To think most people settle in their relationships?

[WryJadeWren]

… Not everyone but enough that “happy” and “secure” aren’t always the same thing.

A while back I would have disagreed with you but about 9 months ago I found this site and the horrible things I have read - I can’t even comprehend so sadly I now wonder for how many people is your statement true. 😞

I didn't settle. I met my lovely and now late DH in my mid-30s and we had a very good marriage. Even other people noticed it, though I never said "I have a good marriage, in fact didn't discuss it at all. DD commented freely, i.e I did not ask, that so many of her friends' parents did not seem like each other.

I agree with @feelingbleh that some people are fine living alone so don't feel inclined to fill a gap. That would be me, both before meeting my DH and now.

This relates to the gnawing question of "Has my ex improved since we split up? His current wife seems happy!" I was absolutely terrible at choosing partners. My exes had such profound character flaws that I don't believe they can have changed much - though they also had enough attractive qualities to keep me there for some years, which no doubt their later wives appreciated too.

Assuming they're still unfaithful, selfish misogynists with inexcusably bad tempers, their wives must be willing to overlook a lot more poor behaviour than I was. No idea whether they'd consider themselves to have 'settled' but they must be doing a lot of heavy emotional lifting ... which, to me, looks like settling.

For the record: I started therapy at the end of my second marriage. I learned why I had the partners I did, fixed those flaws and promptly gave up on relationships. I'm no great catch these days but the available men are worse! Maybe it's a fact that most women who want a lasting marriage have to settle because nice men are scarce? I don't know 🤔

I think in general people do want relationships- some of those may "settle" or make wrong choices for various reasons, others may have unrealistically romantic ideas about 'the one', many want families, and having a relationship is the obvious way to facilitate that.

Others realise they prefer to be single or find out that don't do well in a relationship. Some believe there is one perfect love out there, or at least want high passion, others realise that probably isn't the case and find someone good enough.

I see no reason though why we need to judge each other. There's a prevailing theme on MN, I feel, that it is weak to be in a relationship with someone who isn't the absolute love of your life and that being a strong single woman is the best path to take.

Each to their own. Relationships can be hard work but that doesn't mean they aren't enhancing someone's life. I could be alone but I really don't want to be until maybe one day I have no choice. That doesn't mean I "settled". I have friends and family members who've been alone most of their adult lives - I see they are happy and have fulfilling lives. We aren't all the same.

Well no we are long term married because it suits both of us and we are adults who know our own mind, just because people have issues and are to afraid to be alone or think a bad partner is better than no partner or whatever thing they have going on doesn't mean most people do anything

Duplicate post

Duplicate post

It is interesting how many people 'know' their friends haven't settled. How exactly do you know?

I think this is very honest.
I imagine most people don’t realise they have settled until later on in the relationship when things start to go pear shaped.
I don’t believe the majority of people wouldn’t settle, they want children so have to settle for someone, unless they are brave enough to use a sperm donor.
Hind-site is a wonderful thing.

My post was intended to quote Littlenest

Yes wanting financial security and children makes most people settle.

I think high divorce rates show that people settle less now than they ever did.

Like another poster, I don’t have children and am financially independent, so
I’m only with DH because I want to be. However, I’m not very soppy about him to my friends and enjoy regaling them with stories of his foibles, so they probably think I hate him 😂.

I think everyone settles to a certain extent. The world is huge and it's mad to think that your perfect partner, the person you were meant to spend the rest of your life with just coincidentally happened to live down the road from you/work in the same place/go to the same University.

But I think the reason many long term relationships or marriages end isn't because of people settling with a person who isn't right for them, it's because people change as they age & often grow apart/start to have different priorities.
Some couples manage to navigate the changes over time better than others.

I agree with this. I don’t know many who have irl but seems to be more common on MN. I’m just dating atm but most of my friends are in wonderful long term relationships or marriages OR happily single.

This is a fair point and I say that as someone who is single. I have dated some men in their 40s who I feel fit that description. I don’t know if it’s selfishness exactly but there’s just something in them that will never be satisfied. They’ll be forever searching for their perfect unicorn. I’m sure it applies to some women too.

Once I get a sense a man is like that I just dip out. The last guy I dated like that was 45, a high 6 figure earner who ran his own company and traveled a lot. He had a series of long term relationships. I’d be surprised if he gets married before 50.

