What can you live without in a relationship?

MistressSara
MistressSara Posts: 2,341 Member
edited November 29 in Chit-Chat
Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.

And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?

What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?

In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?
«134

Replies

  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,877 Member
    All those basics have to be there. I dont need a guy who makes a lot of money. I don't have to see my guy more than twice a week. I'm very independent.
  • DawnOfTheDead_Lift
    DawnOfTheDead_Lift Posts: 753 Member
    edited November 2018
    I've been thinking this one over and its a tricky one. The thing that immediately came to mind was shared interests and quality time.

    My job used to be high stress and lots of customer interaction all I wanted was "me" time. Now I crave a lot more social interaction and with mismatched schedules and juggling child care, household duties, fitness, etc. I find myself alone much more and craving connection.

    I think we tend to overvvalue the things we have found to be lacking in our previous relationships and take for granted those that have not.
  • navdeeprana
    navdeeprana Posts: 473 Member
    edited November 2018
    A good heart and trust is all that I need in a relationship everything else takes a back seat for me.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    I think the first list you outlined are all essential to me "Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility".

    What I can live without is common hobbies/small interests, I actually prefer it that way. I am a person who really appreciates my personal time. My husband has no interest in horses or running a half marathon, so those are things I can do on my own and enjoy by myself. I think there are "big ticket" items you have to agree on - kids, where you want to live, family lifestyle. But having some separate interests can be beneficial as well.
  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,877 Member
    4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »
    I think there are "big ticket" items you have to agree on - kids, where you want to live, family lifestyle. But having some separate interests can be beneficial as well.

    Agreed 100%

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    kindalikevelma wrote: »
    I’ve been in a loving, fulfilling relationship without sex. I dated a man who was paralyzed from the waist down and we had more fun than most of the able bodied men I’ve known.

    I found this interesting, mostly because I recently listened to Esther Perels book Mating in Captivity. I have to ask, was it really sexless? I realize certain functions were not possible, but *without going into too much detail* I imagine some things were still possible. Alot of what I gathered from her book was sex is alot less about the physical act itself and more about our need to be wanted/desired by someone. Was there really no sexual side to this relationship?
  • theoneothr2
    theoneothr2 Posts: 16 Member
    It depends on your intent of the relationship. Not everyone gets in a relationship to get married. But if your intent of the relationship is to get married, then no, you should not settle for anything less than you need/want. And you should be greedy a.f. with what you want/need, after all, your intent is to be with that person for the rest of your life. Imo, settling is one of the reasons why there is many failed marriages these days. People are to impatient to wait for the one that truly makes them happy, so they settle for who only meets some of what they need/want, and that only lasts for so long. Have patience and never settle
  • MarianMarMoi
    MarianMarMoi Posts: 87 Member
    Now, I don't think I will ever be in a relationship again, but the sex stuff would be an easy "sacrifice".
  • go_cubs
    go_cubs Posts: 1,183 Member
    I don’t need to see him everyday, but We do need to communicate everyday


  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    theoneothr2 wrote: »
    It depends on your intent of the relationship. Not everyone gets in a relationship to get married. But if your intent of the relationship is to get married, then no, you should not settle for anything less than you need/want. And you should be greedy a.f. with what you want/need, after all, your intent is to be with that person for the rest of your life. Imo, settling is one of the reasons why there is many failed marriages these days. People are to impatient to wait for the one that truly makes them happy, so they settle for who only meets some of what they need/want, and that only lasts for so long. Have patience and never settle

    Are they too impatient, or do they have unrealistic expectations. Are we expecting too much from one person, creating shoes no one could possibly fill, then getting mad at someone who can't?

    I disagree with the concept of a perfect match. Shoot, I sit here and change my mind every few minutes about what a perfect person is like, probably swings right along with my moods. Finding a long term partner is finding someone who has weaknesses you can deal with, not someone with no weaknesses.
  • newmeadow
    newmeadow Posts: 1,295 Member
    I'm surprised to see how many people on this thread, men and women, could have a relationship without sex. I feel the same way, but I thought no one else would admit to it.

    I would love an affectionate, intimate, sex-free relationship.

    Maybe it's become a more popular and acceptable thing now.

    Recent polls and studies indicate that people are having less and less sex in affluent, Western societies with electronics and social media being the main reasons why.

    So maybe there's hope that those of us not particularly interested in sex could get married and have that type of fulfillment some day.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • theoneothr2
    theoneothr2 Posts: 16 Member
    4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »
    theoneothr2 wrote: »
    It depends on your intent of the relationship. Not everyone gets in a relationship to get married. But if your intent of the relationship is to get married, then no, you should not settle for anything less than you need/want. And you should be greedy a.f. with what you want/need, after all, your intent is to be with that person for the rest of your life. Imo, settling is one of the reasons why there is many failed marriages these days. People are to impatient to wait for the one that truly makes them happy, so they settle for who only meets some of what they need/want, and that only lasts for so long. Have patience and never settle

    Are they too impatient, or do they have unrealistic expectations. Are we expecting too much from one person, creating shoes no one could possibly fill, then getting mad at someone who can't?

    I disagree with the concept of a perfect match. Shoot, I sit here and change my mind every few minutes about what a perfect person is like, probably swings right along with my moods. Finding a long term partner is finding someone who has weaknesses you can deal with, not someone with no weaknesses.

    Just because others may think they have unrealistic expectations, doesn't mean they are. It's a subjective thought. Some people have higher standards, and they have that right. Just like you have the choice to not be with that person if you don't want to.

    I agree with you that there's no such thing as a perfect person or a perfect match. However I do believe there is people out there that can meet everything you need/want out of a partner that you want to spend the rest of your life with.
  • DawnOfTheDead_Lift
    DawnOfTheDead_Lift Posts: 753 Member
    newmeadow wrote: »
    I'm surprised to see how many people on this thread, men and women, could have a relationship without sex. I feel the same way, but I thought no one else would admit to it.

    I would love an affectionate, intimate, sex-free relationship.

    Maybe it's become a more popular and acceptable thing now.

    Recent polls and studies indicate that people are having less and less sex in affluent, Western societies with electronics and social media being the main reasons why.

    So maybe there's hope that those of us not particularly interested in sex could get married and have that type of fulfillment some day.

    I wouldn't say I could go without, but I've definitely come to favor quality over quantity.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »
    theoneothr2 wrote: »
    It depends on your intent of the relationship. Not everyone gets in a relationship to get married. But if your intent of the relationship is to get married, then no, you should not settle for anything less than you need/want. And you should be greedy a.f. with what you want/need, after all, your intent is to be with that person for the rest of your life. Imo, settling is one of the reasons why there is many failed marriages these days. People are to impatient to wait for the one that truly makes them happy, so they settle for who only meets some of what they need/want, and that only lasts for so long. Have patience and never settle

    Are they too impatient, or do they have unrealistic expectations. Are we expecting too much from one person, creating shoes no one could possibly fill, then getting mad at someone who can't?

    I disagree with the concept of a perfect match. Shoot, I sit here and change my mind every few minutes about what a perfect person is like, probably swings right along with my moods. Finding a long term partner is finding someone who has weaknesses you can deal with, not someone with no weaknesses.

    I agree with all of this. I also think a lot of people get divorced because they don't know what they want when they get married, and have no idea what they'll need 5 or 25 years down the road.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited November 2018
    denny_mac wrote: »
    MistressSara wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    MistressSara wrote: »
    Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.

    And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?

    What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?

    In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?

    For me, if it was missing any of those things I would not want to remain in the relationship. If I had to list which I felt was lowest on the ranking of the things you listed... I would probably say dependability. I rarely depend on anyone, so for me that is the least important of the list. But if she was seriously non dependable, it would not last.
    Interesting. What are some things I haven’t listed that are important to you?

    Compatibility in other areas such as spirituality (does not necessarily mean that we both have to believe the same things, but our beliefs should not be diametrically opposed or even extremely far apart), social compatibility (it would be nice if we both liked to go out or stay in on a similar frequency), and even diet compatibility to an extent. I've had a partner criticize many of my diet choices and it got old really quickly. Eat whatever you want to eat, but let me do the same without criticism please. Especially if I'm healthier than you are.

    And just to weigh in on the topic of sexual compatibility, as it's become the recent focus of the comments here. I was in a marriage where we very rarely had sex, and also very rarely had any type of physical intimacy. She was perfectly happy with that, and I was miserable. So in my experience, one's need for that type of intimacy should match his or her partner's need for it. Whatever that means to each person. I need more physical touch than my ex does. We became incompatible. This is not the only reason we split up, by any means. But it was a big factor in our happiness declining.

    I think that's the case for most big things. If you have similar needs/expectations for what a relationship will and won't be/give, then it's much more likely to thrive.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    MistressSara wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    MistressSara wrote: »
    Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.

    And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?

    What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?

    In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?

    For me, if it was missing any of those things I would not want to remain in the relationship. If I had to list which I felt was lowest on the ranking of the things you listed... I would probably say dependability. I rarely depend on anyone, so for me that is the least important of the list. But if she was seriously non dependable, it would not last.
    Interesting. What are some things I haven’t listed that are important to you?

    Compatibility in other areas such as spirituality (does not necessarily mean that we both have to believe the same things, but our beliefs should not be diametrically opposed or even extremely far apart), social compatibility (it would be nice if we both liked to go out or stay in on a similar frequency), and even diet compatibility to an extent. I've had a partner criticize many of my diet choices and it got old really quickly. Eat whatever you want to eat, but let me do the same without criticism please. Especially if I'm healthier than you are.

    And just to weigh in on the topic of sexual compatibility, as it's become the recent focus of the comments here. I was in a marriage where we very rarely had sex, and also very rarely had any type of physical intimacy. She was perfectly happy with that, and I was miserable. So in my experience, one's need for that type of intimacy should match his or her partner's need for it. Whatever that means to each person. I need more physical touch than my ex does. We became incompatible. This is not the only reason we split up, by any means. But it was a big factor in our happiness declining.

    I think that's the case for most big things. If you have similar needs/expectations for what a relationship will and won't be/give, then it's much more likely to thrive.

    This reminds me of the "love language" theory. It's something I have been noticing in my own marriage lately. I think it can be overcome, to an extent, if you give in a way the other person receives, instead of how you would want (and vice verse). Not saying complete incompatibility could be overcome, but with some attention, communication and cooperation between partners who maybe aren't perfectly compatible maybe it can?
  • MarianMarMoi
    MarianMarMoi Posts: 87 Member
    MarianMarMoi wrote: »
    Now, I don't think I will ever be in a relationship again, but the sex stuff would be an easy "sacrifice".

    Quoting myself here to say that I totally read the word "compatibility" as "company" (my english is...not the best), thinking it was about having sex in the relationship.
    I'd rather be alone than be with a person that "needs" sex, so if that alternative meant "be on the same level when it comes to sex", which to me would mean "no sex whatsoever", and removing it means that the other person would need it, I would pick something else... but looking at the other options OP listed...:

    Trust and dependability seem to be pretty much the same thing, if you can't rely on the person (which I suppose dependability is?), then what is trust worth? Removing one is like removing the other.

    If the person isn't kind, why even be with them? Same thing with respect, are there any kind of relationships that would work without respect?

    Seems like the sexual compatibility is the only thing that could be removed without the relationship sounding like utter *kitten*. I hope no one settles for a relationship that lacks any of those. There is a lot one can compromise on, but being respected, being able to trust each other and being in a loving (kind) relationship isn't too much to ask for.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited November 2018
    This content has been removed.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    MistressSara wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    MistressSara wrote: »
    Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.

    And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?

    What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?

    In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?

    For me, if it was missing any of those things I would not want to remain in the relationship. If I had to list which I felt was lowest on the ranking of the things you listed... I would probably say dependability. I rarely depend on anyone, so for me that is the least important of the list. But if she was seriously non dependable, it would not last.
    Interesting. What are some things I haven’t listed that are important to you?

    Compatibility in other areas such as spirituality (does not necessarily mean that we both have to believe the same things, but our beliefs should not be diametrically opposed or even extremely far apart), social compatibility (it would be nice if we both liked to go out or stay in on a similar frequency), and even diet compatibility to an extent. I've had a partner criticize many of my diet choices and it got old really quickly. Eat whatever you want to eat, but let me do the same without criticism please. Especially if I'm healthier than you are.

    And just to weigh in on the topic of sexual compatibility, as it's become the recent focus of the comments here. I was in a marriage where we very rarely had sex, and also very rarely had any type of physical intimacy. She was perfectly happy with that, and I was miserable. So in my experience, one's need for that type of intimacy should match his or her partner's need for it. Whatever that means to each person. I need more physical touch than my ex does. We became incompatible. This is not the only reason we split up, by any means. But it was a big factor in our happiness declining.

    I think that's the case for most big things. If you have similar needs/expectations for what a relationship will and won't be/give, then it's much more likely to thrive.

    This reminds me of the "love language" theory. It's something I have been noticing in my own marriage lately. I think it can be overcome, to an extent, if you give in a way the other person receives, instead of how you would want (and vice verse). Not saying complete incompatibility could be overcome, but with some attention, communication and cooperation between partners who maybe aren't perfectly compatible maybe it can?

    I think the theory works. In reality, I'm not optimistic enough about people to think it would be a common occurrence. Can it happen? Absolutely. Does it happen? Most likely. Would I count on it? Nope.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    MistressSara wrote: »
    4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    MistressSara wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    MistressSara wrote: »
    Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.

    And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?

    What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?

    In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?

    For me, if it was missing any of those things I would not want to remain in the relationship. If I had to list which I felt was lowest on the ranking of the things you listed... I would probably say dependability. I rarely depend on anyone, so for me that is the least important of the list. But if she was seriously non dependable, it would not last.
    Interesting. What are some things I haven’t listed that are important to you?

    Compatibility in other areas such as spirituality (does not necessarily mean that we both have to believe the same things, but our beliefs should not be diametrically opposed or even extremely far apart), social compatibility (it would be nice if we both liked to go out or stay in on a similar frequency), and even diet compatibility to an extent. I've had a partner criticize many of my diet choices and it got old really quickly. Eat whatever you want to eat, but let me do the same without criticism please. Especially if I'm healthier than you are.

    And just to weigh in on the topic of sexual compatibility, as it's become the recent focus of the comments here. I was in a marriage where we very rarely had sex, and also very rarely had any type of physical intimacy. She was perfectly happy with that, and I was miserable. So in my experience, one's need for that type of intimacy should match his or her partner's need for it. Whatever that means to each person. I need more physical touch than my ex does. We became incompatible. This is not the only reason we split up, by any means. But it was a big factor in our happiness declining.

    I think that's the case for most big things. If you have similar needs/expectations for what a relationship will and won't be/give, then it's much more likely to thrive.

    This reminds me of the "love language" theory. It's something I have been noticing in my own marriage lately. I think it can be overcome, to an extent, if you give in a way the other person receives, instead of how you would want (and vice verse). Not saying complete incompatibility could be overcome, but with some attention, communication and cooperation between partners who maybe aren't perfectly compatible maybe it can?

    IMO you have to be really already invested (in a marriage obviously you are) to make love languages worth the effort. In a just getting to know you scenario, I think it’s better to be on the same page as much as possible. Speaking from my own personal baggage

    I agree with that. I definitely don't think forcing a relationship is a good idea. I am coming more from a how do you prevent it from fading place.
  • mustacheU2Lift
    mustacheU2Lift Posts: 5,844 Member
    DawnOfTheDead_Lift wrote: »
    I've been thinking this one over and its a tricky one. The thing that immediately came to mind was shared interests and quality time.

    My job used to be high stress and lots of customer interaction all I wanted was "me" time. Now I crave a lot more social interaction and with mismatched schedules and juggling child care, household duties, fitness, etc. I find myself alone much more and craving connection.

    I think we tend to overvvalue the things we have found to be lacking in our previous relationships and take for granted those that have not.

    Hhhmmm, I think you are on to something here.
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,423 Member
    MistressSara wrote: »
    Trust, kindness, respect, dependability, sexual compatibility- clearly a relationship should have all these things.

    And while a relationship can survive while missing one or more of these pieces, can it do so happily?

    What if your relationship had all but one of these characteristics? What could you live without? Is wanting it all greedy? Or is settling for less...settling?

    In short, can anything replace the zsa zsa zsu?

    I don't think I could have a close relationship with someone I did not trust or respect or was unkind to or if they did not trust, respect or treat me kindly. I might be some level of friends with them but not close.
    I'm not sure what is meant by dependability. Is it emotional support, financial contribution the household, or someone doing what they are supposed to do to keep a household functioning like regular chores? I think this is more variable. Someone might be very depedable in terms of emotional support but not do as much around the house or have a good paying job. I don't think someone who is completely undependable is good for a happy relationship.
    I think sex could break up a relationship. It has been the biggest ongoing conflict in my own almost 19 year marriage. We have come to a happy medium. I don't think that is settling but negotiating a mutually satisfactory level/type of activity. If suddenly we totally matched I suppose that would be great. Having some differences in this area has not kept us from having a happy marriage though.
  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,877 Member
    Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »
    No one is perfect, we're all human beings and since no one is perfect, finding the perfect match is also a myth

    I think this is one of the biggest problems. Some people expect perfection and so are always looking for someone better. Perfection doesnt exist.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories