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

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.

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.

Of course in the case of illness and unforseen circumstances we will stick by our beloved partner. We are just talking about ideal circumstances and what we enjoy in our partnership. I had a severe medical injury last year (and sat in a chair nonfunctional for six months). But, I started in perfect health before that. And I have done everything I can to work on recovery. That's my personal choice. And not everyone even has a choice. It's not like I thought about what boxes my husband checked off before we married. We just worked together because of our compatibility. No need to make arguments where there are none. We are just discussing fitness and lifestyle in a relationship that we enjoy.

I actually find it really inconvenient to work out with my husband. We like running together, but our lifting styles/schedules are so different that we can't be lifting partners, and if we go to the gym together he ends up waiting on me for 30 minutes because my warm-up takes so frikkin long. It's a lot easier to go and do my own thing.

And honestly, I don't care if he's fit. I just want him happy and healthy, and he gets so much activity in at work (lifting heavy things, walking up and down stairs all day) that he doesn't really need to work out for health. Me hitting up the gym regularly and him doing the activity required by his job keeps us in good enough shape to go hiking together on vacations.

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 how wanting a counterpart who holds the same/similar interests as you is being juvenile or on some kind of high horse.

I need an equal balance of gymaholic and couch potato... having the same interests are pretty necessary in my opinion... especially if I decide to scarf an entire pizza and label it as gains. Gym partners just get that.

NorthCascades wrote: »

Cutaway_Collar wrote: »

@DeficitDuchess for the win.

I love @rebel_26 response and @Villae81 who talks of lone time. Smug couples in the gym annoy me. Actually they annoy many others too with all the PDA and gym hall love.

My wife has a fulltime job. She also runs our house and keeps things in order. She has no time to work out and we just go on walks and she watches what she eats. I don't expect her to tag along to the gym so I can enjoy together time. We get plenty of that outside the gym

From a personal standpoint, many hot gym girls I knew would have destroyed me... they were high on debt, didn't have a full time job, 300$ brazilian blow out hairdos (well my wife gets them too) and lived with their parents looking for a white collar/wall street husband who works in NY, like passing from parents home to husbands home. Same interests sure but financing everything she brings to that table.

If a person has to make life decisions based on fitness, it would be very pinching when the long term impact slowly rises its ugly head.

You're right. A woman can't possibly have any interest at all in fitness unless she's a gold digger.

Yeah, it's only ok for men to go to the gym by themselves. No couples. And no women.

My wife and I work out together, meal prep together, support and pick each other up when we have a "fat" day. It's really the most amazing help ever. I don't think we would have come so far without each other and it's a great hobby, for us both too.

NorthCascades wrote: »

Cutaway_Collar wrote: »

@DeficitDuchess for the win.

I love @rebel_26 response and @Villae81 who talks of lone time. Smug couples in the gym annoy me. Actually they annoy many others too with all the PDA and gym hall love.

My wife has a fulltime job. She also runs our house and keeps things in order. She has no time to work out and we just go on walks and she watches what she eats. I don't expect her to tag along to the gym so I can enjoy together time. We get plenty of that outside the gym

From a personal standpoint, many hot gym girls I knew would have destroyed me... they were high on debt, didn't have a full time job, 300$ brazilian blow out hairdos (well my wife gets them too) and lived with their parents looking for a white collar/wall street husband who works in NY, like passing from parents home to husbands home. Same interests sure but financing everything she brings to that table.

If a person has to make life decisions based on fitness, it would be very pinching when the long term impact slowly rises its ugly head.

You're right. A woman can't possibly have any interest at all in fitness unless she's a gold digger.

Yeah, who knew a woman could't have a job, a place of their own and work out and be fit as well?

Yes it matters to me. I like someone who has similar interests anyway and it's easier to be supportive of each other that way..and on top of that it would be nice to have someone who I can do all those things with.