Comments on: It’s a question of… settling for second best

By: william

william — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:10:56 +0000

many congratulations on your “sunshine award, much deserved and congratulations to the nominees, a great sunshine day

By: jingle

jingle — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:10:06 +0000

http://jingleyanqiu.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/sundays-forecast-sunny-100-sunshine/

U deserve an award,
claim it in my blog
and pass to 12 or 14 friends of yours..:)

By: jingle

jingle — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:41:24 +0000

always beautiful and insightful,
when it comes to family and sex, it is complex…

Happy Saturday!

By: questionof

questionof — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:18:13 +0000

I’m not against what you call “comfortable partnerships”, though I’d personally hate to think of myself as being in one. People make different choices for different reasons and as long as all partners included are satisfied with that (in the long run also), why not?
I do however have a problem with books telling women to settle for second best, that marrying Mr Good enough is better than not marrying at all and that what all women “really” want is to get married and live a “traditional” life.
The universal “perfect man” and “perfect woman” do not exist, but this doesn’t mean that people who get married are all “settling”. At least not if there is love involved…
As for “family”, well it doesn’t necessarily mean “married with 2 children”.

By: questionof

questionof — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 08:49:21 +0000

Ed, I’d have to write a whole new post to respond correctly to your vision of man=provider and woman=breeder (before 30) who has to “attract men” (before 30), and maybe I will.

In the meantime, just for the record: “chivalry” is about courteous behavior and respect, being thoughtful and kind. Contrary to what many still seem to believe, it has nothing to do with gender equality. I personally don’t hear any women complaining about lack of chivalry but I do hear “people” complaining about lack of good manners and respect. The same very simple rule applies to all: treat others (women and men) as you want to be treated yourself.

By: Sensible Blogging Inc

Sensible Blogging Inc — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 04:31:58 +0000

This is a horses for courses debate and does not apply solely to women. Do you want a family? Yes? Then what sort of family do you want? What role models would you like to be available for your children? What level of financial security would you like to opt for? Then there is the question of what type of relationship you are looking for from a partner. Do you need one at all or are you in for the perfect man only? All of these questions and more determine whether this book is relevant to what you want to achieve in your personal life. As time passes perhaps your goals will as well and as such so do your answers to the questions. The catch is if you have really sat down and thought this through then you probably won’t need to read the book.
The problem is that in my job I see alot of worse relationships than the ‘comfortable partnership’ scenario that is being proposed and while children are loved and cared for in a supportive environment does it matter if there is a deep unabiding love between parents? There are worse environments for kids to grow up in.
While your experience may be different, others may choose the path of compromise to get some of what they want rather than end up with nothing. If the kids are loved I think ‘comfortable partnerships’ are ok.

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 02:01:43 +0000

Its about priorities (do you want to be a mother). Many relationships fail because they rely on Passion instead of Positive Communication. I am not advocating a loveless marriage. I am stating the fact that too many people think with their groins and not their brains. “Why would anyone want to have children and live with someone they don’t love?”- Plenty of women are choosing sperm banks to become mothers. Would it not make more sense to choose a responsible working man to help financially and as a good role model for the child? “And frankly, no woman in her right mind would like to live according to the “old rules” from back then.”- Women complain all the time about the loss of Chivalry, which happens to be a part of those “old rules” you speak of. Chivalry is classic example of rules that treat women as less capable then men, but you don’t see too many women complain when men act in a chivalrous manor. I am sure what you meant to say that no woman would want to be treated as property and having her opinions disregarded because she is a woman. “Marriage is in no way compulsory and telling women to get married before 30 “or else…” is, in my eyes, plain stupid and a big step back in history.” Your right, marriage is not compulsory, but how is it a step back in history to advocate getting married before 30? A woman’s twenties is her best years to attract a responsible working man. Once she hits the big 30 it gets harder to attract men, that is just the facts of life.

By: questionof

questionof — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:12:38 +0000

Hi Ed. As far as I know, we’re in 2010 now and even kings and queens don’t marry to establish alliances anymore. Why would anyone want to have children and live with someone they don’t love? More to the point: why SHOULD anyone do it? Marriage is in no way compulsory and telling women to get married before 30 “or else…” is, in my eyes, plain stupid and a big step back in history. And frankly, no woman in her right mind would like to live according to the “old rules” from back then.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:07:17 +0000

Did you know for centuries Romance and overwhelming Chemistry had little to do with Marriage? Marriage has Always been a means by which to establish a secure foundation in which to establish a home and have children. Kings and Queens married for the sake of the kingdom, to establish alliances and better safeguard their realm. The fact is that the hormones that create that overwhelming attraction to someone are temporary. Mother Nature provides them as an incentive to procreation. What this author your criticizing is advocating is a return to the practicality of choosing a life partner. Passion is great, but passions can easily be manipulated. Passion makes you loose your head. Instead, choose a man that has shown you the ability to communicate on a higher level with you. Love is a decision on how your going to view and interact with the universe. Instead of waiting to make this decision with a man that makes you loose your head, perhaps you should consider a man that helps you keep it. The Decision2Love is always yours.

By: Stella

Stella — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:54:30 +0000

I don’t really have anything to add to the debate because really, I can’t be doing with any of this self-help industry- it’s all nonsense to me. I just wanted to say, Luke Wilson, eh? I saw two (2!) Luke Wilson films last night!