Yes a lot of people settle, both men and women. Some because the status quo isn’t good but likely better than the alternative. Some out of fear of change.
But settling to me, when you know things aren’t right and you stay, is different to being in a relationship where you do need to compromise and accommodate both persons needs, some of which can be annoying. That’s not settling, that’s just life.

No, I don't think most people settle - and I think it's important to underline the message that you don't have to settle and settling isn't normal. A lot of women screw themselves because they internalise "received wisdom" that everyone settles, all men are shit etc, so they think they have to as well.

Settling doesn't just fuck yourself over - it's a supremely selfish act in that it fucks over your partner as well. Being told DP had settled for me would devastate me more than anything else, I think. A thousand times worse than infidelity. The entire relationship would have been a lie.

And to be clear, because a lot of people are getting it wrong on this thread. Settling is NOT having a partner who isn't perfect. Settling is NOT putting up with and accepting minor human flaws in each other. Settling is NOT the natural transition from initial passionate romance to a more stable love.

Settling is resigning yourself to a lifetime with someone you know you're not compatible with, for reasons that have nothing to do with them: you're scared of being alone, so he could be any placeholder man. You want kids, so he could be any placeholder man who seems vaguely sensible. You want a fancy life (and can't earn the money yourself), so he could be any placeholder decent-earning man. None of it is about loving or even liking him, it's about your own fears (see above re: selfishness).

The really basic fundamentals for being in a relationship are to enjoy someone's company and to be attracted to them, and to be compatible in terms of living together, sexuality, ethics and so on. In real life most people I know would never have settled for less than that, and the process of dating was to find someone who ticked all their key compatibility boxes.

On MN you see an alarming number of women who found men who ticked none of those boxes, but married them and had kids with them anyway. But I don't think that's commonplace elsewhere.

Respectfully, OP, someone who starts a thread on the internet claiming that ‘everyone settles’ doesn’t sound like someone who is happy with their own choices.

Of course they have. Nobody is perfect, not even those of us who think we are.

"Settling" is actually nothing more than realising . .

You're not the most gorgeous woman in the world, you're not even close.

You also have annoying habits.

Your DH constantly meets women far more attractive than you, but still wants to be with you instead of them.

In terms of relationship potential, once you are over 40 you're basically invisible, and anyone you meet will have more baggage than National Express.

Even George Clooney wakes up with bad breath and has smelly farts.

Relationships are complicated, messy, unpredictable and not very glamorous, especially once children come along.

In terms of relationship potential, once you are over 40 you're basically invisible, and anyone you meet will have more baggage than National Express.

Sorry but this is nonsense, many people find love in their 40s and beyond. Do you think there’s some magic dust hovering above someone’s head the minute they turn 40 so men can’t see them anymore compared to say a 35 year old?

Yes true on average probably more people will have baggage as they get older, but a lot of people have “baggage” even in their 20s.

"Settling" is actually nothing more than realising . .
You're not the most gorgeous woman in the world, you're not even close.
You also have annoying habits.
Your DH constantly meets women far more attractive than you, but still wants to be with you instead of them.

As others have explained on this thread that is not actually settling.

Not all of these women will want to be with your husband anyway even if he did want to be with them.

And why did you not also mention as a woman you meet men far more attractive than your DH but want to be with him anyway?

I've just been watching the BBC Pride and Prejudice.

Charlotte Lucas "settled" and her avowal of this, as in the novel, is very clear.

I wasn't being negative, I think you have misunderstood my post.

Well I think it’s negative to say you’re invisible for relationships after 40. It’s also patently untrue. Of course your chances are reduced, but you’re not necessarily invisible.

This exactly.

Yes, exactly, and Austen was making a point about the limited opportunities open to women of her class. Plain, dowry-less and ageing (at 27!), Charlotte’s two options are to remain living at home, a financial burden on whichever brother will inherit Lucas Lodge after their parents die (and who is already making comments about it) or to marry someone. She’s never, we presume, had a previous offer, and she’s a complete realist. It’s unlikely she will ever get another. This is a piece of unheard-of luck for her, and Austen does not condemn her for going after it, or depict her as miserable, even when married to a man she can’t respect. Having a home of her own is worth Mr Collins.

Lizzie, younger and prettier, and with a more outgoing personality, can still hope to marry for love as well as money, and so refuses Mr Collins, but is realistic in her turn about not being courted by Wickham or Colonel Fitzwilliam, both of whom are attracted to her, because both need to marry for money.

No one needs to settle now in the way Charlotte did, unless they’re desperate for children and determined to have them only in the context of a relationship.