short - her words). They wanted children and felt it was the right time. The men adored them so they got married. They seem happy. None of my business ultimately what they chose to do with their lives but we all know that the men wouldn't have been what they would have chosen looks/romantic spark wise.

You see it really does come down to definition. A friend of mine has been single for 15 years because for her, anything less than the list of attributes she has in her head is ‘settling’. She uses exactly this term. She has rejected so many seemingly nice men for what seem to me to be arbitrary reasons. I think if she was happy being single then fine, crack on, but she isn’t.

When I say arbitrary reasons I’m including:
His shoes
Way he walked
Too low earner
Too posh
Too short
Job as a musician meant he would ‘definitely cheat’ (no evidence of this).

Maybe she just has a high ick threshold, and that’s fine, but what she considers ‘settling’ I would term a refusal to compromise. Again, up to her, that’s what she wants. But it’s a different definition of settling from others on this thread.

No one is saying anything less than 'mad sexual chemistry' is settling. But not being sexually attracted to your partner IS settling. How could it not be. You are forgoing a key part of a relationship (for the vast majority of people) because the partner has other attributes that you also value.

its interesting @gannett I guess people have different definitions of what it means to settle.

What you said made me think of this guy I was talking when I was on dating apps. He was being very vague and I think deliberately hard to understand due to lack of emotional availability.

So I asked him directly what he valued in a woman, as in what qualities he was looking for and the only thing he could come up with was “one that stays” he wasn’t even joking AFAIK.

Of course I unmatched the next day as I was so put off by his attitude. He didn’t mention kindness or humour or sass or intelligence. All he was looking for was a wife that will not leave him.

The problem is men like that eventually get bored with those women since they didn’t pick her based on anything individual to her, and then they’ll treat her badly or leave.

Thank you for articulating what I think better than I am able to.

I don't think marrying someone because they're kind of companionable rather than because of mad sexual chemistry is settling. It's just realising what long-term love is, rather than short-term "passion".

Settling happens when your reasons for marrying someone have nothing to do with who they are as an individual person. Your motivations are extrinsic to them and "anyone will do". Whether it's because you want kids or feel family pressure to settle down or just want the social status of being in a couple. And they don't know you feel that way.

I have no sympathy and quite a lot of contempt for people who settle in that way, because you're essentially just using another human being to get what you want, with no actual feeling for them.

I think it comes down to how you interpret the word "settle". What do you think about my point about affairs? Do you feel like your head was more easily turned in these relationships?

I think it depends on how you look at things and what you actually want.

You can either go for someone who is what you want (tall, rich, calm, ambitious, etc), or you can go for someone who is good FOR you. I don't think these things often overlap.

Someone who is shy, timid, introverted, etc, might want someone like them, but really, is that who they actually need to be their best self? My partner and I are complete opposites, and part of me felt that I settled, but I'm the introvert and they are the extrovert. I have subdued them into not being quite so (too) aggressive, snappy, impulsive/reckless, while they have picked me up into being more ambitious and extroverted.

The two times I settled I absolutely did not have contempt for my partner. They just didn't do it for me sexually. The relationships were actually great in every other respect and only fell apart when it became impossible to ignore the mismatched sex drives.

People who married someone they had a spark with that burned out would seek security.

But the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think there's a weird assumption here that you can't have passion with good men who treat you well but I don't think that's true.

I wouldn't say that accepting a partner that isn't perfect is settling. After all, noone is. To me settling implies a sort of contempt for your partner. Seeing them as below your standards but someone who you can use for a means to what you want (children/financial stability etc).

I wonder if a lot of people who have affairs are those that have consciously settled. I can imagine that it must be a lot easier to have your head turned if you already feel like your partner isn't up to parr and you meet someone who ticks all of the boxes

I hit 38 and realised my dream of meeting mr perfect was unrealistic.

DH is kind, dependable and solvent. We’ve made a good team together and don’t regret a thing.

I think it depends on your circumstances and previous relationships. People who married someone they had a spark with that burned out would seek security. Those that went for security with less passion that didn’t work out may want that later in life.
I’m in my 40s now. I married someone more for their personality, I was never that physically attracted to him. Long story short, he wasn’t really who he presented himself to be. I realised at some point I’d rather be single than married to him, even if it meant I’d potentially be alone forever. I started dating again after a while. It wasn’t a great start! Several bad dates and last minute cancellations! But then I met my OH. Attraction off the charts! I wasn’t sure I’d ever feel like this about someone. The compromise is that we live an hour apart and won’t be able to move in together any time soon.
I’m glad I took the leap to be single again. I’d do it again even if I hadn’t met OH.

Thank you so much :) It was one of the proudest moments of my life when eldest dd gave a speech at our wedding and thanked him for "showing me I don't need to be scared of men". Not a dry eye in the house and it meant the absolute world to him. A huge part of my love for him is down to his love for my girls.

You both sound lovely and I am glad that u have found each other, much deserved for all

Lovely story, thanx for sharing

Lucky you!

Good point but I do know that there are some women for whom financial status is a primary consideration when seeking/finding a male partner.
BTW, I am single and financially independent ( not wealthy but stable) so have never 'needed to be partnered up' for financial security. Although as a single parent, there have been previous torturous financial hardship that would have been relieved with a partner.