The nature of the beast
Oh. My. Gawd.Too hard. Too, too hard.
intelligent and emotionally stable. no wait.. i want good looks too! so good looking and intelligent. but wait.. an emotional wreck is so unattractive. argh.. why not all 3????
I have them all (me), and I have them all (current Main Squeeze). Long may it last!!! Tis truly a rare and beautiful thing...
Impossible. I've worked out it several times and ways in my head. It's just impossible.
I don't want to sound superficial but I suspect many people's issue with this, if forced to only choose two, is trying to decide between "intelligence" and "emotionally stable." I think the "good looking" is an automatic for most people, regardless of one's type, you tend to need physical attraction in most intimate relationships. Besides, if one didn't care about looks then this would be really easy, right?So the dilemma is, do you want a good looking intelligent mate who is bound to fly of the handle or a hottie who is an idiot. Tough choice, but I think I'd go with the later, for the sake of sanity.
I choose all three. Why settle? :)
Huh. Epskee, that's what I found. Kept on going around and around. But we're playing by the rules. Ah-Hah! LMA, we find ourselves in the same place. How to resolve the problem? Bravo to you and Current (Main) Squeeze, Belle. How do you stand all that perfection in one room? Does it explode? It's the relationship version of those visual tricks where staircases never go anywhere Snaf. Without breaking the rules, you're stuck. I think. Excellent analysis, Mr Savage. The desire we all seem to want most - physical attractiveness - should be the easiest quality to ditch. Especially in light of the other choices. But, as you say, it's not, for not entirely rational reasons. I see you and Belle are in the same 'to hell with the rules I want what I want' Blue. Way to break the game wide open :-)
But isn't this an equilateral triangle? So all 3 sides are equal? Or a2+b2=c2? So buy picking two, you automatically get the 3rd? Or something like that ;)And my list is much longer than this. I want them all :)
Imagine a graph with HOT measured vertically and CRAZY measured horizontally. Now draw a diagonal line from the corner where HOT and CRAZY meet up to infinity. Any point on that line is what you're going to get. In other words, SUPER DUPER HOT will be accompanied by UBER CRAZY. Because SUPER DUPER HOT and NO CRAZY - s/he's a unicorn (doesn't exist). And UBER CRAZY with NOT AT ALL HOT, well no one would date that.If you accept this as true, then we can safely go with intellect and emotional stability, knowing that the more we compromise the latter, the more good looking the mate.I don't know if I buy any of this, but it's fun to think about and might be as good a theory as any :-)
In your dreams, Doc30ty.Pythagoras might work in your world, but in Wombatworld mine are the rules.Two choices, and two choices only.Okay, okay, I don't take Wombatrules seriously either. If you want all three, all three you shall have. But be warned; there are consequences :-) See LuckyGirl...Brilliant!LuckyGirl, I'm awed. You are awesome. Wonderful extrapolation.Fun it is, as are you.
Sorry that I'm a bit late on this post Wombie...I would go for Good looking and emotionally stable every single time. Bespectacled scientists have proven the most successful relationships are where the woman is slightly more intelligent than the man (I'm talking heterosexual relationships here, obviously).Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't want to go out with a total r'tard with the IQ of a lettuce, but I'd rather date someone who is a bit dim, hotter than the sun and loving and caring than an emotional clusterf*ck who is a member of mensa.Kate xhttp://search-for-the-perfect10.blogspot.com
Yeah, I can totally see your POV Kate. I, too, would always choose emo stab first. The others are not so much negotiable, but affect us only in the way we think about them. I think. IQ of a lettuce? I actually ell oh elled at that. Nice. :-)
Post a Comment