This is interesting. I’m one of those who settled and have never had an emotional connection/love with DH. I would not care in the slightest if he cheated, it wouldn’t break my heart because I’m not emotionally connected to him. |
+1 like the pp saying it’s hard around “charismatic men” after marrying a dud. |
It is gut wrenching. Absolutely traumatic when you had a deep love and good marriage. |
But if you have a deep love, don’t you accept your partner with all of their flaws and weaknesses and feel happy whenever they are happy? |
Don’t be a stupid a-hole. In my case- it was a train wreck of a mental breakdown—not happiness. Drinking, cheating, spiral. So no- when they were cheating they were a miserable person and the guilt and lies took them down hard. |
Would you cheat? Why/why not? And do you think your DH would care? |
I'm sorry. It sounds similar to the situation with parents - if a person had a close and loving relationship with a parent, they grieve their loss for years and years, and it hurts so much. If there was no close connection, it was painful when a parent was alive but not so much grief after they pass away. |
Exactly. And the ones w/out that love/emotional bond trivialize the person’s pain. They can’t understand it, not having lived it. You see it with these women that don’t like their husbands/settled and just assume the wife won’t care “it’s just sex”. They wish their spouses would cheat because they don’t even like them- they settled. |
| Very few people find someone they have a "deep love connection to". Real life is not like a Hallmark movie. |
Neither of us has ever cheated (we've been married for 20+ years) - at least I know I haven't and have never seen any signs of cheating on DH's end. At some point, I accepted that I will never have any deep connection with anybody because my personality is so unique and nobody just feels close enough. And if I don't have a deep connection and love with anybody else, why would I cheat? I think DH would care because he appears to love me in his own way, it's just not mutual. |
| Honestly I would say 99% of women settled. The reason I say this is because women are just beautiful and they simply cannot find men at their level as far as attractiveness. Men and women look for different things in each other. The things they look in men in 99% of cases they won't find them and they just have to settle. |
I think a lot of people do, or did at some point. But that kind of love is impossible to maintain when you're juggling stressful jobs and gross household chores together. At best, it comes and goes throughout your marriage. I do wonder why extremely wealthy people who don't do any household chores themselves and don't need to work also have trouble maintaining the passion in their marriages. |
There are still external stressors, like inlaws, unresolved trauma, conflicting values and mismatched priorities. We use money to live separate lives but maintain a united front for raising kids. |
|
"Honestly I would say 99% of women settled. The reason I say this is because women are just beautiful and they simply cannot find men at their level as far as attractiveness. Men and women look for different things in each other. The things they look in men in 99% of cases they won't find them and they just have to settle."
This post is riddled with issues stemming from the poster's lack of knowledge (and the ability to apply) statistics and logic. Does the poster mean that 99% of women seeking a partner deserve the top 1% of men? In other words, does she believe that 99 women out of 100 deserve to be with the one man considered the best out of 100? Does she advocate for this lucky man to have 99 wives? Attractiveness for selecting mates is based on a comparison to each person's peer group. This means that, for every 100 men (or women), one person is "ranked" most attractive (he or she is in the top 1%). The following 99 people in the group are ranked accordingly. For example, the second most attractive man is ranked in the top 2% of men (i.e., he is considered more attractive than 98% of the other men in the group.) Men are ranked against other men in attractiveness, just like women are ranked against other women. For the poster to write that "99% of women settled" shows a breathtaking level of stupidity. This statement is almost too poorly written to unravel. However, it is easy to repute. A woman in the top 20% of attractive women (i.e., she is more appealing than 80% of the other women) can have her pick of the men in the lower 80% of attractiveness. She must compete with more attractive women (i.e., women in the top 19% of attractiveness) for men in the top 19% of all men. This poster believes so many women settle because she has (vastly) overestimated her attractiveness and projected this mistake to all men and women. She is likely a four, but she thinks she deserves a man who is a nine because "women are just beautiful." She cannot accept the truth, which is the nine-man will end up with the nine-woman, and she will end up with a four (like herself) or with a nice assortment of cats. |
| ^ but she could have a “married affair” with a 9. I’ve seen it. The men affair down and know she will settle for scraps because she’s so happy to banging out of her league. She also likes to stick it to the pretty wife who retirements all the women in her life she’s jealous of going back to high school that got the good looking man. It’s no strings for him, but of course she gets overly emotionally attached and clingy until he ghosts and dumps her for it. She needs to hope her”4” spouse doesn’t dump her. |