Does your partner having an interest in fitness matter to you?

I've always been more into athletic pursuits than my husband. I love the outdoors, he hates it. That's OK for the most part as we have other interests we enjoy together like going to museums, plays, live music, etc. I would love to have a more active outdoor lifestyle including camping, hiking, etc., but its a compromise I've been willing to make. And now that the kids are older, I will probably start taking some weekend trips with them.

I would prefer it but it's not a deal breaker.

Yeah I wish my husband was more into outdoor stuff (and I don't mean sitting on a bench at the park playing on your phone). But to be fair, once you have kids, it's a whole new game anyway.

I think there has to be at minimum an understanding that being fit does not mean thinking about working out once or twice a month. If your partner actively works out and understands what it takes to stay fit then you have one less thing that will cause tension and stress in the relationship. Been married twice, the first time I had no support and in fact got into arguments about going for a ride or doing anything out of the house (there were other issues in play) - dating in between I ran across a number of women who said they did not think I had time to date with my kids and the riding I do regularly - finally I found someone who understood and now spends as much time as I do on the bike if not more. I figure I got exceedingly lucky and would have just been happy for a level of understanding and support.

BinaryPulsar wrote: »

I'm very active and love to dance. I love that my husband will dance with me, go for hikes, walks, and be generally active and adventurous. Plus good health means a long, healthy, happy life together.

I just want to add to my previous comment that we don't do everything together. My husband isn't into the gym. So, I go on my own. When I join a new gym he gets a five day pass to go with me, but that's it. I have weights at home now, though. And he helped me by getting a barbell cut for me out of steel pipe at the metal supermarket. And he built a bench for me to use for my hip thrusts (and can flip it around and it was also a doll house for our daughters). He also sometimes goes out to run on his own or hike with friends or play soccer. I do tons of dancing without him of course. But, I love that he is recreationally active with me. And recreational social dancing. He doesn't dance as good as I do, and doesn't have as much stamina (I can dance high energy for six hours with very small breaks for a sip of water). But, I love that he will dance with me.

I find some of the comments here, to be dishearteningly juvenile because they seem to justify prejudicial as preferential, which is an excuse, not a reason & thus isn't reflective of someone whom touts "No excuses" & having discipline, when they're unable to apply discipline; to their own judgement of others.

1st discipline isn't only learned, in the gym; that's a logical fallacy! I dealt with the hardship of raising babies (myself & my siblings), yet I've never; been to a gym.

2nd no 1 has complete control concerning their fate, just their choices. When I for instance view the current lives of my previous classmates, to mine; there're drastic differences. While we all began life 36 years ago, the same. They look & are the appropriate health for their age. While I naturally look half their age & have developed the health of someone, twice their age. It's unrealistic to expect someone to age at an average speed and/or for their health, to only decline within averages.

There's also a huge difference between health & fitness. While everyone should strive to be as healthy as possible, being fit is elective; as in not a necessity & therefore should never be a requirement!

This woman was once fit enough, to run a half marathon; 4 days before giving birth:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Parenting/flesh-eating-bacteria-costs-mom-arms-legs/story?id=10646649

Also what about all of our war veterans that return home maimed, they don't deserve you because they're unable to maintain their fitness; even though they might've once been more fit than you?

It'd be wise to get off that high horse, so that fate's unable; to knock you off of it. Remember tragedy doesn't discriminate, only people do! Building a relationship on a shaky foundation of prejudicial requirements, that no 1 (even you) has a realistic ability to guarantee that they're able to acquire and/or maintain; might collapse if/when 1 of you don't achieve/ can't keep it.

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

DeficitDuchess wrote: »

I find some of the comments here, to be dishearteningly juvenile because they seem to justify prejudicial as preferential, which is an excuse, not a reason & thus isn't reflective of someone whom touts "No excuses" & having discipline, when they're unable to apply discipline; to their own judgement of others.

1st discipline isn't only learned, in the gym; that's a logical fallacy! I dealt with the hardship of raising babies (myself & my siblings), yet I've never; been to a gym.

2nd no 1 has complete control concerning their fate, just their choices. When I for instance view the current lives of my previous classmates, to mine; there're drastic differences. While we all began life 36 years ago, the same. They look & are the appropriate health for their age. While I naturally look half their age & have developed the health of someone, twice their age. It's unrealistic to expect someone to age at an average speed and/or for their health, to only decline within averages.

There's also a huge difference between health & fitness. While everyone should strive to be as healthy as possible, being fit is elective; as in not a necessity & therefore should never be a requirement!

This woman was once fit enough, to run a half marathon; 4 days before giving birth:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Parenting/flesh-eating-bacteria-costs-mom-arms-legs/story?id=10646649

Also what about all of our war veterans that return home maimed, they don't deserve you because they're unable to maintain their fitness; even though they might've once been more fit than you?

It'd be wise to get off that high horse, so that fate's unable; to knock you off of it. Remember tragedy doesn't discriminate, only people do! Building a relationship on a shaky foundation of prejudicial requirements, that no 1 (even you) has a realistic ability to guarantee that they're able to acquire and/or maintain; might collapse if/when 1 of you don't achieve/ can't keep it.

I'm not sure I understand the point that you are trying to make. Are you suggesting no one should try to find a mate that shares their interests because fate may step in and ruin things? That wanting someone to share your passions is "getting on a high horse"?

Or did you just stop by to tell us how young you think you look or what you think we should be striving for?

I never implied that being preferential is prejudicial and/or the same thing but that prejudicial is often disguised as being preferential. Preferences're desires but prejudice is when those desires're requirements. There's nothing wrong with having preferences & pursuing them but there must be a reasonable amount of realism/acceptance, that prejudice; doesn't allow!

I also mentioned that my health is rapidly failing, which isn't a positive attribute to brag about; is it?

DeficitDuchess wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

DeficitDuchess wrote: »

I find some of the comments here, to be dishearteningly juvenile because they seem to justify prejudicial as preferential, which is an excuse, not a reason & thus isn't reflective of someone whom touts "No excuses" & having discipline, when they're unable to apply discipline; to their own judgement of others.

1st discipline isn't only learned, in the gym; that's a logical fallacy! I dealt with the hardship of raising babies (myself & my siblings), yet I've never; been to a gym.

2nd no 1 has complete control concerning their fate, just their choices. When I for instance view the current lives of my previous classmates, to mine; there're drastic differences. While we all began life 36 years ago, the same. They look & are the appropriate health for their age. While I naturally look half their age & have developed the health of someone, twice their age. It's unrealistic to expect someone to age at an average speed and/or for their health, to only decline within averages.

There's also a huge difference between health & fitness. While everyone should strive to be as healthy as possible, being fit is elective; as in not a necessity & therefore should never be a requirement!

This woman was once fit enough, to run a half marathon; 4 days before giving birth:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Parenting/flesh-eating-bacteria-costs-mom-arms-legs/story?id=10646649

Also what about all of our war veterans that return home maimed, they don't deserve you because they're unable to maintain their fitness; even though they might've once been more fit than you?

It'd be wise to get off that high horse, so that fate's unable; to knock you off of it. Remember tragedy doesn't discriminate, only people do! Building a relationship on a shaky foundation of prejudicial requirements, that no 1 (even you) has a realistic ability to guarantee that they're able to acquire and/or maintain; might collapse if/when 1 of you don't achieve/ can't keep it.

I'm not sure I understand the point that you are trying to make. Are you suggesting no one should try to find a mate that shares their interests because fate may step in and ruin things? That wanting someone to share your passions is "getting on a high horse"?

Or did you just stop by to tell us how young you think you look or what you think we should be striving for?

I never implied that being preferential is prejudicial and/or the same thing but that prejudicial is often disguised as being preferential. Preferences're desires but prejudice is when those desires're requirements. There's nothing wrong with having preferences & pursuing them but there must be a reasonable amount of realism/acceptance, that prejudice; doesn't allow!

I also mentioned that my health is rapidly failing, which isn't a positive attribute to brag about; is it?

It is hard to judge tone in print, but your post seemed antagonistic and accusatory. Wanting a mate with shared interests is not prejudice.

Guns_N_Buns wrote: »

I was just talking about this with the hubs. Preface: we always see our neighbor; he's generally out running with his dog or just outside doing yard work or whatever. When they originally moved in we met him and his wife, but we have yet to see his wife since -- and they moved in like a year ago. I can't imagine me being as active as I am and my hubs always on the couch doing nothing. It's one thing if I wanted to run a marathon and he wanted to go fishing, then I wouldn't mind, but as long as he's healthy and not just 'letting himself go' then I'm happy.

I've seen this scenario played out too many times. You haven't seen his wife since because he's got her in the freezer.

AdamAthletic wrote: »

So, I've dated a fair number of people with no interest in health and fitness, I really didn't think it'd matter to me.. But, it does!

The sheer amount of time I spend in gyms and outdoors means that unless my other half has similar interests - we would hardly see each other!

What's other people's take?
Does it matter to you?

It's pretty important to me...I'm not a gym rat by any means (though I do hit the gym), but I like being out on the bike or hiking in the mountains and otherwise being active and doing stuff...I'm not much of a hanger outer sitting arounder type of guy. Many of our dates include going for a ride together...or doing something like a bike and wine tour and then out to dinner...or spending a day hiking in the mountains. If she wasn't into fitness, she wouldn't be in to any of that stuff, and that would be a whole lot that we didn't have in common.