Would you ever give up your ideal dreams/future/career for your perfect partner?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 700

Jacke02

Original post by undermyskin

What about ideal future?

Well an ideal future without an ideal partner isn't very "ideal".

Reply 701

im so academic

Original post by Advanced Subsidiary

Yeah I know what you mean.

I told my mum a couple of weeks ago that i'm not sure if I want to get married because I don't understand it's meaning. I just see it as a social construct that is essentially a waste of money.

She said "It's not worth it."

I can see why now. :smile:

The apparent advantages of marriage are:

*Helps you become closer together - in other words repressing your individuality? If you don't want to be with that person, you're pretty much implying that marriage forces you to be in a relationship you don't want to be in? Hardly a good thing.

*Legal benefits for children - what if you don't want children? Also surely that implies marriage is just a legal recognition of your relationship as opposed to anything of emotional and traditional value.

*???

Reply 702

im so academic

Original post by Planto

You're a little dense, aren't you?

For something to be "perfect", all of its constituent parts must be perfect. Your partner is part of your future. If your future partner is not ideal, your future is not ideal. By definition. Therefore, your ideal future necessitates your ideal partner. It is not an "either/or"; one is inclusive of the other.

This isn't me debating with you; this is me telling you that the question is absurd. It doesn't make any sense. It's not a matter of opinion.

But I don't want a partner. I can have my ideal future without a partner as my ideal future does not contain my perfect partner.

Reply 703

littleshambles

There's no such thing as a perfect partner ffs.

Reply 704

im so academic

Original post by hayles101

Quite right, plenty of people don't want to be tied down by kids and marriage, but even that small percentage of people often have long term partners. It is the way I have been brought up and the people around me that I struggle to understand the concept of wanting to be alone, because in all honesty the only person who I know is in their 40s+ who isn't married/never has been married/without a partner for over 15 years, is my boyfriends aunt. And even she admits it wasn't a choice but how things just, worked out. She apparently was engaged to a guy who broke her heart in her early 30s and she has still not found anyone else she has wanted to be with over 15 years later! It's very sad as she makes no secret of the fact that she would have loved kids.

For me it is a choice, and I do not want to have children.

The point is, I understand if life happens and people end up not being with someone, but I can't understand not wanting to. Maybe if you explained how you see you life, job, where you'd live, the type of life you'd lead, in 10 years time, completely alone (which of course you have chosen) then I might begin to understand better the thinking behind it.

Could describe all of that in a single sentence: to have the freedom to do what I want without any burden.

Do you think if you were married and had children you still would have the potential to do anything you want? No, you've got your responsibilities.

For me, I can switch jobs as much as I want, can live in any place I want, change the type of life I want etc etc. It's not so much as "I want this and I want that", but rather "I will be able to do what I want when I want".

Would you be able to move to a country for a few years, then move to another for a year, then another for 5 years if you had children? No, you'd have to think about their education and what not.

Reply 705

Forever a Gnome

If they were my ideal partner then it wouldn't be a choice I had to make...

Reply 706

im so academic

Original post by Jacke02

Well an ideal future without an ideal partner isn't very "ideal".

It's ideal for me. In the sense that having a partner is not a necessity.

Reply 707

Fusilero

Original post by im so academic

But I don't want a partner. I can have my ideal future without a partner as my ideal future does not contain my perfect partner.

But does it contain little im so academics? :holmes:

Reply 708

Planto

Original post by im so academic

But I don't want a partner. I can have my ideal future without a partner as my ideal future does not contain my perfect partner.

Right, but that isn't the question. The question is "ideal partner vs. ideal future". If someone wants a partner, then the question doesn't make sense because the ideal future necessitates the ideal partner. If someone doesn't want a partner, the question doesn't apply.

Hence, we are back where I started - the thread is stupid.

Reply 709

im so academic

Original post by Fusilero

But does it contain little im so academics? :holmes:

So? Why do you think it's necessary for an individual to procreate? (For the general human race, yes, but is there anything lost if a few people choose not to?)

Reply 710

im so academic

Original post by Planto

Since when does "the ideal future necessitates the ideal partner"?

Reply 711

Planto

Original post by im so academic

Since when does "the ideal future necessitates the ideal partner"?

How can you not understand this yet? If you have a partner and that partner is not ideal, then your life is not ideal, is it? It is flawed because an aspect of it is flawed. This also applies in the future tense. A future with a non-ideal partner is a non-ideal future by default. "The ideal future" implies that all aspects of that future are ideal. Your partner is an aspect of your future. Hence, if you want a partner and your future partner is not ideal then your future is not ideal. If you don't want a partner, then the question you are asking doesn't apply at all. Ergo, the question you ask is absurd because it is either nonsense or unapplicable, depending on who you ask.

An example. "This salad is ideal, but the tomatoes aren't ideal," is an absurd statement.

This is a very simple logical principle that someone of your 'academic ability' (lol) should have no trouble following. I don't really know how many other ways I can spell this out to you.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 712

im so academic

Original post by Planto

But you seem to imply that YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PARTNER for your future to be ideal.

In my ideal future, I don't need a partner, so why are you saying this bull**** that my life would not be ideal according to your principles?

With regards to your analogy, what if I don't need tomatoes in my salad? I can still have my ideal salad without tomatoes. Just because everyone else has tomatoes, it doesn't mean I need them too.

Reply 713

Jacke02

Original post by im so academic

It's ideal for me. In the sense that having a partner is not a necessity.

I'm so academic! How can you be so cold! I'm guessing from ur pink display picture thingy that your a girl.........................one day you'll find an ideal person that you would swap for the oxbridge badges on your display pic.

Reply 714

Planto

Original post by im so academic

But you seem to imply that YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PARTNER for your future to be ideal.

Erm, no I didn't. In fact, I explicitly covered the alternative. Re-read the post properly until you understand it. Maybe write it out a few times and hand it in to your teacher:

Original post by Planto

"Would you rather have an ideal salad or ideal tomatoes?"

Either:
(a) Ideal tomatoes are necessary for the salad to be ideal.
(b) You don't like tomatoes so the question is not applicable.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 715

Psyk

Original post by im so academic

Since when does "the ideal future necessitates the ideal partner"?

Depends on the person. If I don't end up with my ideal partner, it won't be my ideal future. If your ideal future doesn't involve a partner, then there's no such thing as your ideal partner, because the ideal situation is to not have one at all.

Reply 716

im so academic

Original post by Planto

"Would you rather have an ideal salad or ideal tomatoes?"

Either:
(a) Ideal tomatoes are necessary for the salad to be ideal.
(b) You don't like tomatoes so the question is not applicable.

Reply 717

Planto

Original post by im so academic

JFC. That was (b). Your question assumes that someone wants a partner. If they don't, the question doesn't apply to them. If they do, the question doesn't make sense.

You're faking it. Nobody is this dense. Nobody.

Reply 718

im so academic

Original post by Planto

My original question also assumes that people have their own independent ambitions.

What I've learnt from this thread: only a certain minority are ambitious.

Yes, I do not consider people who "want a family" or "want a good wage" ambitious. That's not ambitious, that's typical.

Reply 719

carehow

(To the question) Depends. If it's assumed that without the perfect partner I'll never have kids, then I'll go with the perfect partner. If it's assumed I can have kids (adoption, donor, etc) without the perfect partner, I choose career. :biggrin: