Saturday, 8 October 2011

you to me are everything...

...and other love songs of it's ilk all proclaim that in one person all we need, all we want, and all we seek can be found.  wow, what a responsibility - not sure that I want to be someones everything!

I wouldn't mind, however, being a most-things, an almost-everything, or a just-about perfect.

So, if this person is the one we choose over all others, does that by default mean that they (for want of a better expression) "tick most of the boxes"?  That raises the question of which MOST things should our partners be.   I get that they might not like the same sport...the same food...the same house design as us.  I get that some of the things they are passionate about might not be the same too.

But what about the BIG things...?  If say, one of my fundamental requirements (needs, wants) in a partnership is that the other person has the same spiritual beliefs as me, then I am doing myself (and them) a disservice by choosing to ignore that for the sake of other qualities.  Similarly, if I am really really crazy about a particular hobby that takes up a lot of time, is it fair to seek others to share this if my potential partner doesn't?

I don't think it's realistic to expect a partner to be all things to us.  I think there are aspects of our lives that we need to separate away from our romantic/emotional entanglements.  I think we can get different needs met, and offer different things, to other people. But by my reckoning, the primary relationship should meet the primary needs.  That's why we choose to partner with that person. Isn't it?

What needs to you want met by your future partner?  Which don't matter?

No comments:

Post a Comment