100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Which Would You Choose? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Bravalady
on
Mon 01/30/12 09:55 AM
|
|
Suppose you had to choose between two relationships. One would be loving, affectionate, supportive, and stable over the long term (marriage and kids if you wanted), but without absolutely complete emotional intimacy. Just two people who loved each other very much and were committed to each other.
The other would be an incredibly spectacular meeting of the minds and bodies and emotions all rolled up into one experience. Your dream partner in looks, spontaneity, communication, and the kind of sex you never dreamed possible. A love at first sight that never stops sparkling. BUT it would only last for a few years, let's say 4 to 5 tops. Then, even though the love is still there, your paths somehow inevitably diverge and it's over. You might have other relationships afterward, but nothing close to that. You can only have one. Which one would you choose? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you saying the first relationship lacks what the second one has? That the physical part isn't the same? Not quite sure I understand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you had to choose between two relationships. One would be loving, affectionate, supportive, and stable over the long term (marriage and kids if you wanted), but without absolutely complete emotional intimacy. Just two people who loved each other very much and were committed to each other. The other would be an incredibly spectacular meeting of the minds and bodies and emotions all rolled up into one experience. Your dream partner in looks, spontaneity, communication, and the kind of sex you never dreamed possible. A love at first sight that never stops sparkling. BUT it would only last for a few years, let's say 4 to 5 tops. Then, even though the love is still there, your paths somehow inevitably diverge and it's over. You might have other relationships afterward, but nothing close to that. You can only have one. Which one would you choose? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second relationship is more intense than the first in all ways. Sex is better AND emotional closeness is closer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it's just lacking the intensity of the second, yet still has great sex and emotional compatibility?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. They just don't go into the "unbelievable" range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Choose the second one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The second relationship is more intense than the first in all ways. Sex is better AND emotional closeness is closer. can I choose to be alone?....lol whats the point in having greatness for a limited time,, so you can spend the rest of the time missing it? I will pass, I want something thats gonna last, or I want to just be alone |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you had to choose between two relationships. One would be loving, affectionate, supportive, and stable over the long term (marriage and kids if you wanted), but without absolutely complete emotional intimacy. Just two people who loved each other very much and were committed to each other. The other would be an incredibly spectacular meeting of the minds and bodies and emotions all rolled up into one experience. Your dream partner in looks, spontaneity, communication, and the kind of sex you never dreamed possible. A love at first sight that never stops sparkling. BUT it would only last for a few years, let's say 4 to 5 tops. Then, even though the love is still there, your paths somehow inevitably diverge and it's over. You might have other relationships afterward, but nothing close to that. You can only have one. Which one would you choose? Well, the first one makes no sense at all. How can you have love without emotional intimacy? That's like driving a car without an engine. The second sounds more like lust than love. Love does not end, but lust will eventually lose it's... well, luster, if you will. So, given only the two choices above, I would have to choose "B", it's the only one that makes any sense. Also, there's much less invested in the relationship that is destined to fail. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you had to choose between two relationships. One would be loving, affectionate, supportive, and stable over the long term (marriage and kids if you wanted), but without absolutely complete emotional intimacy. Just two people who loved each other very much and were committed to each other. The other would be an incredibly spectacular meeting of the minds and bodies and emotions all rolled up into one experience. Your dream partner in looks, spontaneity, communication, and the kind of sex you never dreamed possible. A love at first sight that never stops sparkling. BUT it would only last for a few years, let's say 4 to 5 tops. Then, even though the love is still there, your paths somehow inevitably diverge and it's over. You might have other relationships afterward, but nothing close to that. You can only have one. Which one would you choose? Well, the first one makes no sense at all. How can you have love without emotional intimacy? That's like driving a car without an engine. The second sounds more like lust than love. Love does not end, but lust will eventually lose it's... well, luster, if you will. So, given only the two choices above, I would have to choose "B", it's the only one that makes any sense. Also, there's much less invested in the relationship that is destined to fail. I have to agree on the first one. It doesn't sound much like love if there's no emotional intimacy. Not sure about the second one, though, as people do fall out of love. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you had to choose between two relationships. One would be loving, affectionate, supportive, and stable over the long term (marriage and kids if you wanted), but without absolutely complete emotional intimacy. Just two people who loved each other very much and were committed to each other. The other would be an incredibly spectacular meeting of the minds and bodies and emotions all rolled up into one experience. Your dream partner in looks, spontaneity, communication, and the kind of sex you never dreamed possible. A love at first sight that never stops sparkling. BUT it would only last for a few years, let's say 4 to 5 tops. Then, even though the love is still there, your paths somehow inevitably diverge and it's over. You might have other relationships afterward, but nothing close to that. You can only have one. Which one would you choose? Excuse me for interupting but exactly is your definition of "love" for this particular question... seems to me that you've mixed traditional defs just for the sport the thread? I sincerely mean no harm... but eros, philia, agape, storge' all seem befuddled here? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would always choose B. I wanna live in a relationship, not survive in one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely B. Wouldn't have it be chaotic the other way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B please... to find that is so rare, that to have it, even if just
for a short while, i think, would be awesome. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B...
I wanna love with everything I got. Hopefuly it will only last 4-5 years cause I overdosed on passion. I would be fine with that. A: is having a room mate who will watch the kids. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I had to choose just between those, B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to choose B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I didn't word it right. Option A does have emotional intimacy, just not what some people call "soul mates." Option A I was thinking of as your typical good marriage that lasts for a lifetime. I didn't at all mean that it had NO emotional intimacy. It has enough for the average person to feel content.
I actually thought more people would go for the warm snugglebunnies over the temporary fireworks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suppose you had to choose between two relationships. One would be loving, affectionate, supportive, and stable over the long term (marriage and kids if you wanted), but without absolutely complete emotional intimacy. Just two people who loved each other very much and were committed to each other. The other would be an incredibly spectacular meeting of the minds and bodies and emotions all rolled up into one experience. Your dream partner in looks, spontaneity, communication, and the kind of sex you never dreamed possible. A love at first sight that never stops sparkling. BUT it would only last for a few years, let's say 4 to 5 tops. Then, even though the love is still there, your paths somehow inevitably diverge and it's over. You might have other relationships afterward, but nothing close to that. You can only have one. Which one would you choose? Excuse me for interupting but exactly is your definition of "love" for this particular question... seems to me that you've mixed traditional defs just for the sport the thread? I sincerely mean no harm... but eros, philia, agape, storge' all seem befuddled here? Well, maybe I have mixed traditional definitions, I don't know. But in my experience, all those different kinds of love do get mixed up together whenever you have real feelings for someone. The real choice I was trying to give was between what I said in my previous post -- snugglebunnies versus fireworks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.When you are young and can afford the loss or you are older and want to live for the moment.
This is when fun and passion take priority. When you live to serve your family, your mate, your children. When you get satisfaction knowing they are well cared for and their future is bright. when you feel proud that your intentions and your integrity is intact as you put the needs of others before yourself. That satisfaction is equal to the satisfaction from passion. And it lasts way longer than 5 years |
|
|
|
|
