Relationship Expectations

[Conversationand]

No doubt.. I'd just prefer someone like myself.. I absolutely loved a man once and I wouldn't even entertain another's conversation.. Didn't need it, didn't want it. I knew who I wanted and why.. perfect relationship? Nope but I didn't change

I will say, that sort of adoration really sounds nice, but I can't speak on it from an experiential standpoint. I have had people who were older and wiser than me share their experiences and have been told that passion will strengthen and wane over the course of time and that the defining moments of the relationship aren't about how happy or enchanted you can be, but that it is defined by the way you overcome obstacles. But I get it, there's something inside of me too that wants that " you love with everything you've got and in return, you're loved with everything they've got and the result is you don't have room for anyone else" relationship.

 

[Harkins]

Adoration doesn't come into it. If he has even a shred of decency and an ounce of respect he wouldn't be engaging in that behaviour.

Oh I agree. But then, the following quote doesn't, as it sets up adoration as the quality that would stop/prohibit/discourage such behavior:

If he adores me totally and completely, he would not be beating me.

It can't be both the 1 overriding reason for good behavior and also have nothing to do with good behavior.

To the Original post:

Some of my expectations:

1) Honesty about important things. The last person I considered having some sort of relationship with completely ruined it by lying to my face about something that was important. This is disrespectful and shows a lack of good will on her part.
2) Acceptance of who I am as opposed to a project to be completed. If I change for the better it has to be for good reasons, reasons I think are good in and of themselves and for the relationship - and not just because she's feeling dissatisfied that I'm not her fantasy. If that be the case - find someone else and stop wasting my time and emotions.
3) Basic Hygiene
4) Not obese or too overweight. If you think eating vegetables, a healthy salad or fruit is a "health kick", we won't be sharing a whole lot of meals together.
5) Materialists who have big financial dreams. Forget it. I will likely never own a Porche and really don't care about having such things.

 

[GaryA]

If there's an "until" then it's not complete..

Now Zi -- darlin' -- you know that's not true.

If you adored your husband -- then, [ one day ] found out he cheated on you -- would you still adore him [ just exactly as before ] ? Or - could that adoration possibly be "broken" or "diminished"...?


Read this again:

complete adoration isnt the same as unconditional adoration....

It is a true statement.

The word 'complete' refers to the extent and form of adoration. The word 'unconditional' adds a "no matter what" aspect to it that 'complete' does not have. And, in fact, none of what 'complete' means is included in the definition of 'unconditional'. There is a difference. The two words embody two entirely different meanings. ( as adjectives )

If you 'completely' adore your husband today, do you guarantee that you will always adore him "no matter what" - or, is there an understood 'until' ( 'unless' ) - i.e. - "as long as you treat me right"...?

( Remember that we are talking about 'adoration' here. Don't confuse this concept with other things that God says we should be and do "no matter what"... )

The question is what's adoration.. it's deep love and respect..

The modern definition and use of the word 'adore' means "love intensely" (*); respect is not included as part of the definition itself. Now - the original definition of 'adore' - meaning "to worship" - does include 'respect' as part of the definition. ( in the form of 'reverence' ) This kind of adoration can only be applied to God. It would be a sin to apply it to a spouse. However, the modern use of the word does not include that component of the original definition.

(*) - I got this from webster-dictionary.org; I believe it to be accurate with the modern usage of the word.

She said her expectation is a mutual exchange of that.. That eliminates any possible harmful conduct because of the mindset that has already been fixed ..

This is basically and essentially true.

Yet - her expectation does not fix anything. It is an expectation - a desire for a certain outcome that she feels is both deserved and justified.

But - yes - she is saying that she desires a condition ( state of being ) of "intense love" ( that she later stated should be mutual; albeit not implied in the original statement ) - that would certainly safeguard against the "possible harmful conduct"...

 

[GaryA]

I absolutely loved a man once and I wouldn't even entertain another's conversation.. Didn't need it, didn't want it. I knew who I wanted and why..

What happened to that relationship?

( Just wondering - I don't mean to pry... )

 

[GaryA]

Looking for someone who wants to grow to desire to hear only what I'd have to say, is another on my list...

Please extrapolate a bit...

 

[GaryA]

If there's an "until" then it's not complete..

If you 'completely' adore your husband today, do you guarantee that you will always adore him "no matter what" - or, is there an understood 'until' ( 'unless' ) - i.e. - "as long as you treat me right"...?

I realize now that you may be referring to it from an "original intent" perspective; however, I am referring to it from an "ultimate reality" perspective.

 

[Zi]

I'm coming from experience.. the relationship I'm talking about is the one for both her and him that I respond as I have.. complete and total, nothing has changed that.. are we together? No.. to get into that wouldn't be appropriate... He was less than stellar I'll say that but I've never not completely and totally adored him... He hurt me horribly but still I felt his actions were best somehow... Probably doesn't make sense but the situation was over both our heads..

I realize now that you may be referring to it from an "original intent" perspective; however, I am referring to it from an "ultimate reality" perspective.

 

[Zi]

Someone who has the resolve to let, allow, make way for the words/deeds whomever they end up with be enough to satisfy them.. appetite change...

Please extrapolate a bit...

 

[Zi]

Complete, total lacking nothing
Unconditional, with no limit..
If something isn't complete it has a limit.. to me they are the same

 

[Zi]

Then we'd have to find out then if she means adoration in the newer sense or original

Now Zi -- darlin' -- you know that's not true.

If you adored your husband -- then, [ one day ] found out he cheated on you -- would you still adore him [ just exactly as before ] ? Or - could that adoration possibly be "broken" or "diminished"...?


Read this again:


It is a true statement.

The word 'complete' refers to the extent and form of adoration. The word 'unconditional' adds a "no matter what" aspect to it that 'complete' does not have. And, in fact, none of what 'complete' means is included in the definition of 'unconditional'. There is a difference. The two words embody two entirely different meanings. ( as adjectives )

If you 'completely' adore your husband today, do you guarantee that you will always adore him "no matter what" - or, is there an understood 'until' ( 'unless' ) - i.e. - "as long as you treat me right"...?

( Remember that we are talking about 'adoration' here. Don't confuse this concept with other things that God says we should be and do "no matter what"... )



The modern definition and use of the word 'adore' means "love intensely" (*); respect is not included as part of the definition itself. Now - the original definition of 'adore' - meaning "to worship" - does include 'respect' as part of the definition. ( in the form of 'reverence' ) This kind of adoration can only be applied to God. It would be a sin to apply it to a spouse. However, the modern use of the word does not include that component of the original definition.

(*) - I got this from webster-dictionary.org; I believe it to be accurate with the modern usage of the word.



This is basically and essentially true.

Yet - her expectation does not fix anything. It is an expectation - a desire for a certain outcome that she feels is both deserved and justified.

But - yes - she is saying that she desires a condition ( state of being ) of "intense love" ( that she later stated should be mutual; albeit not implied in the original statement ) - that would certainly safeguard against the "possible harmful conduct"...

true expectation is just that unless she's relentless and doesn't settle.. she may be single... Just because it seems extreme/unlikely doesn't make it impossible

 

[GaryA]

Then we'd have to find out then if she means adoration in the newer sense or original

I'm pretty sure she means it according to the modern definition of the word.

 

[Zi]

One of her early posts could lead one to surmise the same as you.. I do agree on the possibility

I'm pretty sure she means it according to the modern definition of the word.

 

[Desdichado]

That depends on how you define "Victorian."

If it's an adjective "of or related to the character of Queen Victoria," then I'll gladly concede to your point. In fact, I would not have chosen "Victorian" as the first in my series of terms.

If it's an adjective "of or related to the era of Queen Victoria," then I'll have to quibble. But since you have not quibbled with that, I won't quibble with a non-existent quibble.

Ah, NOT Victorian. Victoria even journaled about her satisfaction with Albert. She had a plaque put on her bed, commemorating their first and last nights together in their bed at Osbourne. Victoria enjoyed marriage.

 

[Desdichado]

I've seen historians use the term both ways. As if English wasn't already confusing enough of a language.

 

[Galatea]

That depends on how you define "Victorian."

If it's an adjective "of or related to the character of Queen Victoria," then I'll gladly concede to your point. In fact, I would not have chosen "Victorian" as the first in my series of terms.

If it's an adjective "of or related to the era of Queen Victoria," then I'll have to quibble. But since you have not quibbled with that, I won't quibble with a non-existent quibble.

My quibble is existent. I was being contrary. I knew you meant Victorian as in the age and not implying Victoria was frigid. But, I would surmise that even Victorian ladies enjoyed marriage- while pretending they knew nothing about it outwardly. It just wasn't fashionable to be so frank.

 

[Desdichado]

Precisely.

My quibble is existent. I was being contrary. I knew you meant Victorian as in the age and not implying Victoria was frigid. But, I would surmise that even Victorian ladies enjoyed marriage- while pretending they knew nothing about it outwardly. It just wasn't fashionable to be so frank.

 

[Rachel20]

And -- rest assured -- that, if you were my wife - I am quite certain that you would recieve endless 'adoration' in the form of a 'shower' of daily love-and-affection - about as much as I could get away with... ( and I don't mean it like 'smother'; rather, I mean it like 'surround' or 'embrace' - "soft, gentle, comfortable all over" )

I would massage your feet...

In fact, I would massage your whole body.

That is one of the things I have planned for my future wife. It is not an absolute requirement; however, I intend for my future wife and I to give each other whole body massages - and, thoroughly enjoy each other in doing so.

Of course, there would also be simple head, neck, shoulder, and back massages, too!

This post made me laugh out loud and puke in my mouth at the same time.

 

[Maka]

^ I liked it. Massage is very beneficial for the body. Both should give and receive it. I'm gonna add that to my requirement list. Lol This list keeps getting longer..

 

[GaryA]

^ I liked it. Massage is very beneficial for the body. Both should give and receive it. I'm gonna add that to my requirement list. Lol This list keeps getting longer..

Maka knows what is good! Especially this part.

 

[GaryA]

I'm coming from experience.. the relationship I'm talking about is the one for both her and him that I respond as I have.. complete and total, nothing has changed that.. are we together? No.. to get into that wouldn't be appropriate... He was less than stellar I'll say that but I've never not completely and totally adored him... He hurt me horribly but still I felt his actions were best somehow... Probably doesn't make sense but the situation was over both our heads..

I'm not sure I understand the whole picture you are painting here -- but I sympathize - that you were hurt...

I hope you find someone - to adore - who will never hurt you.