Would U rather B w/ someone who is stable, steady, loyal but stagnant-BORING ...or exciting, unpredictable, changeable but fickle-unreliable-PSYCHO?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I feel proud enough in how close I am to the end of my paper to be asking questions. I thought about this in the bathroom 11 hours ago: each pptential partner has pros and cons, but is it all a matter of how your own personality is, or what you're looking for? Or is one still generally preferable than the other?

As for me, I'd choose the psycho on most days, since I need someone to relate w/

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 00:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Brook Benton

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 00:55 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the question is too black-and-white-simple-not-able-to-be-answered you know?

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 00:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, if you could put yourself in the painful position of answering in generalities: would you rather have security in a relationship, or variety ?

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 00:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually fuck it, I'll go with the boring.

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 00:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Tho security - depending on what type you mean - ain't all that and a bag of sandwiches.

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

In fact do you mean security in a relationship or security as in maintaining living or just general not gonna be fucked over-I'm going nowhere interesting so I'll stop.

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:02 (twenty-three years ago)

But are you then the person who brings the variety into a relationship, or do you yourself want there to be as little change as is possible ? Guessing on the former, as you're naked, but everyone has a different definition of sin these days.

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, too black and white becos maybe you could go out with someone who's stable (I guess you mean, considers your feelings) but funny and entertaining too. People CRAVE entertainment and distraction - you should know this about yourself.

― Crystal (Crystal), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:03 (twenty-three years ago)

I am stable, stagnant, and boring right now and I dislike my life; therefore I think I would like to be psycho. Especially when I read Kate's and Ally's posts* about their lives.

* I do not mean to imply that either woman is psycho; rather I envy the excitement and variety I read in their posts.

― j.lu (j.lu), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh in regards to your question, I mean the latter kind of "not gonna be fucked over not gonna cheat on me" kinda secureity. Emotional security. It's a lot easier for some types to proffer - the other kind prefer no "committment deadlines" and such

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:05 (twenty-three years ago)

wow two other people tried to post at the same time, a new experience 4 me. i'm thrilled

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:05 (twenty-three years ago)

People CRAVE entertainment and distraction - you should know this about yourself. True, but since I also view myself as psycho-ok-neurotic at times, I don't think I can cross over to the stable category w/ too much satisfaction.

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:07 (twenty-three years ago)

the reason I chose boring is because psycho could mean a number of things.

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:12 (twenty-three years ago)

I mean you in entirely capital letters for fuck's sake ;-);-);-);-);-)
;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:13 (twenty-three years ago)

I mean you "wrote it"

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:14 (twenty-three years ago)

lol. your left (or is that right?) eye must b killing you after so much activity

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:17 (twenty-three years ago)

The light-hearted nature of the sentence HAS to be rammed home.

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:20 (twenty-three years ago)

light-hearted

Nice werd-phrase. So, to re-phrase: would you rathre be with the deep, serious, heavy, intense person who makes you feel like you're never going to get played on and who's "like-a-rock"/"i'll always b there" or one who is *in general* more lighthearted about love, not that certain about his/her romantic feelings towards you, but a charming delight, etc.

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:31 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't have an answer/there's so much that's gonna b goin on other than the characteristics that you listed. it depends and you can't say "depends schmepends"

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Monday, 16 December 2002 01:38 (twenty-three years ago)

haha ok. i get your position on my senseless kwestion. i think i am capable of saying that, btw, but it looks hard, so i won't try

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 01:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Steady, stable, loyal and interesting, for sure.
Exciting, unpredictable, unreliable and fickle is more fun when you are 19 years old, but as you realize how not fun it is to be constantly lied to, cheated on and unceremoniously sent packing, it gets old. These are also invariably the ones who don't seem to find it necessary to tell you that you are 'no longer exclusive' (read: cowards at heart) and tend to be amazingly self-centered.
It isn't too much of a stretch to be interesting and exciting as well as loyal--unless you are secretly a masochist and looking for someone to treat you poorly.

― webcrack (music=crack), Monday, 16 December 2002 02:03 (twenty-three years ago)

of course, if you are 19, what difference does it make anyway? might as well go for exciting regardless of the other qualities, whether loyal or fickle.

― webcrack (music=crack), Monday, 16 December 2002 02:04 (twenty-three years ago)

It isn't too much of a stretch to be interesting and exciting as well as loyal

I think my question was phrased just so poorly, that I defined and equated "interesting" almost solely as being = someone who could potentially be disloyal. That's of course not true. If we can remove that aspect away from it, I guess what I was trying to ask is: do you need a partner who is regularly fond of change, or one who remains constant in all things (if he or she always wants to do the same things, has the same old friends, always comes home and sits in the same chair and has the same routine, would that drive you mad?).

Who is 19 on this thread?

Btw, thanks weebcrack for offering to read my paper that other day, just saw it today on here, as I crawled home that night. I've made decent progress since then.

― V, Monday, 16 December 2002 02:10 (twenty-three years ago)

Um every option seems really annoying to me right now so I'll just be by myself, thanks.

― Maria (Maria), Monday, 16 December 2002 02:41 (twenty-three years ago)

In Friendships, the ladder, in relationships... the ladder.

― David Allen, Monday, 16 December 2002 03:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Actually, Vic, I was offering a solution for your disk dilemma--I have two hotmail accounts, so if I can't save something to disk I often send mail from one account to the other with my work as an attachment. It's essentially a *virtual* save; you are saving it to your hotmail server-space, it's quite handy. Not to suggest that I wouldn't be happy to proofread of course;]

As far as the question, though, I think you are right in your insinuations that too much constancy can become boring very quickly. Sometimes you can't avoid it, especially if you are a working full-time student like myself--I often feel that I am far too constant. I like change, it makes me feel like I'm still young (and I am, although I'm dangerously close to 30 right now). However, I have found in the past that unremitting constancy and aversion to change tend to cool my interest and passion rather quickly.

― webcrack (music=crack), Monday, 16 December 2002 04:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Thing is these days unpredictability requires cash and free time, two things which are rarely present together.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Monday, 16 December 2002 13:23 (twenty-three years ago)

my life is currently in flux. half of me wishes i was still a carpet slipper, the other half screams let it go, embrace change, face the future, do different things. so yes, my life is going in all kinds of bizarre directions at the moment, none of which promises anything in the way of "security." the question for me is: yes, were i to meet another Other, i would be loyal to her forever, and i agree that excitement and change can cohabit perfectly well with loyalty - but it would depend on the Other's capacity for tolerance of a currently unpredictable life.

― Marcello Carlin, Monday, 16 December 2002 14:20 (twenty-three years ago)

removing loyalty from the question makes sense because being boring doesnt mean being loyal.
so, my answer is : i need change and stimulation, the 'same old same old' routine drives me nuts after a while, although the security of basic things being the same is good ie: knowing what is likely to happen, as opposed to never having a clue what your partner will do next.
i was married to a changeable, unpredictable, exciting psycho for a very long time, and i realise now i actually loved it. we did have routines, and we did have the 'security' of believing each other to be faithful, so that helped. it was his personality that was definately not boring and staid, and that is what i need.
someone who never changes, never wants to do new things or has any new ideas is, to me, on their way to becoming solidified, and one of those 'old and frightened' people who end up staying inside forever.
that is not a lifestyle i aspire to.

― donna (donna), Monday, 16 December 2002 20:07 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.