Which one do you think is more important in a relationship? Is the 'spark' more necessary than being in agreement with someone? Or does having the same like and dis-likes negate the need for any 'spark or chemistry'?
to be honest...I have no idea.
I have some relationships that were based solely on the 'spark'. We did not have much in common, there was some overlap for us to have a conversation, but there were enough differences that people were like 'really?!? you two!?" But what we had was this spark, this connection that every time we talked or met...something happened. We did not have to force a conversation, that came with ease. So did our meetings...everything was effortless. That was the good side. The bad side was there was a lot of stuff that we did not have in common, and some of the stuff was major. And because many of these relationships were build on the chemistry, the 'spark' fizzled after a while and so did the foundation of the relationship. It was fun while it lasted though, but don't we all something long-term?
I have had other relationships that were based on 'compatibility'. You and I like the same things, have same interests, partake in similar activities - so why not do the activities together and see where life takes us. These relationships, to me, were very nice and safe. You always had someone to go with you to that movie you wanted to see, that concert you wanted to hear, read the book you wanted to read, etc. And afterwards you could sit there and discuss the minute details of your experience because you both wanted to experience that activity. That was the good part. The bad part was that the relationship was...stable, safe, balanced. There was no spark, there was no 'excitement' -- everything was just nice; nothing was amazing or wow!
So which one is better -- maybe its a combination of both. You need the wow factor to get you in, but you need the compatibility to keep you in. I haven't found both traits in anyone, and who knows if they two traits are in one person....
I guess that is the fun/misery (whatever you want to call it) of life!
to be honest...I have no idea.
I have some relationships that were based solely on the 'spark'. We did not have much in common, there was some overlap for us to have a conversation, but there were enough differences that people were like 'really?!? you two!?" But what we had was this spark, this connection that every time we talked or met...something happened. We did not have to force a conversation, that came with ease. So did our meetings...everything was effortless. That was the good side. The bad side was there was a lot of stuff that we did not have in common, and some of the stuff was major. And because many of these relationships were build on the chemistry, the 'spark' fizzled after a while and so did the foundation of the relationship. It was fun while it lasted though, but don't we all something long-term?
I have had other relationships that were based on 'compatibility'. You and I like the same things, have same interests, partake in similar activities - so why not do the activities together and see where life takes us. These relationships, to me, were very nice and safe. You always had someone to go with you to that movie you wanted to see, that concert you wanted to hear, read the book you wanted to read, etc. And afterwards you could sit there and discuss the minute details of your experience because you both wanted to experience that activity. That was the good part. The bad part was that the relationship was...stable, safe, balanced. There was no spark, there was no 'excitement' -- everything was just nice; nothing was amazing or wow!
So which one is better -- maybe its a combination of both. You need the wow factor to get you in, but you need the compatibility to keep you in. I haven't found both traits in anyone, and who knows if they two traits are in one person....
I guess that is the fun/misery (whatever you want to call it) of life!
No comments:
Post a Comment